Bundy to Biden: Stay away from my cattle

Jennifer Yachnin

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy is vowing to once again "walk towards guns" should the incoming Biden administration attempt to collect on more than two decades of debt from trespass fines and unpaid grazing fees.

Bundy, who came to national attention in 2014 when he rallied armed supporters to his Bunkerville ranch to block the government's attempted roundup of his cattle, made the remarks Saturday in an interview with radio host Pete Santilli.

"The Bundy ranch saga will continue, won't it? Do you believe so? Do you believe that they'll come after you?" asked Santilli, who stuck a plea deal over his own role in the Nevada standoff (Greenwire, Oct. 9, 2017).

"Yes, I do," Bundy replied. "They've been waiting for this ... but it's not only for Bundy ranch; it's for all Americans. We're in trouble if it changes."

He later added: "We're going to have to go forward. If we have to walk forward towards guns, which we did at the Bundy ranch, we have to do that. And we have to have faith."

...Whether the Biden administration, which has named New Mexico Rep. Deb Haaland (D) as its nominee to lead the Interior Department, will opt to address the 74-year-old rancher and scofflaw remains an open question.

Some public lands advocates suggested privately to E&E News that the newest White House occupant and his team will have more pressing issues to attend to following next week's inauguration — like rolling back the impacts of President Trump's "energy dominance" agenda and efforts to weaken the National Environmental Policy Act.

But Western Watersheds Project Executive Director Erik Molvar asserted that last week's riot at the U.S. Capitol, which resulted in the deaths of five individuals including a Capitol Police officer, could reinvigorate the government's interest in tamping down on Bundy's continued defiance.

"The lax law enforcement on public lands can be seen as a direct line to the lawlessness we saw in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Recapture Canyon in Utah and now in Washington, D.C.," Molvar said, referring to the 2016 wildlife refuge occupation that involved two of Bundy's sons and to an illegal all-terrain vehicle protest ride in the canyon in 2015.

...Public Lands Council Executive Director Kaitlynn Glover told E&E News that Bundy should not be conflated with the "taxpaying, law-abiding" ranchers her organization represents.

"We do not support unlawful activities or calls for violence," Glover said. "The ranchers we represent who graze livestock on public lands pay their grazing fees, follow the rules, and cherish the responsibilities of stewarding America's public lands. They expect other ranchers to do the same."

She added: "Do not mistake those who have anti-American sentiments as representatives of our community just because they wear a cowboy hat "

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

Note: article is from Jan., but I just came across it and thought it worthy of posting. You should read all of it.

DuBois column: Bundy Boondoggle

 

The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the mistrial in the Bundy case 

Bundy Boondoggle 

The saga of Cliven Bundy and his battles with the feds over livestock grazing go back many years. From a strictly administrative/legal basis, here is a quick summary: 

° In 1993, BLM sent Bundy a notice of trespass and an order to remove his cattle

° In 1998 a federal district court permanently enjoined Bundy from grazing livestock within the    Bunkerville allotment. Bundy filed an appeal and in 1999 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied his appeal and affirmed the lower court’s order.

° In 2011, BLM sent Bundy a notice of intent to roundup his cattle.

° In 2013 a federal district court ordered Bundy to remove his cattle within 45 days and authorized the feds to impound any cattle that were not removed. Bundy appealed and lost.

° In March of 2014, BLM issued a notice of intent to impound Bundy’s cattle, and on April 5, 2014 the roundup began. 

This was a large operation for the feds, as the court recently summarized: 

BLM made extensive preparations for “Operation Gold Butte Impound.” Coordinating with agents from the National Park Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation, BLM anticipated resistance from Bundy and his supporters. It planned to escort the contractors in and out of the area each day. BLM established a Listening Post/Observation Post (LP/OP) “strategically placed at elevated positions around the Bundy residence each evening” where agents were outfitted with binoculars, spotting scopes, night-vision goggles, and thermal-imaging devices. The LP/OP personnel were to have “agency-issued rifles with them at all times.” BLM also established a Tactical Operations Center (TOC), Forward Operating Base (FOB), a media site, and a “free speech area.”

I and many others have written about what transpired during the so-called standoff and there is no need to repeat it here, as our interest today is in the court case. Suffice it to say the feds backed down and left, handing a major victory to Bundy and his supporters. I vividly remember both the surprise and joy I personally experienced at this outcome. 

However, in March of 2016 a federal grand jury indicted nineteen individuals, including Cliven Bundy and his two sons, Ammon and Ryan, for a slate of federal crimes, including impeding federal officers, threatening federal officers, and extortion, as well as conspiracy to commit those crimes. Trial began on October 30, 2017, and that is when the government’s transgressions and abuses started coming to light. 

During the trial a bombshell memo from a BLM law enforcement officer to the Dept. of Justice was made public. In the memo, BLM Special Agent Larry C. Wooten stated, “I routinely observed, and the investigation revealed a widespread pattern of bad judgement, lack of discipline, incredible bias, unprofessionalism and misconduct, as well as likely policy, ethical and legal violations among senior and supervisory staff at the BLM’s Office of Law Enforcement and Security.” 

Wooten further stated these issues, “…made a mockery of our position of special trust and confidence, portrayed extreme unprofessional bias, adversely affected our agency’s mission and likely the trial regarding Cliven Bundy…” and “put our agency and specific law enforcement supervisors in potential legal, civil and administrative jeopardy.” 

