Bunkerville Trial News

Updated April 13, 2017 - 6:27 pm

A federal jury started deliberating Thursday in the conspiracy trial of six people charged as gunmen in the 2014 standoff in Bunkerville.

Jurors received the case after a prosecutor finished his closing argument with a searing assertion that the six men on trial “put the fear of God” in law enforcement officers who were impounding rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle.

“For what? For some cattle? For someone who hasn’t paid grazing fees in 20 years?” bellowed Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre. “Or because it made them feel like they’re somebody for a moment in time?”

Defense attorneys, in closing arguments, insisted their clients had no knowledge of a conspiracy to threaten, intimidate and extort federal agents into abandoning roughly 400 cows seized from public land near Bundy’s ranch.

Closing arguments lasted 11 hours and spanned two days, during which lawyers highlighted the key disputes of the trial.

The alleged conspiracy

The six men are accused of conspiring with Bundy to stop the Bureau of Land Management’s court-ordered cattle seizure. Prosecutors argue that the defendants supplied the firepower. Their purpose, according to prosecutors, was to use force to intimidate federal authorities into releasing the cattle. Defense attorneys argue that their clients, who live out of state, had no stake in the cattle dispute.

•Prosecution: “The conspiracy arose when Cliven Bundy and his family members began interfering with the BLM’s impoundment operation,” Myhre said. “Each of these defendants at some point learned about Cliven Bundy’s interference. … They knew that they were here to support Cliven Bundy.”
•Defense: “Mr. Drexler did not come for the cows,” said defense attorney Todd Leventhal. The attorney said his client, Scott Drexler, drove to Bunkerville to protest federal overreach. He blasted the government’s attempt to implicate his client in a conspiracy. “What they’ve tried to do is take this thing wide, which I understand, because they can’t get it narrow,” he said.

BLM misconduct accusations

A cornerstone of the defense strategy was to lodge misconduct accusations against the BLM officers. Defense attorneys played videos from days before the standoff, when authorities clashed with protesters. The videos showed law enforcement officers using stun guns, police dogs and physical force.

•Prosecution: “There is no evidence, none … that there was any misconduct on the part of BLM agents,” Myhre said. Referencing the defendants’ decision to travel to Bunkerville, Myhre said: “If they’re coming for the purposes of revenge, that makes them vigilantes.”
•Defense: Defense attorney Jess Marchese, who represents Eric Parker, referenced one of the videos that depicted Bundy’s son with a bruised face after he was arrested several days before the standoff. “It was Eric’s belief that a man was arrested simply for taking photos,” Marchese said. He said Parker “felt it was his obligation to go there and show force.”

Law enforcement’s fear

Federal prosecutors called law enforcement witnesses to testify about their intense fear on the day of the standoff. Defense attorneys countered by identifying inconsistencies between officers’ testimony in court and investigative reports they filed immediately after the incident that did not mention fear. They also played bodycam recordings of officers mocking protesters for being “fat” or a “sissy.”

•Prosecution: “They got the cattle, but they also left those officers with a memory they may never be able to erase,” Myhre said. He said officers joked to relieve stress.
•Defense: Attorney Terrence Jackson, who represents defendant Gregory Burleson, suggested the park rangers lacked experience identifying and responding to serious threats. Las Vegas police officers at the scene “do not seem quite as anxious or afraid,” he said.

Constitutional Rights

Defense attorneys repeatedly argued that their clients were lawfully exercising their First and Second Amendment rights to freely assemble and to bear arms.

•Prosecution: “There is no Second Amendment right to threaten someone with a gun, nor is there a First Amendment right to threaten someone,” Myhre said.
•Defense: Attorney Rich Tanasi, who represents Steven Stewart, said his client went to Bunkerville “not to commit crimes, not to assault federal officers, but to exercise his First Amendment right to protest … and he did so with his Second Amendment right.”

The Undercover Operation

Federal investigators posed as documentary filmmakers to draw statements from some of the defendants. The undercover interviews occurred several months after the standoff. Defense attorneys accused the government of using deceptive tactics designed to trick and manipulate their clients. The sham film’s working title was “America Reloaded.”

