Bunkerville: Trial #3 begins....

[phill4paul]

Evidentiary hearing included SA Dan Love. He was not allowed to testify in the first two trials. Some things he has to say are interesting to say the least...

US Attorney’s Office Implicated in Bunkerville Standoff?

Dan Love Testimony Suggests the DOJ may have Released the Cattle to Entrap the Bundys and their Supporters.

“I WAS DOCUMENTING THAT OTHERS WERE MAKING DECISIONS EVEN THOUGH I WAS DESIGNATED THE INCIDENT COMMANDER,” LOVE SAID.

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.

https://redoubtnews.com/2017/10/us-attorneys-office-implicated/

 

[phill4paul]

Eric Parker To Plead To a Misdemeanor – Bunkerville

The Trial of the Century has gotten a little bit smaller.

Currently, 6 men are expected to be tried in the Bunkerville Standoff trial expected to begin jury selection on October 30th. Cliven Bundy, his sons Ammon and Ryan, as well as Ryan Payne are ready. Eric Parker and Scott Drexler are scheduled for their third trial, after two previous trials this year resulting in acquittals and deadlocked verdicts.

But Parker and Drexler have been offered plea agreements by the government that will allow them to close the book on this chapter of their lives.

After negotiations that have gone back and forth for weeks, Eric Parker has been offered a plea agreement that he feels would be the best for his family.

Parker has agreed to accept a misdemeanor charge of “Obstruction of a Court Order.” This basically means that he will agree that he went to the bridge after Cliven spoke at the rally. He heard the BLM officers say that there was a court order and the protesters need to leave. The agreement does mention that Parker was armed and refused to leave the area when the officers told him to do so.

That’s it. It is a very basic misdemeanor charge that will allow for time already served in prison and probation. This is very similar to the agreement that Scott Drexler was offered. It is anticipated that Drexler will be considering accepting a similar deal as well.

The charge allows for up to 5 years of probation, which the prosecution intends to argue in favor of. The defense believes that, since Parker and Drexler have already served more time than this charge calls for, they should have a greater than average chance of a short probation.

Parker’s plea agreement includes a no forfeiture clause and a no restitution clause, so his financial situation will not be precarious. Additionally, Parker will not be required to testify in the upcoming trial.

The change of plea hearing is scheduled for Monday morning, October 23rd, at 8 o’clock in the morning.

https://redoubtnews.com/2017/10/parker-plead-misdemeanor/

 

[phill4paul]

Navarro Grants Govt Everything, Defendants Nothing – Bunkerville Trial

On Tuesday, October 24, Judge Gloria Navarro issued a number of rulings in the Bundy case, granting the government almost everything they asked for while denying the defense almost any means to defend themselves in the upcoming trial.

With a sweep of her pen, Navarro has wiped multiple motions off the docket with arbitrary rulings that only benefit the government.

Shockingly, Navarro even ruled that the prosecution can introduce Cliven Bundy’s 2014 speech in which he reportedly said “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro. . . .” Cliven’s remarks were taken out of context from a wide-ranging discussion of over-regulation, the negative impacts of welfare policy, and benefits of hard work. Many economic studies of welfare policy are in agreement with Cliven’s (poorly worded) remarks. But the publication of Cliven’s speech in the aftermath of the 2014 Bunkerville standoff caused many supporters to abandon him at that time.

The biased judge also ruled that prosecutors may introduce evidence about Jared and Amanda Miller, a married couple who briefly camped near the Bundy Ranch in 2014 area and later went on to kill two Las Vegas police officers. And, said Navarro, prosecutors may introduce claims that Bundy cattle harmed the environment, wildlife, or even sacred Indian artifacts even though the Bundys themselves are barred from even mentioning that the government killed or harmed their cattle.

Astoundingly, Navarro even ruled that the government may play hearsay statements to the jury by now-deceased journalist Michael Flynn claiming that the protest on April 12, 2014 was “illegal.”

Navarro’s one-sided rulings make clear that in the Lloyd George Federal Courthouse, Courtroom 7C, in Las Vegas, Nevada, the Constitution is not welcome. The defendants in Judge Gloria Navarro’s courtroom do not have constitutional protections.