Some of the actions taken by certain BLM officers are simply too crude to include in this publication. However, Wooten did report: 

º Conduct that was, “discriminatory, harassing and showed clear prejudice against the defendants, their supporters and Mormons.”

º Uncovered comments where BLM agents “bragged about roughing up Dave Bundy” and “grinding his face into the ground.”

º That BLM employees, “didn’t properly turn in the required discovery material (likely exculpatory evidence)”

º That one BLM Supervisor, “instigated the unprofessional monitoring of jail calls between defendants and their wives, without prosecutor or FBI consent.”

º That former BLM Special Agent-In-Charge Dan Love purposely ignored federal and state recommendations, “in order to command the most intrusive, oppressive, large scale and militaristic trespass cattle impound possible.” 

BLM Agent Wooten also say his investigation found, “excessive use of force, civil rights and policy violations.” Further, Wooten says, “there was an improper cover-up in virtually every matter that a particular BLM SAC participated in, or oversaw.”  

It also became apparent that important evidence had been withheld by the feds. The presiding judge held a series of hearings in November of 2017. Based upon those hearings the judge found the following pieces of evidence were withheld from the defense: 

° Records about surveillance at the Bundy ranch

° Records about the presence of government snipers

° FBI logs about activity at the ranch in the days leading up to the standoff

° Law enforcement assessments dating to 2012 that found the Bundys posed no threat, and

° Internal affairs reports about misconduct by BLM agents   

In total, it came to 3,300 pages of evidence withheld. As a result the judge said this represented “outrageous” abuses and “flagrant misconduct” by the prosecutors. The judge declared “a universal sense of justice has been violated” and dismissed all charges against the Bundys “with prejudice”, meaning those charges cannot be brought again.  

Unbelievably, President Trump’s Justice Department appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most liberal circuit in the nation.    

On August 6 of this year the Ninth Circuit rendered their decision and I’m pleased to report the government’s CYA appeal was not successful. 

The court affirmed the prosecution was guilty of “flagrant misconduct”, with such a finding necessary for charges to be dismissed “with prejudice.” 

The court affirmed that the withholding of information about the surveillance camera “was willful rather than merely inadvertent.” The court also stated, “Rather than looking into the request and locating the documents before trial began, the government chose to fight rather than respond to the request.” 

On the withholding of evidence concerning the government’s use of snipers, the court stated: “Of particular concern is the government’s handling of evidence related to the presence of snipers. This was a hot-button issue… The government said the Bundys’ claim of “snipers” was “false” and “deceitful,” yet the government’s own documents referred to its agents as “snipers.”…”In short, the government had to know the import that any evidence regarding snipers, or agents who looked and functioned like snipers, would have in this case. Nevertheless, it withheld a slate of information…” The court also found the government’s position this evidence was irrelevant to be “preposterous and reckless.” 

With respect to the threat assessments, the court said, “…the government failed to turn over beneficial information speaking to Bundy’s potential for violence. These documents could have helped bolster the defense’s claim that the government had engaged in an overmilitarized impound operation that the Bundys claim fueled their fears of being surrounded by snipers. But irrespective of the theory defendants were to put forward, these documents should have been released. They, at the very least, provided impeachment evidence because some of their findings contrasted with the 2014 threat assessment used as the basis for planning the impound operation, and they undermined the prosecution’s opening statement.” 

There is more, but in all instances the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision. 

There are still many questions concerning the design, implementation and costs of this government boondoggle. Shamefully, neither political party has seen fit to conduct a complete investigation and report on this operation. That failure increases the odds that similar abuses will occur in the future.  

Until next time, be a nuisance to the devil and don’t forget to check that cinch.

Frank DuBois was the NM Secretary of Agriculture from 1988 to 2003, is the author of a blog: The Westerner (www.thewesterner.blogspot.com) and is the founder of The DuBois Rodeo Scholarship and The DuBois Western Heritage Foundation

This column originally appeared in the September issues of The New Mexico Stockman and The Livestock Market Digest. 

Now look at the post below: its only been a few months since federal troops were sent to various big cities, and we already have a GAO report on their activity. No such report has ever been requested concerning the Bundy Standoff. Any one of the 535 members of congress could make such a request, but they haven't. Careful scrutiny for social justice, nada for range justice. 

Government Misconduct Frees Cliven Bundy (9th Circuit affirms dismissal)

Dan McLaughlin

Politically charged prosecutions — even ones that are thoroughly justified — often end badly for the justice system. So it appears with the federal prosecutions of Cliven Bundy and his sons. The government blew its case against Bundy’s sons by overcharging them, resulting in a jury acquittal in 2016. Today, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Bundy’s own federal indictment (as well as that of several of his co-defendants) on the grounds that the government had waited until the middle of trial to disclose information that would have helped Bundy’s case, in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The misconduct was so severe and prejudicial to the Bundy clan’s case that the court barred the government from bringing the same charges again. The opinion was written by Jay Bybee, a George W. Bush appointee, but joined by judges appointed by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

The Bundy indictment charged extortion, threats to federal officers, and a variety of related crimes due to the armed standoff around the Bundy ranch arising from a longstanding dispute over unpaid grazing fees claimed by the Bureau of Land Management. The trial court rejected the Bundy clan’s self-defense theory, but, as the court wrote, “A central pillar of the government’s case was the allegation that the defendants recruited armed followers by intentionally deceiving those followers into believing that the Bundys feared for their lives because government snipers surrounded their ranch,” a charge that was touted in the government’s opening statement to the jury.

