By Valerie Richardson – The Washington Times – Thursday, December 21, 2017
Attorney General Jeff Sessions stepped into the Bundy prosecution after Wednesday’s mistrial, ordering a third-party examination of the case in light of the latest government snafu.
“The attorney general takes this issue very seriously and has personally directed that an expert in the [Justice Department’s] discovery obligations be deployed to examine the case and advise as to the next steps,” said Ian D. Prior, the department’s principal deputy director of public affairs, in a late Wednesday statement.
The decision to intervene came after Chief U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro declared a mistrial over the government’s “willful failure to disclose information” to the defense, saying it would have been “impossible” for the four co-defendants to receive a fair trial.
“Failure to turn over such evidence violates due process,” Judge Navarro said in the courtroom, the Arizona Republic reported. “A fair trial at this point is impossible.”
Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, his sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy, and Ryan Payne of Montana have been charged with 15 felony counts stemming from the 2014 armed standoff with the Bureau of Land Management at the Bundy ranch near Bunkerville.
The examination represents the first direct public intervention by the attorney general in the Nevada case, which began last year under then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
The Bunkerville Standoff trial in Las Vegas, Nevada has not gone well for the prosecution.
The conviction rate for Federal Prosecutions are extraordinarily high, with most years showing higher than 99%. Between guilty pleas and trials, the conviction rate was 99.8% in U.S. federal courts in 2015: 126,802 convictions and 258 acquittals. That wasn’t an anomaly. In 2014 the conviction rate was 99.76% and in 2013 it was 99.75%.
However, in the high-profile Bunkerville Standoff case, the prosecution is lowering the rate considerably.
19 people were indicted and incarcerated over the protest that ended with the Bureau of Land Management releasing Cliven Bundy’s cattle. A few defendants have taken plea offers, notably Blaine Cooper and Gerald Delemus.
The majority of the defendants have chosen to go to trial. The first trial early this year had 6 men facing 10 charges each, including 2 conspiracy charges, for a total of 60 charges. Greg Burleson was convicted of 8 of 10 charges, and was sentenced to 68 years in Federal prison. He was not convicted of the conspiracy charges.
Todd Engel was convicted of two of the lesser charges. He is scheduled to be sentenced in December. The remaining charges for these two men, as well as the other 4 defendants, were declared a mistrial when the jury could not agree on verdicts.
Photo of defendants night of their release. (Facebook)
The prosecution chose to retry the 4 this summer. The second trial ended with full acquittals for Steven Stewart and Rick Lovelein, and a majority of acquittals for Scott Drexler and Eric Parker. Drexler had 2 remaining charges and Parker was left with 4 charges.
The prosecution immediately announced they would go for a third trial against these two men, incorporating their third trial into the trial of the “leaders” of the standoff, Cliven Bundy, two of his sons, Ammon and Ryan, as well as Ryan Payne and internet radio host, Pete Santilli.
The prosecution started offering plea agreements to most of the defendants, including Parker, Drexler, Santilli and Ammon Bundy. Then, the tragedy of October first, the Las Vegas shooting, happened just days before the trial was to begin.
The prosecution immediately withdrew their plea agreements. These men would have to face the jury during the initial aftermath of a city still in shock.
Santilli’s attorney, Chris Rasmussen, worked diligently to work a plea agreement for a single felony count of Conspiracy for his client, which was accepted. Ammon Bundy was offered the same deal, a single felony charge with time served, and he could go home. He refused to negotiate, insisting he would go to trial.
The prosecution, which had initially offered Parker and Drexler misdemeanor plea agreements, tried to coerce Parker into accepting a felony charge, which he adamantly refused. They even tried to tie it to defendant Drexler’s offer, basically telling them that Drexler could not get a misdemeanor if Parker did not accept the felony. The men stood strong, as they had during this entire ordeal, and the prosecution relented. Both men accepted misdemeanor plea agreements.
This still did not do much for the prosecution’s conviction rate, as they had 2 chances to convict the “Bundy Bridge Sniper” and could not get better than a small misdemeanor charge of obstructing a court order.