•Prosecution: Myhre said defendants knew the interviews were public and could be viewed by law enforcement. “They’re boasting, they’re bragging, they’re trying to muster more support for what they view as their cause,” he said. He described the ruse as a “lawful tool.”
•Defense: Leventhal referenced the voluminous evidence from the day of the standoff. “Over 18,500 documents, 170,000 pages, thousands of hours of video … After all that evidence, they decide to go undercover again,” he said. “Why else would FBI agents spend the time, the resources? Because they don’t have more.”

Jurors are scheduled to resume their deliberations Monday morning.

The trial is the first of three resulting from the April 12, 2014, standoff. The gunmen in the first trial were identified by the government as the “least culpable” of the alleged co-conspirators. Bundy and some of his sons are scheduled to stand trial later this year.

Thursday arrest

A man recently acquitted in the armed occupation of Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was arrested Thursday in Las Vegas after he showed up at federal court to watch closing arguments in the first Bunkerville standoff trial.

Kenneth Medenbach was acquitted in the fall, along with two of rancher Cliven Bundy’s sons, of conspiracy charges resulting from the 41-day wildlife refuge takeover. But he is on probation after being convicted of illegal camping in a different case last year. In that case, Medenbach erected a cabin on public land, posted “No Trespassing” signs, and claimed legal ownership when authorities ordered him to take it down.

The terms of Medenbach’s probation prohibit him from traveling outside the federal district where he was convicted without explicit permission from his probation officer. His lawyer, Matthew Schindler, said Medenbach asked his probation officer if he could leave to attend the trial in Bunkerville, where passionate supporters of an anti-federalist movement have packed courtroom benches for weeks. The probation officer said no.

Medenbach decided to travel to Nevada anyway and was arrested for violating his probation.
Click to expand...


https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/...berating-in-first-bunkerville-standoff-trial/
 
“For what? For some cattle? For someone who hasn’t paid grazing fees in 20 years?” bellowed Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre. “Or because it made them feel like they’re somebody for a moment in time?”
Click to expand...

Really, what a stupid question to pose—everybody knows why, because of blatant federal overreach and myriad claims by the federal government that contravenes the U.S. Constitution and individual state sovereignty.

BLM employees are grown-ups and trained and vastly equipped (militarized) federal agents—so enough with the specious argument that they were a pack of helplessly trapped puppies because of the presence of the “militia”; their hurt feelings will heal over time and hopefully they learned from their experiences at Bunkerville. More to the point, not a single shot was fired and only protesters were physically harmed during the incident.

Further still, the BLM sat on this court order for over two-decades, meanwhile they permitted the Bundy cattle continuous access to those lands for grazing, thereby, it seems only prudent that the BLM forfeited all their claims under that antiquated order--surely, the latches doctrine is applicable on this point.
 
Last edited:
Weston White said:
Really, what a stupid question to pose—everybody knows why, because of blatant federal overreach and myriad claims by the federal government that contravenes the U.S. Constitution and individual state sovereignty.

BLM employees are grown-ups and trained and vastly equipped (militarized) federal agents—so enough with the specious argument that they were a pack of helplessly trapped puppies because of the presence of the “militia”; their hurt feelings will heal over time and hopefully they learned from their experiences at Bunkerville. More to the point, not a single shot was fired and only protesters were physically harmed during the incident.

Further still, the BLM sat on this court order for over two-decades, meanwhile they permitted the Bundy cattle continuous access to those lands for grazing, thereby, it seems only prudent that the BLM forfeited all their claims under that antiquated order.
Click to expand...

.
“Or because it made them feel like they’re somebody for a moment in time?”
Click to expand...

God forbid. To feel like somebody in a moment in time.
 
If you're the praying kind then send one up for these patriots. They are going to need it.

Updated April 13, 2017 - 6:27 pm

Jury starts deliberating in first Bunkerville standoff trial

A federal jury started deliberating Thursday in the conspiracy trial of six people charged as gunmen in the 2014 standoff in Bunkerville.
Jurors received the case after a prosecutor finished his closing argument with a searing assertion that the six men on trial “put the fear of God” in law enforcement officers who were impounding rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle.
“For what? For some cattle? For someone who hasn’t paid grazing fees in 20 years?” bellowed Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre. “Or because it made them feel like they’re somebody for a moment in time?”