The Bundys asked for video shot by a camera they said the FBI had trained on them; the government called it a “fantastical fishing expedition,” but the camera’s existence and its live feed to the BLM command center was confirmed four days into the trial. The resulting hearing disclosed as well federal patrols “armed with AR-15 rifles” around the compound. The trial court gave the prosecution the benefit of the doubt that withholding this information was a good-faith decision, but several days later, more FBI interviews (form 302s) were disclosed discussing agents in full tactical gear watching the compound and the insertion of agents the FBI itself described as “snipers.” This only came to light after the trial judge had excluded evidence based on the government’s repeated insistence that there were no snipers. The Ninth Circuit summarized why withholding this evidence was so harmful to the Bundys’ ability to present a defense:

The defendants claim that the Bundys feared they were surrounded by heavily armed snipers. Keeping the defense from gathering as much evidence as possible to show that there was a reasonable basis to fear that snipers surrounded the property was itself harmful. Moreover, the Felix 302 actually refers to the BLM agent in the overwatch position as a “sniper.” Indeed, the Felix 302 uses both “tactical over watch position” and “sniper” to refer to the same agent. This was tangible documentation showing that the government’s own officials understood agents in overwatch positions to be equivalent to “snipers.” Even if the defendants had some other evidence of agents taking “overwatch” positions around the Bundy property, the Felix 302 supported their theory in ways that [documents provided earlier] did not. The Felix 302, therefore, adds credibility to the Bundys’ claims that they feared the presence of “snipers” and it should have been disclosed prior to trial. In sum, like the evidence regarding the camera, these documents could have helped the defense show that the defendants genuinely feared the presence of snipers—contradicting the allegations that the defendants intentionally lied about being surrounded by snipers to inflame supporters.

In the Ninth Circuit’s view, it was “preposterous and reckless” for the government to withhold this evidence:

Of particular concern is the government’s handling of evidence related to the presence of snipers. This was a hot-button issue. The term is evocative, rhetorically charged, and would have been a dog whistle for summoning members of private militias in ways that screaming “surveillance cameras!” would not. The government said the Bundys’ claim of “snipers” was “false” and “deceitful,” yet the government’s own documents referred to its agents as “snipers.” The government disputed the relevance of this information, fixating on the question of whether the officers in the “overwatch” were technically “snipers.” The district court had to remind the government that these were questions for the jury. 

The failure to produce evidence regarding “snipers” was particularly troubling for the district court because, during the Tier 3 trial of other co-defendants, the district court prohibited testimony regarding the presence of snipers, based on the government’s assurances that there were no snipers involved in the impound operation. The district court even removed a testifying defendant from the stand in that trial because the defendant kept stating that snipers were present. The district court was understandably exasperated when evidence came to light in this trial, showing that the government referred to its agents as “snipers.”

In short, the government had to know the import that any evidence regarding snipers, or agents who looked and functioned like snipers, would have in this case. Nevertheless, it withheld a slate of information bolstering the claim that the defendants could have had a reasonable basis for believing there were snipers in the area.

READ ENTIRE POST

Bundy's trenches may force confrontation with BLM

Jennifer Yachnin

The Bureau of Land Management is investigating whether Nevada rancher Ryan Bundy illegally built new irrigation infrastructure across Gold Butte National Monument, the same area where his family unlawfully grazes cattle on public lands. A BLM official declined to comment on the allegations to E&E News but wrote emails to two individuals familiar with the situation that it is "under investigation" as of last week. In an email to E&E News, Ryan Bundy said he was unaware of BLM's inquiry into his irrigation efforts. A group of local hikers who visited the 300,000-acre monument in southeastern Nevada in mid-April first reported the incident to BLM. The four-page complaint, a copy of which was provided to E&E News, includes GPS coordinates of new irrigation trenches, as well as photos of equipment used to lay irrigation pipe, including a tractor...One of the individuals who filed the complaint spoke with E&E News on the condition of anonymity. The individual said that the hikers crossed paths with Ryan Bundy as he drove a flatbed truck carrying several reels of sprinkler line used for irrigation projects. The missive concludes with a suggestion that Bundy is likely using the system for additional cattle watering troughs in the area and will increase the number of livestock that the Bundy clan illegally grazes in the region...All three Bundys and Montana resident Ryan Payne faced trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on those charges in 2017, but the case resulted in a mistrial after Chief Judge Gloria Navarro found that the government had withheld key information from defendants. The Justice Department is seeking a new trial for the Bundys and Payne. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear arguments in that case on May 29 in San Francisco...MORE