In the pattern of her previous rulings, Navarro granted almost all of the government requests to prohibit the Bundys from mentioning the following:

1. Self-defense, defense of others, or defense of property;

2. Third-party/lay person testimony or opinion about the level of force displayed or used by law enforcement officers during impoundment operations, including operations on April 6, 9, and 12, 2014;

3. Opinions/public statements of Governor Brian Sandoval of April 8, 2014, and/or opinions registered by other political office holders or opinion leaders about BLM impoundment operations;

4. Allegations of workplace misconduct by the SAC (Special Agent in Charge) of the impoundment (Dan Love), or regarding those who worked for, or with, him.

5. Allegations that officers connected with the impoundment acted unethically or improperly by the way they were dressed or equipped during the impoundment, or that they improperly shredded documents during or after impoundment operations;

6. References to mistreatment of cattle during the impoundment operations;

7. Legal arguments, beliefs, explanations, or opinions that the federal government does not own the land or have legal authority or jurisdiction over public lands where impoundment operations were conducted, or that the land was or is otherwise owned by the State of Nevada;

8. Legal arguments, beliefs, explanations, or opinions regarding infringement on First and Second Amendment rights, including any effort to confuse the jury that there is some form of “journalist” or “protest” immunity for the crimes charged;

9. References to punishment the defendants may face if convicted of the offenses;

10. References to the Oregon trial of United States v. Ammon Bundy, Ryan Payne, and Ryan Bundy., or the results in that trial;

11. References to the outcomes in the previous two trials in this case; and

12. Legal arguments, explanations, or opinions advancing defendants’ views of the U.S. Constitution, including claims that law enforcement officers within the Department of Interior have no constitutional authority, that “natural law” or other authority permits the use of force against law enforcement officers in defense of property or individual rights, or that the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has no jurisdiction or authority under the [C]onstitution to order the removal of cattle from public lands.


But the precise wording of Judge Navarro’s orders may offer a ray of hope. Some of Navarro’s sentences are worded in such a way as they may allow some defenses. For example Navarro denied a portion of the government’s motion in limine regarding evidence of third-party state of mind. Navarro also ruled that the government’s request to exclude all reference to government misconduct is too broad. Navarro concluded that “a blanket exclusion of these topics is inappropriate at this juncture.”

Thus, although Navarro’s rulings continue her pattern of assisting the prosecution and shutting down the defense, it appears that Navarro’s rulings may be slightly more fair for this upcoming trial than they were in the previous two trials (of Parker, Drexler, Lovelein, Stewart, Burleson and Engel). Briefs and pleadings by the defense teams of Cliven Bundy and Ryan Payne—which argued that the Judge’s previous rulings were unlawful—may have caused Navarro to adjust her rulings slightly.

https://redoubtnews.com/2017/10/navarro-govt-defendants/

 

[Origanalist]

 

[pcosmar]

In the pattern of her previous rulings, Navarro granted almost all of the government requests to prohibit the Bundys from mentioning the following:

1. Self-defense, defense of others, or defense of property;

The very intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment..

And self defense is certainly a valid defense.

 

[phill4paul]

The very intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment..

And self defense is certainly a valid defense.

Not in Navarro's court.

 

[Origanalist]

Las Vegas trial to begin for rancher Cliven Bundy and sons

Cliven Bundy, lead defendant in a case stemming from a 2014 standoff with federal agents and the 71-year-old patriarch of a family with roots in the southeastern Nevada desert since the state was founded more than 150 years ago, won’t let his lawyer buy him a suit for trial.

Instead of the standard slacks, button-down shirt and tie that incarcerated male defendants often don while facing a jury, the recalcitrant rancher plans to wear a jail-issued blue jumpsuit and orange flip-flops when he faces potential jurors for the first time on Monday morning.

“He is so principled that he’s going to do what he’s going to do, which is tell the truth and tell it as he sees it, and he’s not worried about the consequences, other than the people around him,” his lawyer, Bret Whipple, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal last week. “He refuses to put on civilian clothing because it would be misleading the jury, because he is who he is.”

Bundy, his two sons Ryan and Ammon and independent militia leader Ryan Payne have been locked up without bail in a federal holding facility for nearly two years. They face the potential of decades behind bars if convicted of conspiracy and other charges related to the armed standoff.

Their trial could extend as late as February, with more than 40 witnesses expected to testify.