“Any person that goes to a protest better be prepared for an obstruction charge. That is the point of going to a protest,” Eric Parker said after the change of plea hearing.
Members of this same Bundy family were acquitted in another high-profile Federal case in Portland, Oregon just last year. This has increased the already enormous amount of pressure Acting US Attorney Steven Myhre is under to obtain convictions on the remaining defendants.
This family and group of Patriots have already beaten the odds. Will their luck hold out? Will prosecutor Myhre, and his inability to gain convictions, continue to be the topic of discussion?
The jury was selected this week in Las Vegas and opening arguments are scheduled to begin on Tuesday morning, November 7th.
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.
During a final day of testimony in an evidentiary hearing for the Bunkerville Standoff, it was confirmed that there was live video for at least four days of the Bundy Ranch house being played in Dan Love’s office.
The hearing was granted to investigate the allegations of the BLM and/or FBI destroying vital exculpatory evidence prior to their leaving the scene at the Bunkerville Standoff on April 12, 2014.
Multiple witnesses testified that they saw a large screen TV set up in the command center that showed a continuous live stream of the Bundy Ranch. This video has been asked about for many months, yet the government prosecutors have always said that it did not exist.
It was also stated that no search warrant had been seen for this video. This would only add more violations of these defendants rights by including the Fourth Amendment.
Once it was confirmed through testimony, AUSA Nadia Ahmed attempted to downplay the video, and even asked why it mattered. She stated that the camera was located on public land, recording a road nearby, and just “happened” to be pointed towards the Bundy Ranch.
Attorney for Cliven Bundy, Bret Whipple, gave an impassioned argument to dismiss the case based on this new evidence. “Three-and-a-half years and two trials and this is the first we learned there is a live stream,” Whipple said.
“In what plausible situation could there be a live feed and we only find out about it now?” Whipple asked. “It is Bad Faith!”
Whipple had been careful to specifically ask the witnesses about what they saw, or did not see, on the live feed. “On that live feed, did you observe any activity that would support the allegations of Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States?” Whipple then continued with the other allegations. Each response was a resounding “No.”
As expected, Judge Gloria Navarro discounted the new evidence and ruled against the motion to dismiss. She did say that attorneys could file a new motion based on the new evidence, but stated that the hearing was only supposed to cover the shredded documents, not video of the ranch house.
There are further questions on the belief that there is a second camera that was used by the BLM during the standoff. The government, as before, denies it’s existence.
The Trial-of-the-Century is fully underway in Las Vegas, Nevada. Four men face charges related to the Bunkerville Standoff in April 2014.
71-year-old Cliven Bundy, two of his sons, Ryan and Ammon, as well as Montana resident Ryan Payne are accused of being the leaders behind the standoff. This event saw the Bureau of Land Management, under discredited Special Agent in Charge (SAC) Dan Love, stop the court-ordered cattle rustling that had begun near the southern Nevada town.
Over four days this week, prosecutors and defense whittled a large group of prospective jurors down to 12 with 4 alternates. A diverse group, they are prepared to serve for an estimated four months.
Jurors will return Tuesday morning, November 7th, for opening arguments. Meanwhile, the attorneys continue with a full schedule in preparation for the opening on Tuesday.
An evidentiary hearing will conclude Friday morning on a motion by Ryan Payne to dismiss the entire case based on an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report and it’s attachments.
Judge Navarro chose to delay the very important hearing in favor of jury selection, which gives every impression that she has already made up her mind to rule against the motion to dismiss. The best the defendants can hope for, under those circumstances, is a directed jury instruction.
The evidentiary hearing is based on the apparent destruction of important, and exculpatory, documents in the ‘Operation Gold Butte’ event, as named by the BLM. It is important to remember that Dan Love testified in this hearing, via SKYPE, from Salt Lake City.