9th Circuit returns U.S. government appeal in Bundy case

A federal appeals court has put a roadblock in front of the government’s attempt to appeal a district judge’s decision to throw out its case against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct. Bundy and other family members were charged after an armed standoff at their ranch over grazing fees the government claimed they had not paid. The government confiscated some of the family’s cattle, supporters from across the nation gathered and the standoff ensued. The feds eventually backed down.  But when the government put Bundy and others on trial for their actions, the case collapsed. The Bundys’ lawyer, Larry Klayman, has written about the DOJ’s actions, in his WND columns as well as on the Cliven Bundy Legal Defense Fund site. He said it took “chutzpah” for the government to appeal the dismissal of the case by Judge Gloria Navarro, who, he said, was “no friend of Cliven Bundy, his family and the armed peaceful protesters who stood down a tyrannical government at Bunkerville in 2014.”The 9th Circuit, in a new statement on the case, gave a number of instructions, including appointing counsel for Ryan C. Bundy. But it also refused the government’s submission of an oversized brief, at 16,634 words. The limit is 14,000, and the government was ordered to submit a new one.Klayman took the opportunity to move to supplement the record with the testimony of Wooten, whose statements had not been incorporated. He suggested the appeals court return the case to the lower court, which likely would end the case.In his motion, Klayman points out that Wooten is a former BLM investigator turned whistleblower who wrote a report detailing the apparently unethical actions of federal agents against the Bundys. The judge’s decision to drop the case with prejudice because of misconduct appeared to be supported in Klayman’s motion. He wrote: “Among the disturbing revelations set forth by Mr. Wooten include (1) BLM Supervisory agents repeatedly mocking and degrading Mr. Bundy, his family, and his co-defendants in an ‘amateurish carnival atmosphere’ that displayed ‘clear prejudice’ against the Bundys personally and their Mormon faith; (2) federal agents bragging about roughing up Mr. Bundy’s son, Dave, and violently grinding his face into the ground; (3) BLM agents failing to turn over required discover evidence to the prosecution team that was helpful to defendants; (4) top agents ‘instigating’ the monitoring of jail phone calls between the defendants and their wives; (5) SSA Dan P. Love, the lead BLM agent conducting the ill-fated paramilitary raid on the Bundy ranch, 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;’ (6) SSA Love having a ‘Kill Book’ as a trophy where he ‘bragged about getting three individuals in Utah to commit suicide’; and (7) that a secure command post at FBI headquarters in Las Vegas of an ‘Arrest Tracking Wall,’ where photos of Cliven Bundy and co-defendant Eric Parker were marked with an ‘X’ over them.” Klayman said that when Wooten pointed out the misbehavior, he was summarily removed from the case and threatened...MORE

 The government's opening brief was 78 pages. I have not seen the 16,634 page brief.

DOJ files appeal to reverse stinging loss to Bundy clan in Nevada standoff

The Justice Department filed an appeal Wednesday of its devastating defeat against Cliven Bundy in the Nevada standoff, disputing the federal judge’s decision last year to throw out the case based on prosecutorial wrongdoing. The 88-page motion, filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenged Chief U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro’s blistering finding of “flagrant” misconduct, which prompted her to declare a mistrial in December 2017 and dismiss the charges a month later. U.S. Attorney for Nevada Nicholas A. Trutanich, who took over last month, insisted that the government had “timely disclosed significant discovery,” refuting the judge’s ruling that prosecutors had withheld evidence on items such as an FBI surveillance camera and snipers at the 2014 clash. “To the extent any of the government’s shortcomings constituted Brady violations, they were clearly inadvertent, and certainly not willful,” he said in the motion. “In its ruling dismissing the indictment with prejudice, however, the district court found government errors it had only weeks earlier deemed diligent and reasonable now to be ‘flagrant,’ ‘reckless,’ ‘intentional,’ ‘grossly shocking,’ and in violation of a ‘universal sense of justice.’” The judge’s findings “fail as a matter of law; and the record and the facts do not support the district court’s condemnation of the prosecutors in this case,” the motion said. Bundy attorney Larry Klayman immediately filed a motion to strike the appeal, calling it “frivolous” and arguing that the court had not granted the government’s request for a third extension of the deadline. “To keep this appeal hanging over the head of my client and his co-defendants is more than unconscionable: it is unprofessional and grossly unethical, and calculated only inflict more severe emotional distress on them and to ‘circle the wagons’ around those ‘bad actors’ in this U.S. Attorney’s office who themselves, rather than the defendants, committed crimes,” Mr. Klayman said in his brief...MORE

‘We’ll Expose The Rest Of Their Dirt’: Cliven Bundy Vows To Fight If Feds Put Him Back On Trial

Federal prosecutors plan to appeal U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro’s decision to dismiss the charges against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy by Feb. 6, according to a Wednesday court filing. Navarro dismissed the case against Bundy, his two sons and one other man “with prejudice” on Jan. 8, 2018, preventing the defendants from being retried. Bundy and the others faced 15 criminal charges related to a standoff with federal officials at his ranch in 2014.Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors intend to request the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturn Navarro’s ruling. Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth White requested a 14-day extension to file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Wednesday, following up two previous requests for a 60-day extension, then a 21-day extension.
“Hey, get with it. We’ll expose the rest of their dirt,” Bundy told The Daily Caller News Foundation, ready to go back to court should the Ninth Circuit order a retrial. Bundy’s case ended in a mistrial on Dec. 20, 2017, after a team of federal prosecutors were found withholding evidence from the court that was favorable to Bundy’s defense. Prosecutors handed over roughly 3,000 pages worth of overdue evidence to the court after repeated requests from the defendants. Navarro found the prosecutorial team had broken federal law and violated the defendants’ civil rights by not turning the documents over sooner, according to court documents. “The Court’s finding of outrageous government conduct was not in error,” Navarro wrote in a July 2018 ruling, obtained by The Oregonian. “On the contrary, a universal sense of justice was violated by the Government’s failure to provide evidence that is potentially exculpatory.” The federal prosecutors’ attempt to overturn Navarro’s decision and put Bundy back on trial is “surprising” to the 72-year-old Nevada rancher. “They lied in the indictment. It was unbelievable,” Bundy told TheDCNF in a phone interview Friday. “Then they built upon those lies and continued to lie and tried to hide it from the jury. … They didn’t ever let us bring forth any of the real evidence of whether we were guilty or not guilty.” The results of an internal investigation of the BLM found that federal agents committed “the most intrusive, oppressive, large scale and militaristic trespass cattle impound possible.” The investigation results were part of the 3,000 overdue pages of evidence that led to the mistrial...MORE