The first two trials ended with several acquittals and a pair of convictions, leading three defendants to cut plea deals with prosecutors.
But Cliven Bundy refuses to negotiate with government lawyers. In September, he tried to fire Whipple, who was retained, and a judge would not allow Bundy to represent himself, even though Ryan Bundy remains his own attorney.

“He looks forward to the opportunity to show the public that there’s no evidence of wrongdoing, and the only thing he did was a peaceful protest,” Whipple said.

He would not say whether his client plans to testify.

Prosecutors have alleged that the Bundys conspired with libertarian protesters to thwart the federal government’s roundup of roughly 1,000 cows from public land. The family and its supporters argue that the Bureau of Land Management should not control what happens on the property.

Whether Ammon Bundy, listed as the third of 19 defendants charged in the standoff, even shows up to court is another question. He has refused to appear for various pretrial hearings because of a personal and religious objection to strip searches at the federal holding facility in Pahrump, his attorneys have said.

In response, U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro ordered “no routine strip searches or cavity searches” for Ammon and Ryan Bundy, along with Payne, and had them transferred to a detention center in Henderson for trial.

Still, Ammon Bundy could testify in his defense, said one of his lawyers, Dan Hill.

More newspaper version...https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/...l-to-begin-for-rancher-cliven-bundy-and-sons/

 

[Swordsmyth]

The trial of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his two sons has again been delayed, this time for at least a week, after it was revealed that the FBI had a camera pointed at the Bundy Ranch.
U.S District Judge Gloria Navarro says that during the delay, she’ll consider whether the defendants should still be detained, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
The trial of Cliven Bundy, his two sons Ryan and Ammon, and a fourth defendant, Ryan Payne, was set to begin at the beginning of October, but was delayed in the wake of the massacre in Las Vegas that left 58 people dead and hundreds more injured. The trial was rescheduled and was set to start Tuesday. But on Friday, Ryan Bundy, who’s representing himself, questioned a park ranger during a pretrial hearing about a “mysterious device” he saw near the Bundy Ranch. That park ranger testified that it was an FBI camera.

More at: http://www.guns.com/2017/11/08/trial-of-cliven-bundy-and-his-sons-delayedagain/

 

[phill4paul]

GOVT Recording Privileged Phone Calls With Attorneys

The government prosecutors in the Bunkerville Standoff Trial in Las Vegas have been recording the privileged phone meetings between the defendants and their attorneys, according to a filing by Ryan Payne.

The motion to dismiss, filed yesterday November 8th, states that the government collected privileged attorney-client phone calls from an incarcerated defendant and then denied possessing such privileged materials.

On September 11, 2017, the government disclosed hundreds of phone calls including calls made from jail by co-defendant Blaine Cooper and the attorney representing him.

The motion goes on to state, “The recordings, which were made while Mr. Cooper was incarcerated at the Las Vegas City Jail between January 22, 2017, and February 17, 2017, address matters relating to the instant case, including preparation, criminal allegations, and strategy.”

Back in October 2016, Payne believed that CCA-Pahrump, the prison in which he was incarcerated, was recording his phone calls. He subsequently filed a motion which requested the Court issue an order (1) compelling the government to produce any recordings of conversations with counsel, and (2) instructing officials at CCA-Pahrump to cease and desist from recording privileged attorney client phone communications.

The Court denied the motion based on the government’s insistence that it had no recordings of conversations between Payne and his counsel, or between Payne’s co-defendants and their counsel.

However, since the government’s disclosure of recording Cooper’s calls with his attorneys, it is clear that the statements made by the prosecutors were untrue. Would this be considered prosecutorial misconduct? They made the recordings of the defendants privileged calls with their attorneys.

It is clear that the prosecution, including AUSA Myhre, have underestimated the Federal Public Defenders office and the defendants themselves. They have attempted to overwhelm the defense with large amounts of late discovery, but apparently assumed that with little money allocated to the public defenders, no one would have the resources to actually review the recordings.

These attorneys have taken this case much more seriously than the prosecutors expected and are holding the prosecutors accountable.

This is a serious violation of the US Constitution! They have recorded protected communications of attorneys and their clients.

We have seen multiple violations during the past 2 years this court has allowed. Navarro has allowed the prosecution nearly everything they have asked for, while denying the defense even the basics. But this is huge! Even Navarro will not be able to justify this breach.

