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.
In the recent mistrial of the Bunkerville Standoff case in Las Vegas, Judge Gloria Navarro harshly rebuked Acting US attorney Steven Myhre for his blatant Brady violations and refusal to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense.
Exculpatory evidence is information that is critical to the defense case. It could change the way the attorneys present their cases, change the theory of the case, impact jury selection, and even exonerate the defendants completely.
Prosecutors are well aware of the legal requirements to turn over this evidence, though they know that by doing so they could be crushing their own case in the process.
This brings up the question of whether they are “Finders of Fact” as they should be, or if they are only interested in gaining a conviction. The current Federal conviction rate is above 97% overall, with the majority being plea agreements. Defendants are overcharged with crimes so they will be more amenable to taking plea agreements.
In the case of the current Bunkerville Trial, Cliven, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, as well as Ryan Payne, have been held for nearly 2 years in pretrial detention, and Cliven is still there.
The case was declared a mistrial on December 20th, with Judge Navarro finding that the prosecution “willfully” suppressed potentially exculpatory, favorable, and material information from the defense.
This are serious allegations that could lead to a multitude of punishments. Something that should be considered when they are looking at sanctions, etc. would be the prosecution’s history of Brady abuses.
In the case of US v. Chapman, Steven Myhre was, again, the Acting US Attorney for the District of Nevada. He was in charge of the case and controlled all aspects of the case.
The case centered around securities fraud. On August 8, 2003, a grand jury in the District of Nevada returned a sixty-four-count indictment charging that Defendants allegedly created multiple shell corporations, back-dated corporate records to make their activities appear lawful, and named dummy directors and officers who had no actual control over the corporations and in some cases did not even know of their existence.
But, as in the Bunkerville Standoff trial, this case lead to a mistrial due to the prosecution ~ headed by Steven Myhre ~ not disclosing vital exculpatory evidence.
During the mistrial hearing, Chapman’s attorney alerted the court to hundreds of pages of documents that the government had delivered that morning and the previous evening. They totaled some 650 pages and consisted of rap sheets, plea agreements, cooperation agreements, and other information related to numerous government witnesses, including at least three important witnesses whose testimony was already complete.
This case resulted in a dismissal with prejudice. The government prosecutors ~ headed by Steven Myhre ~ attempted to appeal this decision. The appellate court upheld the ruling and stated clearly:
This is prosecutorial misconduct in its highest form; conduct in flagrant disregard of the United States Constitution; and conduct which should be deterred by the strongest sanction available.
Obviously, the powers that be did not heed the advice of the 9th Circuit. Myhre continued on in his current capacity. How many more violations will we find as we search his history?
It seems that the District of Nevada has little to no concern for the Constitutional rights of defendants. With a history of hiding evidence from the defense, isn’t it time to prosecute the prosecutors? Who will hold Acting US Attorney Steven Myhre accountable for his lawlessness?
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.
Prosecutorial misconduct has affected the USA v Cliven Bundy trials in Las Vegas in regards to pretrial detention, convictions, plea agreements, and sentencing. Just within the first few weeks of the Tier I group trial, there is evidence that the prosecution has used false information to keep the defendants incarcerated. Other evidence proves the Bundy’s and militia leaders did not make false statements to incite the protest, possibly eliminating at least one of the criminal charges. Due to the serious affect of the mishandling of evidence by the prosecution, the defense attorney’s continued to make motions for a mistrial and dismissal of the case.
The prosecutions misrepresentation’s and withholding of evidence may have started by influencing the grand jury to indict on a total of sixteen charges. Misrepresentation at the grand jury level could possibly void the basis of even plea agreements accepted by some Bundy Ranch Protest defendants. If a criminal charge is proven to be based on false government claims, can the government continue to enforce that charge in a plea agreement? According to contract law, an agreement based on false information is not binding nor enforceable.
There has also been extreme pressure applied to the defendants to accept plea agreements. Historically, prosecutors across the country gained leverage when bargaining with defendants after the passage of the Bail Reform Acts of 1964 and 1984. These acts allowed federal judges to deny bail to defendants when they were indicted for noncapital cases.
Cliven Bundy
The USA v Bundy case was defined by the court as a ‘complex case’ giving the prosecution up to five years to complete the trials and still conform with the speedy trial requirements. Pre-trial detention of such great duration fosters desperation in the defendants, causing many to buckle under the pressure when a plea bargain is offered.