Feds Beg For A Fifth Shot At Prosecuting Bundy Clan After Failing Four Times In A Row

Federal prosecutors are asking an Arizona judge to give them another shot at convicting Cliven Bundy on charges related to a 2014 armed standoff between the rancher and federal agents, The Oregonian reports. U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed charges against Bundy, his two sons and supporter Ryan Payne last month after finding federal prosecutors had lied to the court and hid exculpatory evidence that favored the defendants’ case. Navarro dismissed the case “with prejudice,” barring a retrial. Prosecutors filed a motion Wednesday claiming Navarro dismissed them before considering a more appropriate solution to the civil rights violations that occurred during the trial last year, according to The Oregonian. “This case has major ramifications for all public lands law enforcement officers,” the motion said. “Dismissing this entire case with prejudice, based on the government’s non-disclosure of mostly duplicative evidence of law enforcement’s pre-impoundment surveillance and preparation, would encourage the defendants, their supporters and the public to disrespect the law and the lawful orders of the courts.”...MORE

Cliven Bundy's stunning legal spanking of DOJ has feds scrambling for appeal

Federal prosecutors said Wednesday they plan to appeal their demoralizing defeat in the Nevada standoff trial, which saw a federal judge rebuke prosecutors for “flagrant misconduct” and dismiss all charges against rancher Cliven Bundy and two of his sons. Elizabeth O. White, assistant U.S. attorney for Nevada, assured the court that the appeal would be filed by Feb. 6 after asking for a 14-day extension, saying the “review process is complete and the Solicitor General has authorized the government’s appeal.” “Undersigned counsel further advises that the draft brief is nearly complete, editing of the completed portions has begun, and she has begun the laborious process of preparing the excerpts of record and updating the record citations in brief to the excerpts of record,” Ms. White said in the motion. The Justice Department already had requested and received two extensions, but it was unclear until Wednesday whether prosecutors would go forward with the appeal. Bundy attorney Larry Klayman condemned the decision to file the appeal, which would go before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. He accused the government of “circling the wagons” to protect prosecutors, including former Acting U.S. Attorney for Nevada Steven Myhre...MORE

Noel Francisco is the current Solicitor General; he is from New York and was nominated by Donald Trump on  March 7, 2017 and confirmed on Sept. 19, 2017.

Cliven Bundy Vows To Fight DOJ Appeal Of Dismissal In Standoff Trial Case

The Nevada rancher who led a standoff with the federal government nearly four years ago is vowing to fight the Department of Justice’s move to appeal a judge’s decision to dismiss an indictment against the man. Larry Klayman, legal counsel for Cliven Bundy, issued a statement on behalf of Bundy vowing to fight the DOJ’s attempt to retry his client for his role in the 2014 standoff. Klayman is the founder of Judicial Watch and is a former prosecutor. “My client and friend Cliven Bundy is confident that the Ninth Circuit will affirm Judge Navarro’s dismissal,” Larry Klayman, legal counsel for Bundy, said in a press statement Thursday. The government’s case was “based on prosecutorial misconduct,” he noted. “That the prosecutors who committed and furthered this gross prosecutorial misconduct would now seek to file a notice of appeal underscores that my once proud alma mater, the U.S. Department of Justice, has become the Department of Injustice,” he added...MORE

Nevada judge stands by her dismissal of Cliven Bundy standoff case, rejects prosecutors' motion

By Maxine Bernstein

mbernstein@oregonian.com

The Oregonian/OregonLive

A federal judge in Nevada on Tuesday rejected prosecutors' request to reconsider her dismissal of the conspiracy case against Cliven Bundy, his two sons and Ryan Payne stemming from their 2014 armed standoff with federal agents over cattle grazing near Bunkerville. U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro found prosecutors raised arguments she had already considered. She dismissed their contention that the dismissal of the case with prejudice was "unjust,'' or that she should have ordered a less severe sanction for their failure to share evidence that could assist the defense as required by the 1963 landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland. "The Court's finding of outrageous government conduct was not in error,'' Navarro wrote in her 11-page ruling. "On the contrary, a universal sense of justice was violated by the Government's failure to provide evidence that is potentially exculpatory.'' In January, Navarro dismissed the Bundy prosecution, citing "flagrant misconduct" by prosecutors and the FBI in not disclosing evidence before and during trial. The judge listed six separate types of evidence withheld and ruled that each violation was willful. In a motion urging the judge to reconsider the dismissal, prosecutors reiterated their unsuccessful argument that the evidence they failed to share until too late wouldn't have been admissible anyway because they didn't believe the defendants could argue that they acted in self-defense, were provoked or intimidated. But the judge called that argument "outrageous'' and made it clear that the government was not allowed to withhold evidence that would enable the Bundys and Payne to argue they acted in self-defense, or evidence they could use to challenge the charges in their indictment. In fact, her prior order should have placed prosecutors on notice that any evidence that could bolster a theory of self-defense might become relevant at trial, Navarro wrote. "The evidence that the Government failed to disclose, such as the insertion and positioning of snipers and cameras surveilling the Bundy home, is evidence of provocation,'' Navarro wrote. "The Government's theory of prosecution relies on the fact that Defendants were acting offensively instead of defensively. The evidence that the Government failed to disclose could have assisted Defendants in showing that the officers were engaging in provocative conduct and that Defendants were not the aggressors. Therefore, the undisclosed evidence might have supported a theory of self-defense.''...MORE 