Defense attorneys, in closing arguments, insisted their clients had no knowledge of a conspiracy to threaten, intimidate and extort federal agents into abandoning roughly 400 cows seized from public land near Bundy’s ranch.
Closing arguments lasted 11 hours and spanned two days, during which lawyers highlighted the key disputes of the trial.
The alleged conspiracy
The six men are accused of conspiring with Bundy to stop the Bureau of Land Management’s court-ordered cattle seizure. Prosecutors argue that the defendants supplied the firepower. Their purpose, according to prosecutors, was to use force to intimidate federal authorities into releasing the cattle. Defense attorneys argue that their clients, who live out of state, had no stake in the cattle dispute.
•Prosecution: “The conspiracy arose when Cliven Bundy and his family members began interfering with the BLM’s impoundment operation,” Myhre said. “Each of these defendants at some point learned about Cliven Bundy’s interference. … They knew that they were here to support Cliven Bundy.”
•Defense: “Mr. Drexler did not come for the cows,” said defense attorney Todd Leventhal. The attorney said his client, Scott Drexler, drove to Bunkerville to protest federal overreach. He blasted the government’s attempt to implicate his client in a conspiracy. “What they’ve tried to do is take this thing wide, which I understand, because they can’t get it narrow,” he said.

BLM misconduct accusations

A cornerstone of the defense strategy was to lodge misconduct accusations against the BLM officers. Defense attorneys played videos from days before the standoff, when authorities clashed with protesters. The videos showed law enforcement officers using stun guns, police dogs and physical force.
•Prosecution: “There is no evidence, none … that there was any misconduct on the part of BLM agents,” Myhre said. Referencing the defendants’ decision to travel to Bunkerville, Myhre said: “If they’re coming for the purposes of revenge, that makes them vigilantes.”
•Defense: Defense attorney Jess Marchese, who represents Eric Parker, referenced one of the videos that depicted Bundy’s son with a bruised face after he was arrested several days before the standoff. “It was Eric’s belief that a man was arrested simply for taking photos,” Marchese said. He said Parker “felt it was his obligation to go there and show force.”
Law enforcement’s fear

Federal prosecutors called law enforcement witnesses to testify about their intense fear on the day of the standoff. Defense attorneys countered by identifying inconsistencies between officers’ testimony in court and investigative reports they filed immediately after the incident that did not mention fear. They also played bodycam recordings of officers mocking protesters for being “fat” or a “sissy.”

•Prosecution: “They got the cattle, but they also left those officers with a memory they may never be able to erase,” Myhre said. He said officers joked to relieve stress.
•Defense: Attorney Terrence Jackson, who represents defendant Gregory Burleson, suggested the park rangers lacked experience identifying and responding to serious threats. Las Vegas police officers at the scene “do not seem quite as anxious or afraid,” he said.
Constitutional Rights
Defense attorneys repeatedly argued that their clients were lawfully exercising their First and Second Amendment rights to freely assemble and to bear arms.
•Prosecution: “There is no Second Amendment right to threaten someone with a gun, nor is there a First Amendment right to threaten someone,” Myhre said.
•Defense: Attorney Rich Tanasi, who represents Steven Stewart, said his client went to Bunkerville “not to commit crimes, not to assault federal officers, but to exercise his First Amendment right to protest … and he did so with his Second Amendment right.”
The Undercover Operation
Federal investigators posed as documentary filmmakers to draw statements from some of the defendants. The undercover interviews occurred several months after the standoff. Defense attorneys accused the government of using deceptive tactics designed to trick and manipulate their clients. The sham film’s working title was “America Reloaded.”
•Prosecution: Myhre said defendants knew the interviews were public and could be viewed by law enforcement. “They’re boasting, they’re bragging, they’re trying to muster more support for what they view as their cause,” he said. He described the ruse as a “lawful tool.”
•Defense: Leventhal referenced the voluminous evidence from the day of the standoff. “Over 18,500 documents, 170,000 pages, thousands of hours of video … After all that evidence, they decide to go undercover again,” he said. “Why else would FBI agents spend the time, the resources? Because they don’t have more.”