Plea bargains account for about 97% of convictions in federal courts. Defendants decide to take a plea agreement because prosecutors “stack” charges to build a terrible potential sentence. Innocent people are intimidated into pleading guilty rather than face the “trial penalty”. The Supreme Court made stacking charges easy for the prosecution since the court ruled that the government may separate an incident into two or more crimes if each charge contains an element that the other does not. This concept cripples the Double Jeopardy Clause in the 5th Amendment; “No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”
Also, the use of conspiracy charges make each individual responsible for a co-conspirators actions and criminal charges. The conspiracy charge is the reason the prosecution can levy weapon charges against defendants who did not carry a weapon. When an individual is committing a crime with a gun, it is called a 924c violation. Only applicable in federal cases, a Section 924(c) requires a series of mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment upon conviction. If the firearm is brandished or discharged, or if there is a repeat offense, the punishment is more severe. Twenty-five-year mandatory minimum terms for multiple offenses must be served consecutively and may exceed 100 years.
When the federal government uses these laws in combination, they can create an overwhelming power play against defendants. Therefore, many defendants that consider themselves innocent will take a plea agreement. They do not want to risk having a jury trial that may result in decades in prison. After being in a prison facility for months or even years waiting for trial, they are desperate to be free.
The Bundy Ranch Protest defendants were all charged with assault with a deadly weapon on a federal law enforcement officer, threatening a federal law enforcement officer, obstruction of justice, extortion of federal officers, and use and brandishing of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. If any charges are not acquitted by a full twelve jurors, the judge may declare a mistrial and then retry the case, taking many more months or even years.
Scott Drexler
Of the 19 men arrested for the Bundy Ranch Protest, the ones that accepted a plea agreement were Blaine Cooper, Jerry Delumus, Pete Santilli, Eric Parker, Scott Drexler, and Micah McGuire.
Blaine Cooper pled guilty on August, 25, 2016. He wasn’t physically present for the standoff, but was charged with making false statements to incite others to participate in the protest. Blaine Cooper also plead guilty to assault on a federal officer.
Blaine Cooper stated; “I am going to do whatever I can to pull my plea agreement here in the State of Nevada,…I’ve clearly been railroaded,” Cooper continued. “I am disgusted and disturbed that my attorney would allow this to happen to his client, and this is why the federal government has such a high conviction rate because they plea people out for crimes they didn’t commit and put them in fear, as the prosecution has put me in fear.”
Gerald “Jerry” DeLemus was also not present until after the Bundy Ranch Protest was over. He also accepted a plea agreement on August 25, 2016. Delumus was sentenced to 87 months in federal prison on two charges; conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and interstate travel in aid of extortion. After sentencing, Jerry Delumus has been moved to the federal prison at Fort Devens in Ayer, Massachusetts.
On December 5th, 2017, Delumus stated; “Family members and friends of those that were in Bunkerville were followed, had their phones tapped and their social media accounts monitored. Informants or agents were even imbedded as ‘friends’ on Facebook or in other groups that were in any way associated with Cliven Bundy… Some with life threatening diseases were threatened with incarceration at the same time their friends or family that were now being held without bail were offered ‘plea agreements’. This was done so as to pressure innocent people to plead guilty to charges they knew were false. This sounds more like China or North Korea than America.”
Pete Santilli
Peter Santilli pled guilty to a felony count of conspiracy for obstruction of justice. That charge is based on his blocking a BLM truck on April 9, 2014 near the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. Santilli’s recommended sentence is “time served” and 3 years of supervised release plus 15 points that could result in a higher sentence. He signed the agreement the morning after the October 1st, 2017 Massacre in Las Vegas. He must return to Las Vegas for sentencing in 2018.
Peter Santilli had repeatedly refused plea agreements in the Portland, Oregon case, stating that he wanted his day in court. The prosecution in Portland dismissed all charges against him from the Malheur Refuge Protest just a week before that trial began. The government then transported him to Nevada to face charges for the Bundy Ranch Protest.
Eric Parker and Scott Drexler would have been tried three times if they didn’t take a plea bargain. Eric Parker and Scott Drexler each pled guilty in late October, 2017 to a single count of obstruction of a court order. A Sentencing hearing is scheduled for February, 2018.
A hearing for Micah McGuire was held the morning of November 14th, 2017. McGuire was in the last group of Bundy Ranch protesters who’s trial date cannot even be determined until the present group has been tried, and any mistrials from charges not fully acquitted or convicted are legally finalized (possibly through more trials). Micah McGuire plead guilty to two felonies; conspiracy and impeding an officer. He has been released prior to sentencing, which will be February 16th, 2018. He has served 20 months of a sentence that could go as high as six years.
Shortly after watching McGuire’s hearing and just before the start of his own trial, Ryan Bundy said; “Your honor, I think it is ludicrous that defendants who have pled guilty through a plea deal are rewarded with freedom from pretrial detention, but if defendants maintain their innocence, they are punished with prison prior to any conviction. It is upside down. We are not presumed innocent, if we have to spend time in prison without any conviction.”