It is in the realm of possibility that a full dismissal of this case will be soon given.

https://redoubtnews.com/2017/11/recording-privileged-calls-attorneys/

 

[phill4paul]

Trial of the Century – Summarizing the Week

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.



Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews

https://redoubtnews.com/2017/11/trial-century-summarizing-week/

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

I expect this trial to go like the Irwin Schiff trial. They won't let any favourable evidence in.

 

[sparebulb]

John Stadtmiller on Republic Broadcasting is reporting that one of the Bundys (Ammon or Ryan) has been granted pre-trial release. He thinks that something is about to break. He says there will be more at 9pm central on Republic.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Read an update that the "Judge" actually made a favorable ruling or two. The opening statement was pretty good but opening and closing statements are not "evidence". It may be that the "Judge" is trying to make this railroad job look fair. It's just a trick though. They will secure the conviction and these favorable rulings on minor items are to make appeal avenues impossible. Don't forget, in "their" courts you can't appeal on most issues (like you got screwed by the system!!!)

 

[phill4paul]

MORE Proof of GOVT Entrapment of the Bundy’s

The Bombshells Keep on Coming as Bunkerville Trial Gets Underway

by Shari Dovale

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.



Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews

https://redoubtnews.com/2017/11/proof-govt-entrapment-bundys/

 

[Swordsmyth]

[h=1]Nevada rancher's son tells US jury militia 'saved my life'[/h]
Ryan Bundy earlier cast the government as intent on running his family off the land.
"If they become that which will not honor our rights, then they become the criminal," he said. "The government is our servant, not we to them."
Government agents overreached and overreacted, Bundy said, spending untold millions of dollars to close a vast area to the public, designate corral-style "First Amendment Zones" for protesters and devote nearly 200 federal agents and contract cowboys to the cattle roundup.
He denied anyone conspired, coerced, threatened or impeded federal agents.
"We were attacked. Our house was surrounded," Bundy said. "Surveillance cameras on one hill. Snipers aiming at the house."
Bundy choked with emotion as he recalled people like co-defendant Ryan Payne, head of a self-styled militia group, arriving from Montana in response to a family call for help.
"They saved my life," Bundy said, "for before they were there, I had a sniper pointing at me."
Payne's lawyer, Ryan Norwood, described Payne as a U.S. Army veteran who lost four good friends during two deployments in Iraq who felt compelled after seeing reports of clashes and arrests of Bundy family members to leave his job as an electrician and his wife and children at home in Anaconda, Montana, and drive to the Bundy ranch.
Norwood said jurors might not agree with his client's views on the law and constitutional rights, but, "Ryan Payne believed people were in danger, and if he didn't do something now it was going to get worse."
Payne never pointed a gun at anyone and remained with Cliven Bundy on the day of the standoff, miles away from the clash point, Norwood said.
"He worked to keep people safe," the attorney said. "Keeping people safe is not a crime."

More at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/defenses-bundy-standoff-trial-focus-government-conduct-082147644.html

 

[phill4paul]

Did Bundy Owe Millions? See For Yourself!

The trial for the Nevada Ranch, Cliven Bundy, is underway in Las Vegas. Bundy is accused of refusing to pay over one million dollars in grazing fees to the Bureau of Land Management, resulting in a forced impoundment operation.

The impoundment, known as “Operation Gold Butte” caused hundreds of supporters from around the country to gather in Bunkerville, Nevada in April 2014.

The Main Stream Media has continued the narrative that Bundy owed over $1,000,000 in grazing fees, including FOX NEWS just this week. Bundy has repeatedly stated that this is untrue.

Documents filed in the case have been substantial and overwhelming for most people to sort through. However, the proof is there.

In a letter dated Jan 21, 2011, and filed in the case Dec 21, 2012, it clearly outlines what fees that the BLM felt was owed to them.

Total trespass fees were only $8,815.50.

Administrative Fees added to this are $283,776.00

Add a $10.00 Service fee and the total comes to $292,601.50.

This is well below the reported amount of over a million dollars!

Bundy was telling the truth!

The main stream media seems to think that the truth isn’t good enough and they must embellish the amount.

However, do not forget, the government has allowed these “mistakes” to go unchallenged in the public perception. This could be considered complicit in deceiving the public.

Though the grazing fees are not the central part of the trial, it certainly is a major point for the public.