 And let's not forget this motion for a retrial was filed under the Trump/Sessions watch. I posted a story recently where they changed DOJ's position on several cases before the Supreme Court. But this was filed under their watch and was never revoked or amended. Let's hope Trump shows his true colors by pardoning the Hammonds.

Judge Navarro's 11 page decision is embedded below:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-_RAbrExMfeB6KIDDG_g_pH_vsAePwUB/view?usp=sharing

Perspectives: Bundy Ranch, 4 years later

Bryan Hyde

The four-year anniversary of what some refer to as the Battle of Bunkerville came and went last week. It’s probably safe to say that we’re all a little surprised at how things have shaken out since the events of 2014.
Even just a short year ago, the fate of Cliven Bundy and those who stood with him still hung in the balance.
Few could have predicted that the charges against Bundy and others would be dismissed with prejudice and that most of them would be free men. Fewer still could have foreseen that the federal government’s flagrant disregard for justice would be the reason for that dismissal.
From the government’s point of view, the situation seemed like a slam dunk.
People who face charges in federal court are convicted 97.7 percent of the time. It’s not that every one of them are actually guilty or that the prosecutors and investigators are just that good.
It’s what you’d expect when going up against a politically-driven opponent with virtually unlimited resources and time. Often defendants will take a plea deal for a lower charge and lighter sentence simply because if they take it to the jury and lose, the sentence will be much worse.
The Bureau of Land Management had been at odds with Bundy since 1993 when he refused to go along with their attempts to convert the grazing and water rights he owned into rented privileges for which he must pay their bureaucracy. Over time, as the BLM underwent management changes with the election of a new administration in 2008, the decision was made to find a way to bring Bundy into compliance.
...Several attempts to impound Bundy’s cattle ended in failure for the government when Bundy simply refused to cooperate with the attempted rustling. At no point was he violent with anyone.
As the BLM set about putting together a new operation to trespass the cattle off the disputed allotment, they had access to multiple threat assessments the FBI had done on the Bundy family. According to the FBI, the threat posed by the Bundys was minimal – as in the lowest threat level possible.
...Instead of heeding these assessments, the BLM, under the direction of Special Agent Dan Love, set about putting together the most militarized, aggressive and heavy-handed operation in its history. Why else would there have been a federal joint terrorism task force complete with SWAT teams, snipers and around-the-clock surveillance of Bundy Ranch in the weeks before the April 2014 impoundment?
Why else would a 200-man task force be sent to Bunkerville with orders to “kick them in the teeth” and to tase, manhandle and point loaded firearms at innocent people?

READ ENTIRE COLUMN 

Left unresolved, however, is the issue that was the primary instigator of these events: Who owns these lands and which form of government (federal, state or local) has jurisdiction over them?

Bundy Case - Second Wooten memo kept under seal?

Nextrush Free reports

A court document filed this week by a defense lawyer in Las Vegas gives some details about the emergence of a new memo in the Bunkerville Standoff case from Bureau of Land Management agent Larry Wooten. The US Attorney's Office in Las Vegas and the Justice Department in Washington both received the memo on March 9th. On March 21st defense lawyers received a motion from federal prosecutors to file under seal the new memo detailing allegations of improper conduct by federal law enforcement etc. in the Bunkerville case. Its appears that the feds want to keep the contents of Wooten's new memo secret with Wooten expanding and detailing his original allegations...

In an earlier post Nextrush Free linked to a 3/24 Facebook post by Ammon Bundy

Well, we have whistleblower memo #2 that has been sent to the DOJ, the prosecution and the defense attorneys, and it is currently under seal. Our question is always the same: Why hide the truth? Its so easy to tell so just tell it and let the public decide who is in the wrong. The memo reveals that there are agents now willing to testify to even more egregious government misconduct in this case of The United States of America VS Cliven Bundy Et Al. Let them speak and let the truth be told!

And here is a snapshot of an Ammon Bundy Facebook post on 3/26 

I wrote about the first Wooten memo here.
I haven't seen anything in the MSM about a second Wooten memo.