The new evidence discovered and dialogue allowed in the opening statements in the third Las Vegas trial could have made a big difference in the outcome of the first two trials. The fact that Judge Navarro is at least listening to the defense attorney’s complaints about prosecutorial misconduct is a great improvement to how she had previously denied so many complaints in the first two trials. These discussions are primarily held in “sealed hearings”, so the jury knows nothing about the struggle the current legal team is having when trying to enter evidence regarding the misconduct of the BLM and FBI.
Greg Burleson was convicted of 8 of 10 charges; assaulting federal officers, threatening federal officers, extortion, using a firearm in crimes of violence, and related offenses. He was sentenced on July 26, 2017 to 68 years in prison and transferred to Allenwood Penitentiary, White Deer, Pennsylvania.
Todd Engel
Todd Engel of Idaho has been found guilty on 2 charges; obstruction of justice and interstate travel to aid in extortion. He is still detained and waiting for sentencing.
As the third trial proceeds, more is revealed about government overreach and prosecutorial misconduct. Greg Burleson’s and Todd Engel’s convictions must be questioned in light of all the evidence withheld in their trial. Plea deals need to be reevaluated to make sure that these men haven’t pled guilty to a criminal charge that will later found to be fabricated by the government.
The author and member of Ammon Bundy’s defense team, Roger Roots, describes the condition of the federal criminal justice system aptly in his book “The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America’s Criminal Courts”. Ammon Bundy’s attorney, Morgan Philpot, and his team are relying on donations at AmmonBundyDefense.com .
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.
UPDATE from Todd Engel’s sister:
Todd’s sentencing has been postponed until March 22nd. Mr. Markowitz is carefully monitoring the events of the current trial on Todd’s behalf. What a blessing to have him in Todd’s corner.
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.
“Discovery” in the Bundy Case is reportedly so vast that it contains the texts of entire novels, and hundreds of pages of apparently irrelevant medical records, but did not reveal that FBI agent Charles Johnson was arrested last year, that Dan Love was under investigation, or that Greg Burleson was an FBI informant.
by Staff Writer August 10, 2017
“Discovery” in a court case refers to the evidence, exhibits and reports that one party intends to use to prove its case. In a typical criminal case, the government’s “discovery” contains the various police reports, photos and other exhibits that form the basis of a prosecution. Court rules generally require prosecutors to reveal their discovery to defendants within prescribed time limits.
But like other aspects of the Bunkerville, Nevada (‘Bundy Ranch’) case, the discovery is unusual in many ways. It is so vast that it cannot be delivered or stored in printed form. Defense attorneys say they are given passwords to government search engines which contain the discovery.
The Bundy case discovery is so massive that a west coast law firm has reportedly contracted to index and categorize the discovery. Although the discovery is reportedly machine-searchable, those who have access to it say it is difficult to navigate through.
As in many cases, defendants and their lawyers are told they must keep the discovery secret from the public—upon penalty of contempt of court. This is true even though the discovery is said to contain public documents and records. At least two news organizations, Battle Born Media and the Las Vegas Review Journal, have filed petitions to have some access to the secret discovery; but the court has denied each request.
Roger Roots, a paralegal who works for the Cliven Bundy defense team, told Redoubt News that the discovery is a “bucket of snakes.” Roots says he has typed search terms into the discovery search engine and randomly found the full texts of at least two entire novels. The novels, says Roots, seem to have nothing to do with the case. Roots said he has also randomly found hundreds of pages of children’s medical records that don’t appear to have anything to do with the case.
There are Court precedents such as Brady v. Maryland that require prosecutors to provide “exculpatory” evidence (meaning any evidence that tends to show defendants may be innocent) to defendants. There are also precedents requiring prosecutors to provide personnel records of government agents who may testify if the agents have previously been caught lying. Yet the discovery did not contain any reports of the investigation of Dan Love (in which Dan Love was found to be under an ethical cloud for obstruction and corruption). Defense lawyers found out about the Dan Love investigation on the internet.
Nor did the discovery contain information that FBI agent Charles Johnson (the agent behind the fake “Longbow Productions” documentary interviews) was arrested last year in Colorado. Defense lawyers found out about the arrest after The Intercept published a story on the topic. Charles Johnson had already testified in the first Bunkerville trial, and defendants were not able to discredit Johnson with the information.
Nor did the discovery contain any information that codefendant Greg Burleson has worked as a paid FBI informant. Defendants found out about this when Burleson’s lawyer cross-examined one of Burleson’s FBI handlers during trial. This may be significant because Burleson’s public statements were by far the scariest and most threatening statements made by any of the defendants, and it seems prosecutors intended to use Burleson’s bizarre statements as a means to convict the other defendants.