The current trial of Cliven Bundy, two of his sons, Ryan and Ammon, as well as supporter Ryan Payne, began this month after multiple delays.

After two previous trials, the prosecution has yet to gain any substantial guilty verdicts and seem to be resorting to deception to gain their sought after prize. They have been caught several times withholding evidence and being less-than-truthful with the court.

Judge Gloria Navarro, who has previously shown favoritism towards the prosecution, has yet to sanction the government, dismiss the case, or at least declare a mistrial.

The trial is expected to last 3-4 months. There is another trial for more defendants due to start 30 days after the completion of this trial.

https://redoubtnews.com/2017/11/bundy-owe-millions/

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews

 

[phill4paul]

GOVT Duplicity Revealed in Bunkerville Trial

GOVT Duplicity Revealed in Bunkerville Trial

The existence of this information has been repeatedly
and falsely denied by prosecutors in proffers and offers of proof
to the Court and to the defense.

By Shari Dovale

In a motion for mistrial filed late on Tuesday, Nov 14th, defense attorneys revealed a Bombshell that the prosecution has LIED again!

The charges against Cliven Bundy, and the other defendants, include in part the false messaging the government claims was used to attract supporters to Bunkerville in 2014.

The government stated that the social media messaging put out by the Bundys that “now they have our house surrounded” was false and misleading. This has been a key point in the government’s case against these defendants.

However, in their multiple super-secret sealed hearings on evidence, it has been revealed that the government has known all along that their narrative is untrue and false! The previously hidden information, disclosed just this week, is that the statements of Mr. Bundy were precisely true.


Read the motion here.
What the prosecution have been attempting to hide from the world, and the defense, is that an army of 20+ fully armed BLM officers with AR-15 assault rifles and FBI SWAT with “snipers” had set up a Forward Operating Base less than two miles from the Bundy Ranch home – beginning April 5 (before the Dave Bundy arrest).

This is significant as the prosecution claims that Dave’s arrest was a catalyst to project the “false messaging”. The government argued that after the “arrest of Dave Bundy” the “message changed” and the social media messages escalated to “they have got my boys” and they have “snipers” pointing at us.

What About The Cameras?

It has now been disclosed that the cameras were set up and live streamed to anyone that was given access to the camera’s internet IP address. Additionally, the defense has only just learned the names of never-before disclosed witnesses who viewed the live video surveillance feed from these cameras.

The prosecution has already been caught lying to the defense and the court. Just this week, Daniel Scheiss stated that Ryan Bundy was belligerent and defiant to law enforcement at a cattle auction in Utah and required tasing before being arrested. That was proved to be false, resulting in Ryan’s release from pre-trial detention.

The prosecution requested a continuance before opening arguments commenced. The motion states:

“…the government further explained, after making an oral motion for continuance, that additional grounds for the requested continuance included the government’s need to review government emails not in the prosecution team’s possession, and also – and this is exceptionally significant – the need of the government, based upon allegations made in Ammon Bundy’s prior motion, to re-review the materials that it has not already produced to the defense, meaning material in its possession that it has previously “suppressed”, to ensure that it has complied with its obligations to do so. “

The prosecution is saying that they may not have turned over required evidence to the defense! Again they are caught being underhanded and deceitful, yet Judge Gloria Navarro has not even sanctioned them, let alone dismissing the case as she should!

Add this to the revelations that the prosecution was in Bunkerville on April 3rd, prior to even these events. Did the US Attorney’s office coordinate what needed to happen during the coming days? Did they call the shots to put the snipers in place? What exactly was their role, since the US Attorney should not have been there at all?

If Judge Navarro wants to retain even a smidgeon of credibility, she will dismiss this case immediately. She has already proven herself to be biased, yet she seems to want to correct that image. Will she do the right thing?

https://redoubtnews.com/2017/11/duplicity-revealed-bunkerville/

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews

 

[Raginfridus]

https://redoubtnews.com/2017/11/duplicity-revealed-bunkerville/

The prosecution is saying that they may not have turned over required evidence to the defense! Again they are caught being underhanded and deceitful, yet Judge Gloria Navarro has not even sanctioned them, let alone dismissing the case as she should!

This was all about revenge for defying them. The State showed weakness to the public, and now they're in damage control.