Jurors are scheduled to resume their deliberations Monday morning.

The trial is the first of three resulting from the April 12, 2014, standoff. The gunmen in the first trial were identified by the government as the “least culpable” of the alleged co-conspirators. Bundy and some of his sons are scheduled to stand trial later this year.
Click to expand...

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/...berating-in-first-bunkerville-standoff-trial/
 
No verdict after second day of deliberations in Bunkerville standoff trial

Jurors in the first Bunkerville standoff trial finished their second day of deliberations Monday without reaching a verdict.

The jury received the case Thursday, after hearing two months of testimony in the trial of six people charged as “gunmen” in the April 2014 armed standoff near Cliven Bundy’s ranch. The men are accused of conspiring with Bundy to stop federal agents from seizing his cattle from public land.

Federal prosecutors have characterized the men standing trial as the “least culpable” of 17 people they eventually plan to try on charges of conspiracy, extortion, threats, assault and related counts.

U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro received a note from the jury Monday asking her two hypothetical questions. The note is sealed to the public, but Navarro revealed at a late-afternoon court hearing that jurors inquired about what happens if they cannot reach a unanimous decision for each of the defendants, and what happens if they cannot reach a unanimous decision for each of the 10 counts the defendants face.

Navarro, in response, sent a note back to the jurors telling them that they may only consider testimony and exhibits in reaching their verdict, “not what happens if.”
Click to expand...

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/...-deliberations-in-bunkerville-standoff-trial/
 
Bundy lawyer says court violated rancher’s speedy trial rights

A lawyer representing Cliven Bundy has accused a federal judge of violating the embattled cattle rancher’s constitutional right to a speedy trial by setting a June 26 start date in the second Bunkerville standoff case.

In a motion filed Wednesday in federal court in Las Vegas, defense attorney Bret Whipple asks the court to modify a recent order that set the late-June start date for the second of three groups of defendants in the high-profile case.

“This court has, on its own initiative, set a trial well beyond the range suggested by the ‘thirty-day’ planned trial schedule,” Whipple wrote in the filing.

Bundy, some of his sons, and others charged as “leaders” of a mass assault on federal agents initially were scheduled to be tried 30 days after the first trial’s completion. But federal prosecutors recently requested additional time to prepare for the second trial.

The jury finished its fourth day of deliberations Wednesday in the first trial, against six people charged as “gunmen” in the April 2014 armed standoff between protesters and federal authorities who tried to seize Bundy’s cows. If jurors return a verdict in the next week, the June 26 date would fall 60 days or more after the first trial’s conclusion.

“It is the United States’ obligation to provide innocent citizens accused of crimes a speedy trial,” Whipple wrote. “As such, the United States cannot extend time before trial due to alleged logistical problems it itself is creating.”
Whipple requested a trial date of no later than June 5.

Bundy, who turned 71 this month, has been incarcerated since his arrest last year on charges of conspiracy, assault, extortion and related counts. Federal prosecutors have said he recruited militiamen to travel to Bunkerville and block Bureau of Land Management agents from impounding his cattle from public land.
Click to expand...

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/...-court-violated-ranchers-speedy-trial-rights/
 
April 20, 2017

Even Judge Navarro seemed confused by the jury’s questions.

By Shari Dovale and John Lamb


During the 5th day of deliberations, the jury for the first tier Bunkerville defendants have come back to the courtroom with another question.

Though the specific questions remain sealed, the responses from the court indicate the question pertained to contradictions in the jury instructions on how to determine if there was a conspiracy.

Judge Gloria Navarro responded that the conspiracy could have existed from people who are not in this room. She was referring to future defendants and also those that have not been indicted.

At one point, Judge Navarro attempted a convoluted analogy involving baseball. If there was a conspiracy to play a game of baseball, did these defendants bring the tools (bat, ball, glove) to play the game?