After 2 years in jail, Ryan Bundy speaks out

Jennifer Yachnin

..."I just want government to do what I've told them to do," said Bundy, who now lives in Mesquite and works primarily on his family's ranch in nearby Bunkerville. "I'm not out for a revolution, but change definitely needs to happen." Bundy, whose face sags due to nerve damage caused by injuries from being run over by a car at age 7, recently sat for an hourlong interview with E&E News on topics ranging from his recent criminal trial in Las Vegas to his views on the nearby Gold Butte National Monument. He did not shy from the prospect of future protests over what he sees as government overreach or even a run for political office, but he stressed that he is not seeking out conflict. "I don't want to overturn government because I want power," Bundy said. "I just want to live and be left alone."...Federal prosecutors have asked Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro to reverse her ruling that dismissed the criminal indictment against you and that prohibits a new trial over the 2014 standoff with BLM. How concerned are you that prosecutors will succeed? All I can say is that if they do in fact gain precedence with or favor with the judge and reopen this case, it will only further their embarrassment for they will be further exposed in their lies and manipulations. They've been caught red-handed in criminal activity themselves. The entire indictment against us is a lie. The entire indictment: They've used false testimony, they've manipulated their witnesses, they've manipulated the evidence, they've withheld evidence, they've extorted. They have, the government and their agents, have committed all the crimes. We have not. The further this goes the further it will be exposed, and so if they want to be further embarrassed then I guess they can keep pressing forward...more

Feds move to drop charges against remaining Bundy standoff defendants

Federal prosecutors want to drop charges against the four remaining defendants in the Bundy Ranch standoff case, including two militia members from Arizona. Attorneys for the Nevada U.S. Attorney's Office filed a motion late Wednesday asking the court to dismiss the remaining cases "in the interest of justice." Dave and Mel Bundy, and Arizona residents Joseph O'Shaughnessy and Jason Woods, were scheduled to stand trial Feb. 26. They were the last of 19 defendants originally charged with taking up arms against federal agents to prevent a roundup of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy's cattle from public lands in 2014. In the motion, federal prosecutors referenced a separate motion Wednesday asking the judge to reconsider the dismissal of charges. In the interim, they said, they had no choice but to drop the remaining cases. "The government believes that under these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is appropriate to move to dismiss the superseding indictment," they said...more

Ammon Bundy Led Two Armed Standoffs Against The Government, And He’s Prepared To Do It Again

Salvador Hernandez

Ammon Bundy, the former Nevada rancher who twice led an armed standoff against federal agents and twice avoided a prison sentence, told BuzzFeed News he was prepared to launch another armed confrontation with the government if he felt it was necessary. Bundy, the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, led the 40-day occupation of an Oregon wildlife refuge in 2016 and helped organize the 2014 armed Nevada standoff against federal agents. Earlier this month, a federal judge threw out the case against the family, citing misconduct by the FBI and prosecutors who failed to share evidence with defense attorneys. Despite spending two years behind bars awaiting the outcome of criminal trials for the armed standoffs, the Bundy family remained undeterred in their feud with the federal government, one that has gained thousands of supporters in the West. "I'm not going to run from something like that, but then again, I never was looking for it," Bundy, 42, said Wednesday in a phone interview. "But if it is necessary again to limit and bring awareness to what our form of government is doing — and our governments in general are doing it — I think I would have to consider it again." Bundy said he didn't know what might prompt such action, but "I hope I don't find out." "I see myself defending my rights, defending my neighbor's rights and standing up for injustices, but I don't see myself going out and picking a fight," he said. "I hope I don't have to." Though drastic, Bundy defended the decision to launch armed confrontations with the government in both Nevada and Oregon, arguing that doing so brought national attention to the fight over public lands and highlighted the actions of federal officials. "Our families suffered, but we had to do something," Bundy said. "I thought we did the right thing." Bundy said it was not the only action he would consider in the future, and suggested a change of strategy, one that veers away from armed confrontations and toward public office...more

Perspectives: Things the media may have missed while covering the Bundy case

Bryan Hyde

It was fascinating to watch Navarro’s growing recognition of just how badly the prosecution had been violating the rules that govern due process. When she outlined her reasons for dismissing the case last week, Navarro called out the government’s flagrant misconduct in no uncertain terms. When she announced that a “universal sense of justice has been violated,” it was clear that the truth had finally triumphed. I don’t know what might have changed in Navarro’s understanding or within her heart since the previous two trials, but I’m grateful she took the approach she did. It’s no secret that throughout the trial, the Bundy family had consistently called upon their supporters to pray for Navarro as well as other members of the government’s team that their hearts would be softened. Before entering the courtroom last Monday, Ryan Bundy led those waiting in the hallway in a heartfelt prayer. In his prayer, Bundy specifically prayed for Navarro – for her well-being and for her to be guided in her understanding. As Navarro later explained the relevant precedents and case law that supported her decision to dismiss with prejudice, I’m certain she saw many heads bowed in prayer in her courtroom. When her decision was announced, the celebration that swept through the courtroom was mostly silent tears of joy with occasional whispers of “thank you, God” and “praise God.” This reaction underscores a powerful spiritual dynamic that has been ever-present from the very beginning of this saga, though rarely reported on or understood by the public generally. The Bundys have placed their trust in God from the start. I can sympathize with those who would dismiss such things because they haven’t experienced them personally. If I had not seen and experienced them firsthand for myself, I would be inclined to doubt as well. The difficulties and pain of the past couple of years have not broken this family. They have become stronger in every way. Their faith in God has been strengthened, not diminished, by their suffering. Their marriages and family ties have been forged in the fires of hardship. The intense heat and pressure directed at them has served to refine them like diamonds. They are battle-hardened but not bitter or hateful. When they speak, the Bundys still speak with love but also with the conviction of people who genuinely have skin in the game and who have been willing to suffer for their beliefs. Armchair quarterbacks simply don’t have that kind of credibility...more