 

[phill4paul]

This was all about revenge for defying them. The State showed weakness to the public, and now they're in damage control.

Absolutely. This was all a set up. That's why the prosecutors were on scene even before the cattle round-up. How much has an $8,815.50 fee cost taxpayers by now?

 

[phill4paul]

Bundy Trial – The Prosecution Opens It’s Case

by Terry Noonkester

The Bundy trial continues into its next phase in Las Vegas, Nevada. Cliven Bundy, with sons Ryan and Ammon, and their co-defendant Ryan Payne, face felony charges that could result in over 100 years in prison for each.

Directly after opening statements, the prosecution “opened” its case against the Bundy’s and Payne. The prosecution will be in charge of much of the narrative in the next month or two until they “rest” their case. They will be calling the witnesses who are most favorable to the governments theory; usually government employees of the BLM, FBI and other law enforcement agencies. The defendants will be allowed to cross-examine the governments witnesses. The Bundy’s and Payne will have their turn to “open” their case after the government has “rested” theirs.

The morning of November 14th, federal prosecutor Myhre, asked for a continuance based on the governments request that they have more time to review some discovery involving FBI emails. It was Myhre’s responsibility to find and disclose these emails from the government over a year ago when the trial had been in the discovery stage. The defense countered with an offer of a mistrial. The continuance was denied.

Prosecutors called their first witness, Mary Jo Rugwell, who was the BLM’s district manager for Southern Nevada from April 2008 through August 2012. She told of Cliven Bundy’s “continuous trespass” and how he refused to get a new 10-year permit in 1993 for his Bunkerville Allotment of 154,000 acres. The BLM had changed the permit rules, cutting the Bundy herd from 152 to 89 head of cattle, when it was determined that the desert tortoise was a threatened species.

Rugwell went on to say Cliven Bundy ignored repeated notices until the government filed a lawsuit in 1998. BLM obtained the first court order for Bundy to remove his cattle. Bundy claimed the federal government lacked jurisdiction. In December of 2011, Rugwell made the call to impound Bundy’s cattle. The agency hired a contractor to fly over the area, resulting in a head count of about 900 head of cattle. She claimed cattle were a danger to recreational areas, and damaging vegetation and cultural resources.

On November 16th, Rugwell continued her testimony and was cross examined by the defense attorneys. Attorneys Whipple and Philpot asked witness Rugwell about the Threat Assessment Report the FBI had made on the Bundy family. The family had been categorized as “not a threat”. This exchange ended in a side-bar with Judge Navarro ruling the information was a security risk. She ordered the Threat Assessment be delivered to her Monday, November 20th.

After a contentious cross-examination, The judge made the very unusual ruling that no more objections would be made by either side in front of the jury, the attorneys must take objections to a side-bar. Another very rare procedure that was started in the second Bundy trial in Las Vegas was having the jurors write down questions that the judge then asks the witness. Judge Navarro is having the jurors in this trial do the same. About 6 jurors asked questions after witness Rugwell had been cross-examined.

Some of the notable questions from the jury were; (1) Where is Dave Bundy now? Witness Rugwell answered that she did not know. (2). Did the Bundy cattle cause any damage before Bundy declined payment of his 1993 permit? Witness Rugwell answered “No”. (3) Were any desert tortoise on the Bundy Ranch harmed after Mr Bundy quit paying fees. Witness Rugwell said “Yes”.

The second witness called by the prosecution was Terry Petrie, an attorney for the Department of Justice and legal counsel for BLM. Prosecutor Daniel Scheiss had Petrie read a deposition given by Cliven Bundy. The prosecution was asked by the defense to quit putting their own emphasis on Cliven Bundy’s words. During cross-examination, the prosecution made multiple objections, making it questionable if the decision of Judge Navarro to ban objections was going to work.

Ryan Bundy’s cross examination of witness Petrie was to refresh the witness’s memory of that attorney’s oath to uphold the Constitution. Ryan Bundy spent about an hour and a half going through the constitution with what was described as great interest from the court gallery and jury. The Constitutional lesson ended with Attorney Petrie complimenting Ryan Bundy on his knowledge.