If the jury finds that no conspiracy existed, then several of the charges would automatically be found as not guilty. However, it does not mean that all the charges would have a blanket not guilty. There are several charges that are not tied to the conspiracy charge.

The jury questions also indicated that they are having difficulties on unanimity. There could be a possibility of a hung jury on some of the charges.

The jurors must decide on over 70 charges in this case. There are 15 pages of jury instructions and 11 pages of verdict sheets.

This has become very confusing for everyone today, as even Judge Navarro seemed confused by the jury’s questions. The defense attorneys argued that, with today’s responses, their defendants are being tried for crimes possibly committed by other people.

The jury seems to be needing a break, and they have indicated they would like to leave early today and possibly take tomorrow off as well, returning Monday morning. The jurors are setting their own schedule at this point.

It does seem that if the jurors are have having trouble defining a conspiracy on the 5th day of deliberations, then the verdict pendulum could possibly be swinging away from the government.

In related news, many of the defendants have been incarcerated for over 400 days now. It was determined early on that the second trial would commence 30 days after the first was completed. The third trial would then begin 30 days after the second trial completed.

The prosecution filed a motion to delay the start date of the second tier trial until June 5th. Judge Navarro set the date back to June 26th. Cliven Bundy filed a motion contesting that ruling based on the defendants rights to a speedy trial.

The court has continuously delayed these trials for their own convenience. Judge Navarro has cited her reasons for delay, again, as the logistics of responding to pre-trial motions. This is something that she should have planned for from the beginning.
Click to expand...

https://www.oathkeepers.org/bunkerville-jury-confused-conspiracy/
 
ghengis86 said:
Thanks for the updates!
Click to expand...

You're welcome. If you're the praying kind these guys need it. This was a kangaroo court if ever there was one. The fact that the jury is taking this long and the "sealed" but apparent questions they have been asking the clown in gown seems a positive. I'm not one to have to much hope when the Fed/Gov throws the kitchen sink at anybody. When the judge let's 32 witnesses testify for the Fed/GOV and only two for the defense. I'm praying these jurists see what is going on. Even as little as a hung jury would be a victory.
 
And the prosecution would be compelled to honestly disclose to the court and the jury the aspects of this case that pertain to the defendants redress of grievances and protest and of the constitutional ramifications in totality of the submitted circumstances--not just the silliness of the defendants being militiamen who wanted their 15-minutes of fame. Bollocks!
 
Breaking News

Just heard on the radio that most of the charges were hung juries.

Caught a snippet that the 'gubmint snitch was found guilty on all eight charges.

Sorry for the lack of specifics, but the judge has already set a retrial date.

This isn't great or good, but under the circumstances, this is the best that could be hoped.
 
Last edited:
sparebulb said:
http://www.rgj.com/story/news/crime/2017/04/24/verdict-coming-soon-6-bundy-standoff-nevada/306072001/
Click to expand...

// +rep.

LAS VEGAS — A federal jury, saying it was "hopelessly deadlocked," did not reach a verdict on most counts in the trial of six men accused of taking up arms against federal agents during the Bundy Ranch standoff in 2014.

But the case is not over yet.

The jury told the judge in a note Monday that it was hung on most of the charges against almost all the defendants and did not convict any of the six on conspiracy charges, viewed as a huge blow to government prosecutors.

The jury found two defendants guilty of some charges and said in a note that it was deadlocked on all charges against the other four men.

U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro sent the jurors back to deliberations to see if they could reach more verdicts.

One defendant, Gregory Burleson of Arizona, was convicted on eight charges, including threatening and assaulting a federal officer. Burleson had told a video crew after the standoff that he had come to the Bundy Ranch to kill federal agents. The video crew was made up of undercover FBI agents.

Todd Engel of Idaho was found guilty of obstruction and extortion.

Jurors began deliberating April 13 after two months of testimony involving 35 prosecution and four defense witnesses.

This is the first of three trials in the most high-profile land-use case in modern Western history, which pit a family of cattle ranchers and states-rights activists against the Bureau of Land Management.