Fed's misconduct in Cliven Bundy case stems from Ruby Ridge

James Bovard

Federal judge Gloria Navarro slammed the FBI and Justice Department on Monday, Jan. 8, for “outrageous” abuses and “flagrant misconduct” in the prosecution of Cliven Bundy and sons, the Nevada ranchers who spurred a high-profile standoff with the FBI and Bureau of Land Management in 2014. Navarro condemned the "grossly shocking” withholding of evidence from defense counsel in a case that could have landed the Bundys in prison for the rest of their lives. Navarro, who had declared a mistrial last month, dismissed all charges against the Bundys.
Navarro was especially riled because the FBI spent three years covering up or lying about the role of their snipers in the 2014 standoff. The Bundys faced conspiracy charges because they summoned militia to defend them after claiming FBI snipers had surrounded their ranch. Justice Department lawyers scoffed at this claim but newly-released documents vindicate the Bundys. In an interview Saturday, Ammon Bundy reviled the feds: “They basically came to kill our family, they surrounded us with snipers. And then they wanted to lie about it all like none of it happened."
Many of the heavily-armed activists who flocked to the scene feared that the FBI snipers had a license to kill the Bundys. Their reaction cannot be understood without considering a landmark 1990s case that continues to shape millions of Americans’ attitude towards Washington: the federal killings and coverups at Ruby Ridge.
Randy Weaver and his family lived in an isolated cabin in the mountains of northern Idaho. Weaver was a white separatist who believed races should live apart; he had no record of violence against other races — or anyone else. An undercover federal agent entrapped him into selling a sawed-off shotgun. The feds then sought to pressure Weaver to become an informant but he refused.

After Weaver was sent the wrong court date and failed to show up, the feds launched a vendetta. Idaho lawyer David Nevin noted that U.S.:

“Marshals called in military aerial reconnaissance and had photos studied by the Defense Mapping Agency. They prowled the woods around Weaver’s cabin with night-vision equipment. They had psychological profiles performed and installed $130,000 worth of long-range solar-powered spy cameras. … They even knew the menstrual cycle of Weaver’s teenage daughter, and planned an arrest scenario around it.”

On August 21, 1992, six camouflaged U.S. Marshals carrying machine guns trespassed onto the Weavers’ property. Three marshals circled close to the Weaver cabin and killed one of their dogs. A firefight ensued and 14-year old Sammy Weaver was shot in the back and killed as he was leaving the scene. Kevin Harris, a family friend, responded by fatally shooting a federal marshal who had fired seven shots in the melee.

The next day, the FBI sent in its Hostage Rescue Team snipers with orders to shoot to kill any adult male outside the Weaver cabin. A federal appeals court ruling later noted that:

“FBI agents formulated rules of engagement that permitted their colleagues to hide in the bushes and gun down men who posed no immediate threat. Such wartime rules are patently unconstitutional for a police action.”

FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Randy Weaver in the back after he stepped out of his cabin, wounding him. Horiuchi then shot and killed Vicki Weaver standing in the cabin door holding their 10-month old baby. A confidential 1994 Justice Department task force report concluded:

“The absence of a (surrender demand) subjected the Government to charges that it was setting Weaver up for attack.”

 Weaver and Harris surrendered after an 11-day siege. At their 1993 trial, federal prosecutors asserted that Weaver long conspired to have an armed confrontation with the government. The feds bizarrely asserted that moving from Iowa to a spot near the Canadian border in 1985 was part of Weaver’s plot. After an Idaho jury largely exonerated the defendants, federal judge Edward Lodge slammed DOJ and FBI misconduct and fabrication of evidence in the case.

Regardless of the judge’s condemnation, FBI chief Louis Freeh in 1995 exonerated the FBI for its actions at Ruby Ridge. That year, after I slammed Freeh’s whitewash in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, Freeh denounced my “inflammatory and unfounded allegations.” Five months later, I snared a confidential 542-page Justice Department report on Ruby Ridge, excerpting its damning findings in a Wall Street Journal piece. The coverup unraveled and the feds paid the Weaver family $3.1 million to settle their wrongful-death lawsuit. A top FBI official was sent to prison for destroying key evidence. 

But the FBI sniper who killed Vicki Weaver never faced justice. When Boundary County, Idaho, sought to prosecute Horiuchi in 1998, the Clinton administration invoked the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (which blocks local and state governments from challenging federal power) to torpedo their lawsuit. Solicitor General Seth Waxman absolved the sniper because “federal law-enforcement officials are privileged to do what would otherwise be unlawful if done by a private citizen.”

While that claim may sway federal judges, it often fails to charm jurors. A Justice Department brief in the Bundy case revealed that prosecutors dreaded jury nullification — “not guilty” verdicts due to government abuses. That specter spurred prosecutors to withhold key evidence from both the court and the defense counsel, resulting in a mistrial and dismissal of charges.

Judge Navarro rightly declared that “a universal sense of justice has been violated” by federal misconduct in the Bundy trial. Americans’ trust in the FBI and Justice Department will not be restored until those agencies are compelled to obey the law and the Constitution. Until that happens, federal prosecutors should continue fearing verdicts from Americans who refuse to convict those whom the feds wrongfully vilify.

James Bovard is a USA Today columnist and the author of 10 books, including “Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty” (St. Martin’s Press, 1994).

 THE HILL