Behind The Scenes

There were multiple motions made by the attorneys on the morning of November 21st. Prosecutor Steven Myhre wants to exclude all testimony about the Bundy’s water rights and the Threat Assessment Report by a motion to “Exclude Irrelevant Evidence”. He states that if Bundy is permitted to introduce evidence of water rights, the government would need to “introduce case law regarding res judicata and water rights”. Cliven Bundy has an expert on water rights to be called as a witness. Myhre claims that testimony should not be permitted, nor should the Court allow any other evidence of water rights, fencing laws and open range laws.

The “res judicata” Myhre refers to means that ‘the case has been adjudicated by a competent court and may not be pursued further by the same parties’. But the defendants have not been before a court until now to prove that they had the right to protect the Bundy water pipes from theft by federal officers. They need to be able to prove that their water rights are legitimate to prove that the pipes on public lands were theirs and a part of their water right. BLM and federal courts lack the jurisdiction to take away water rights provided by the State of Nevada.

The BLM was transporting the water pipes from Cliven’s water system, proving the federal officers went beyond the impound orders for cattle. Ammon Bundy and other protesters caught the federal officers in that unlawful act, but in an ironic twist, were themselves charged with the felony of “impeding a federal officer.”

The basis of BLM’s legal authority was passed by Congress as The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and then updated by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 states “… nothing in this Act shall be construed or administered in any way to diminish or impair any right to the possession and use of water for mining, agriculture, manufacturing, or other purposes which has heretofore vested or accrued under existing law validly affecting the public lands or which may be hereafter initiated or acquired and maintained in accordance with such law.”

The Bundy’s forefathers had grazing rights dating back to the late 1800’s. The “Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), Title VII Sec. 701 (a) states “…Nothing in this Act, or in any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, right-of-way, or other land use right or authorization existing on the date of approval of this Act.”

Cliven Bundy has stated that he had a grazing right long before the FLPMA of 1976, and long before the BLM even existed. The FLPMA guarantees that passage of that bill will not terminate an existing right. A grazing right is an ownership right whereas the 10 year permit the BLM is now offering ranchers is not a property right, but only a temporary privilege that allows the BLM to change the rules. The prosecutions motion to exclude all testimony about the Bundy’s water rights and grazing rights as being irrelevant is self-serving for the prosecution. These Acts of Congress and the proof of water right ownership goes right to the heart of some of the felony charges against the defendants. Without testimony on the water rights, the defendants are being denied a proper defense.

Many of the motions requested by the attorneys are not made in front of the jury. The defense team is still filing motions to compel additional evidence from the prosecution, much of it having to do with the FBI’s involvement with the protest. Such a request for a “Brady disclosure” refers to the Supreme Court’s holding of the Brady case that requires the prosecution to disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is “material” if “there is a reasonable probability that a conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed”. The defense team has discovered evidence proving that certain allegations in the Bundy’s and Payne indictments were false.

Because the prosecution has withheld exculpatory evidence, it is thought they have made a “Brady Violation” according to the Brady v. Maryland style misconduct by government prosecutors. There have been several motions from the defense lawyers for a mistrial and dismissal of this case because of those violations.


Nadia Ahmed, one of the three prosecutors in this case, was on the Bundy ranch in April 2014. She was then working with the Department of Justice and with witness Terry Petrie. The defense has filed motions in regards to her involvement stating this could show an intent of entrapment.

A motion to dismiss filed November 8th states that the government collected privileged attorney-client phone calls from an incarcerated defendant and then denied possessing such privileged materials. This came to light on September 11, 2017, when the government disclosed hundreds of phone calls, including calls made from jail by co-defendant Blaine Cooper and the attorney representing him. Attorneys for the defense stated that “These calls address matters relating to the instant case, including preparation, criminal allegations, and strategy.”

Ryan Payne filed a motion in October 2016 alleging the Pahrump detention center was recording his phone calls. The Court denied the motion based on the government’s insistence that it had no recordings of conversations between Payne and his counsel, or between Payne’s co-defendants and their counsel. This has now been proven to be false when recordings of Blaine Cooper’s phone calls with his council were discovered.

Ammon’s defense team is the only defense team in the current trial that needs financial support. Whipple, Weksler, Norwood, Fletcher, and Hill are all being paid by the government. Ammon Bundy’s attorneys; 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, first printed by The Roseburg Beacon from Roseburg, Oregon and first on the internet by RedoubtNews.com from Idaho, 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.

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews

https://redoubtnews.com/2017/11/bundy-trial-prosecution-opens-case/