When attorneys Bret Whipple (who represents Cliven Bundy) and Dan Hill (who represents Ammon Bundy) questioned Love regarding Love’s phone calls with the U.S. Attorneys Office during the standoff, prosecutor Steven Myhre sternly objected. Whipple asked if (then-U. S. Attorney) Daniel Bogden had instructed Love to release the cattle. Myhre objected, claiming the U.S. Attorney had no authority to issue such an instruction. However, Daniel Love stated that the order to surrender and release the cows was given immediately after he spoke to Bogden.
This revelation raises the question of whether the Justice Department deliberately entrapped the Bundys, and made a showing of releasing the cattle solely to set up the Bundys to be prosecuted. Was Love directed by the highest-ranking federal prosecutor in Nevada to release the cattle, so that the Justice Department could stage this elaborate criminal prosecution?
Further testimony by Kent Klemen further implicated the US Attorney’s office in the what appears to be quite the cover up. Kleman was in charge of the investigation of the shredded documents.
During Kleman‘s testimony, it was revealed that Acting US Attorney, Steven Myhre, not only asked Kleman to investigate this issue, but set the parameters and directed the course of the investigation. This puts a large “Conflict of Interest” stamp on Myhre’s forehead.
Myhre made repeated attempts to shut down this testimony, calling it ‘privileged’, yet it continued with more details.
It would seem that when the original motion was filed by the defense in October 2016, Myhre called Kleman at that time to determine what happened. Kleman then spoke with Myhre at least weekly for the next year, discussing all aspects of the investigation.
During the investigation, Kleman admitted that he did NOT talk to all the principals involved in the event. This investigator testified that he was told of a “hurried shredding event” yet never bothered to ask WHY they were doing the shredding, though he was told that Command Staff were assisting. In light of this knowledge, it is amazing that Kleman never bothered to ask WHO directed them to shred the documents.
The trial is estimated to last four months, with a few days off for pre-scheduled events, including holidays. The gallery is expected to be full with supporters traveling from around the country to witness the testimony, as well as several media outlets expected on key days.
A final trial for the remaining defendants is not expected to begin until 30 days after a verdict is reached in this trial.
Monday morning began the jury selection in the Bunkerville Standoff Trial-Of-The-Century in Las Vegas, Nevada.
For several months, I have been in Las Vegas covering other proceedings in this case. I was present during the previous trial, in which a jury could not convict four defendants of the same charges the current defendants are facing.
I was in the courtroom throughout the previous month for every hearing and motion the public was allowed to watch. But, I have always been present as a part of the general public, never as authorized media.
The US Marshals have seen my credentials on multiple occasions and have consistently refused me media-status. The only reason I have ever been given is that I am “alternative” media and not “Main Stream”.
Well, that proved to be more of the government’s deceit towards the people today, when Redoubt News was the only credential-carrying news source that was denied entry as media. Redoubt News was barred from the official priority media seating, however, all other alternative media outlets were allowed entry.
These outlets included Left-wing radical Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and another left-leaning enviro site, High Country News. The Federal court has made it clear that the left-wing radical alternative media is acceptable, as they will push the agenda the government wants the public to hear.
Redoubt News, however, forces transparency by printing what they do not want you to see. The truth of this trial needs to be open for the country to see.
Redoubt News has published, by far, the majority of articles on this issue and these trials, even to the point of being cited in a motion concerning public perception of Judge Gloria Navarro.
We have shown the bias of the government, and they are showing their fear of the truth and transparency.
They can refuse to recognize Redoubt News, but we are going to keep reporting what happens in the courtroom.
Fired BLM agent Daniel Love took to the witness stand today in the Bunkerville Standoff Trial. Love testified via SKYPE from Salt Lake City, with multiple attorneys in the room to protect his interests. Love was dressed for success wearing spectacles and a vest, a tie and a suit jacket.
Love’s attorneys have been fighting the subpoenas for their client claiming he has developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from the Bunkerville Standoff event in April 2014.
Love was the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the cattle impoundment event named “Operation Gold Butte’. Love testified that he had over 200 personnel, including civilian contractors, under his command. This did not include other agencies such as local law enforcement and more than 20 FBI agents.
The focus of the evidentiary hearing was to determine the facts surrounding the destruction of evidence, specifically shredding documents before the Federal agents left the area.