The six men, from Arizona, Idaho and Oklahoma, are among 17 defendants charged with conspiracy, extortion assault and obstruction for helping rancher Cliven Bundy fend off a government round-up of his cattle. If convicted, they could spend the rest of their lives in prison.

For decades, the BLM repeatedly ordered Bundy to remove his cattle from federal lands and in 2014 obtained a court order to seize his cattle as payment for more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees.

Bundy issued a social-media battle cry. Hundreds of supporters from every state in the union, including members of several militia groups, converged on his ranch about 70 miles north of Las Vegas.

After the BLM abandoned the roundup, the standoff was hailed as a victory by militia members. Cliven Bundy's sons, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, cited their success at Bundy Ranch in their run-up to the siege of an Oregon wildlife refuge in 2016, also in protest of BLM policies. An Oregon federal jury acquitted Ammon, Ryan and five others in October.

No arrests were made in the Bundy Ranch case until after the Oregon siege ended.

The BLM abandoned the roundup because they were afraid they were going to die, federal prosecutors told the jury. They said law enforcement officers were surrounded and outgunned in a dusty arroyo beneath Interstate 15 where they had penned the cattle.
Click to expand...
 
Anybody that thinks they can just quit paying their agreed-upon grazing fees can get the hell out.
 
Updated April 24, 2017 - 1:15 pm

A federal judge on Monday declared a mistrial in the conspiracy case against six men accused of staging an armed assault against federal authorities who tried to seize rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle from public lands in Bunkerville.

The mistrial was declared hours after the jury convicted two men of multiple counts, but announced that they were “hopelessly deadlocked” on the remaining charges and defendants. U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro, in a last-ditch effort to encourage them to reach a unanimous decision, sent them back to deliberations.

But by midday, the jurors said they still were at an impasse, and a mistrial was declared. Navarro set a new trial date of June 26, which was initially supposed to be the start date for the second Bunkerville standoff trial against Bundy and some of his sons.

The six men in the first trial were accused of providing the firepower in a mass conspiracy to block authorities from seizing rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle from public land. Among other counts, the jury was deadlocked on the conspiracy charge, which represented the core issue of the trial.

Gregory Burleson, an active member of Arizona militia groups who used to be a paid FBI informant, and Todd Engel, an Idaho resident, both were convicted of obstruction of justice and interstate travel in aid of extortion. Burleson also was found guilty of assault on a federal officer, threatening a federal law enforcement officer, interference with interstate commerce by extortion, and multiple firearms charges.

Bundy’s decadeslong battle against the Bureau of Land Management over grazing fees reached a flashpoint three years ago when authorities started rounding up his cattle. Hundreds of protesters, numbers of them armed, descended on the cattle impoundment site to protest what they viewed as federal overreach.

The first six men on trial faced charges of conspiracy, threats, extortion and related counts. Prosecutors say they used force to bully federal agents into abandoning roughly 400 cows that were in the lawful possession of the U.S. government.
Defense attorneys argued that their clients were peaceful protesters exercising their First and Second Amendment rights against a militant law enforcement presence.

The jury has been deliberating since April 13. The trial opened Feb. 6.

Bundy and 10 other people are incarcerated pending trial on similar charges. Prosecutors divided the defendants into three groups for trial. The first group, charged as “gunmen,” have been described by the government as the least culpable of the alleged co-conspirators.
Click to expand...

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bundy-blm/judge-declares-mistrial-in-bundy-ranch-standoff-case/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
Trump Pardons Nevada Judge Michele Fiore
Replies
2
Views
31
wizardwatson
wizardwatson
PAF
Trump Calls for an End to Netanyahu’s Corruption Trial
Replies
11
Views
65
unknown
unknown
PAF
Trump Says US ‘Not Going To Stand’ for Netanyahu’s Continued Corruption Trial
Replies
9
Views
72
mrsat_98
M
PAF
At Trial, Meta Investors, Zuckerberg Face Off On Alleged Data Violations
Replies
0
Views
8
PAF
PAF
PAF
GA v. A.J. Scott: Speeding Trooper Homicide Trial
Replies
1
Views
31
PAF
PAF
Back
Top