Love testified that he knew absolutely nothing about the destroying of any evidence. He did admit to telling his subordinates to take everything with them “that was not nailed down.”
The defense attorneys hammered him pretty hard when it came to questions about his two laptop computers. It has been previously reported that Love stated to colleagues that both laptops would be lost if he ever got in trouble.
Love finally dropped a little tidbit during testimony about a personal notebook that he had for this ‘Operation’. He claimed that it disappeared before he left the area. Love tells us that he kept notes on his superiors from Washington DC usurping his authority during the protest.
“I was documenting that others were making decisions even though I was designated the incident commander,” Love said.
Love continued to complain about the decisions being made overruling his authority. “We had a very robust communications plan that the government deviated from,” he said.
Love was very forthcoming on this information, yet he was surprisingly unaware of nearly everything else that happened during the cattle impoundment.
Love was on the stand for an entire day, and visibly drank at least three Diet Cokes as he testified. He came across as articulate but arrogant, and quite bitter over his recent firing from his high status in the BLM.
One thing that Love was very clear on was that the US Attorneys office was deeply involved in this operation. Acting US Attorney Myhre attempted to stop this line of questioning, stating that it would cross the line of “confidentiality”.
When attorneys Bret Whipple (who represents Cliven Bundy) and Dan Hill (who represents Ammon Bundy) questioned Love regarding Love’s phone calls with the U.S. Attorneys Office during the standoff, prosecutor Steven Myhre sternly objected. Whipple asked if (then-U. S. Attorney) Daniel Bogden had instructed Love to release the cattle. Myhre objected, claiming the U.S. Attorney had no authority to issue such an instruction. However, Daniel Love stated that the order to surrender and release the cows was given immediately after he spoke to Bogden.
This revelation raises the question of whether the Justice Department deliberately entrapped the Bundys, and made a showing of releasing the cattle solely to set up the Bundys to be prosecuted. Was Love directed by the highest-ranking federal prosecutor in Nevada to release the cattle, so that the Justice Department could stage this elaborate criminal prosecution?
Love also stated that he was told that the decision had been made that anyone involved in ‘Operation Gold Butte’ was then considered a ‘victim’. “My role changed on April 12th from Incident Commander to a victim,” he said.
Tomorrow will bring BLM communications director Toni Suminski to the witness stand. Suminski was in charge of the shredding of the documents during the Standoff. We will see if she defends Dan Love, or not.
Earlier this month, nearly a third of the current Idaho Legislature had signed on to a letter in support of the Idaho residents currently being persecuted in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Federal government is prosecuting these men for their part in a protest held Bunkerville, NV in 2014.
Spearheaded by Rep. Dorothy Moon, the letter was signed by 33 current state legislators and 5 former legislators. Since then, the number of sponsors to the letter has increased to a reported 53.
The letter was addressed to US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, with copies going to President Donald Trump, multiple US elected/appointed officials as well as all the principals in the court.
Though the letter reached the Court prior to the pre-trial hearing, it had already been decided to put Eric Parker and Scott Drexler in with the Tier One defendants. That trial is scheduled to begin on October 10th.
Just this week, Congressman Raul Labrador added his sponsorship with an additional letter to AG Sessions. He includes:
The failure to secure guilty verdicts in two different trials with two different juries should serve as evidence of the weakness of the government’s case and should be taken into account as a third trial is contemplated. There is a strong possibility that a miscarriage of justice is being committed.
This is the latest request of the current administration to look into this personal vendetta of the Federal Court system. Multiple online petitions have been signed with the most prominent being from political strategist Roger Stone, who says:
No more well-defined example of the injustices wrought by the hands of an out-of-control Federal Government can be found than the case of the Bundy Family from the State of Nevada, whose multiple family members rot in a Federal Prison on this very day.
Representative Labrador did ask for a timely response from the Attorney General, so we will wait patiently, albeit a bit anxiously.
A preliminary hearing started this week in the case of two cops who were caught on video severely injuring a man—beating him like Rodney King.
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.”
