Leaked Video Chronicles BLM Aggression At Bundy Ranch

Includes body and dash cam footage…

A video surfaced on the internet today showing leaked body and dash cam footage from the Bundy Ranch Protest. The video assembles a concise timeline of how events unfolded, using previously unseen footage from agent’s body cameras and patrol vehicle dash-mounted cameras.

In the video, agents can be seen mocking protesters and joking about who or what they should shoot first. Instructions to keep long guns either slung or out of site came from the Sheriff’s office. Agents ignored that directive and raised their weapons at protesters.

The content of the video speaks for itself. This is only a fraction of what the government does not want anyone to see. They are culpable for the escalation of tension at Bundy Ranch. This video shows a portion of that truth. Continue reading “Leaked Video Chronicles BLM Aggression At Bundy Ranch”

Government Benefits From Most Last Minute Pretrial Orders

Defendants will be able to impeach SAC Dan Love…

A slew of rulings hit the docket ahead of Thursday’s opening arguments. Chief Judge Gloria Navarro ruled on motions from everything to exclude evidence, to compel information, to dismissal of the entire case. For the most part, last minute pretrial orders fell in favor of the Government. However, one key motion will benefit defendants .

SAC Daniel P. Love’s record impeachable…

Should the Government call The Bundy Ranch Tyrant to the stand, the ethics violation report will have to be provided in its unredacted form. Further, defense attorneys will be able to use the report to impeach Love’s character as a witness. It is yet unknown how this will impact the case that the US Attorneys intend to build.

Trial continues…

Defendants argued for a fatal violation of due process under Giglio / Brady. Navarro argued that the failure of the Government to provide the ethics violations report was not a true violation of Brady. As such, she denied the motion to dismiss.

Bridge Photos Admissible

Defendants sought to preclude any photographs on them lying prone on the NB I-15 Bridge. The Government contends that defendants assaulted federal agents. Defendants point to the statutory definition of assault which requires a victim to perceive an overt act in order for an assault to have occurred. Given the Government’s consistent, outlandish narrative of what happened, defendants sought to preclude these photos from evidence. Navarro ruled that while defendant’s understanding of the statutory definition of assault is accurate, she believes that the photos may be relevant to others charges… if the Government can establish relevancy.

Facebook Evidence Admissible

Todd Engel motion to exclude statements made on Facebook not directly related to the crimes outlined in the indictment. The Government motioned to preclude any mention of Government misconduct or militarization, but nevertheless opposed Engel’s similar motion. Navarro ruled that statements made through Social Media are admissible.

Last Minute Pretrial Orders

With opening arguments now underway and decisions rendered on major pretrial motions, defendants will have the task of showing the jury that there exists reasonable doubt that the Government’s narrative is accurate. Most decisions seem to lean in favor of the Government, but a couple of critical decisions have weighed favorably toward the defense. Namely, defendants will be able to call into question the character of SAC Dan Love. Additionally, they will be able to argue the misconduct of federal agents, as well as their excessive militarization. As a result, they posses the ability to capitalize on the weakest points of the Government’s case.

This case will rise and fall on how much truth the jury hears. Consequently, the few rulings that did favor defendants are crucial to that outcome.

Court Sidesteps Defendant’s Rights

… will fully protect and conceal identify of FBI undercover employee

Chief Judge Gloria Navarro ruled in favor of the Government in their motion to place a protective order on the identity of an FBI undercover employee (UCE). Defendants argued that this constitutes a violation of Brady / Giglio material rights (see explanation here). Navarro found that the identity protection for the UCE outweighs the rights of defendants. Effectively, the court sidesteps defendant’s rights.

Extraordinary measure?

Not only is the identity of the UCE under general protective order, it is also not available to defendants or their counsel. The UCE will testify under the pseudonym “Chris Johnson”. Defendants will not be able to ask any questions that might personally identify the UCE. Because of this, defense counsel cannot investigate the UCE to determine if he has:

  • prior criminal history
  • history of substance abuse
  • workplace ethics violations
  • social media or other communications that might reveal prejudice

OK for the Government… not any one else.

The Government relied heavily on social media and other means of communication. Memorandums in support of pretrial detention were rife with quotations and screenshots from FaceBook, YouTube, and Email accounts. The Government’s exhibit list shows over 1/3 of the evidence to have come from social media and e-mail. Consequently, a large portion of the case against the defendants will come from things said both publicly and privately.

The Government can pursue an effective life sentence and have a substantial amount of evidence come from the medium of the internet, but a key witness is apparently not subject to the same scrutiny. Defendants have a well-established right to look for impeachable evidence (evidence that might harm credibility) against Government witnesses. Had it not been for a leak by the Salt Lake Tribune, the misdeeds of the Bundy Ranch Tyrant would probably remain unknown. It is therefore imperative for the Government to supply defendants with the information they need to investigate witnesses.

Court Sidesteps Defendant’s Rights

When the Court moves to allow such a broad restriction on the identity of a witness, a scenario where the court sidesteps defendant’s rights plays out in full. Consequently, judiciary rulings that strip the rights of defendants to look for impeachable evidence on a Government witness injures, if not cripples, due process.

The reasons for order aren’t congruent with reality. First, online threats occurred in the immediate wake of the Bundy Ranch incident; the argument that the UCE is in danger is stale at best. Second, while the UCE’s other unrelated investigations are materially irrelevant, prior conduct during past investigations could yield impeachable evidence. Finally, the UCE’s date of birth is materially irrelevant to the case, but very much necessary to conduct an investigation.

One has to wonder: since it is OK for the Government to leave no stone unturned, why is the same privilege not extended to defendants. Has tyranny become law?

Attorneys Denied Access Before Trial

Prison refuses to grant group meeting…

Tier 3 defendants now reside at the Henderson Detention Center in Henderson, NV. Henderson is closer to the Courthouse which makes for a substantially reduced commute to and from trial. Henderson also has individual cells, (as opposed to Pahrump’s 50 bunk bed per pod layout); the men should get better sleep. There are issues though.

Motions Denied | Attorneys Denied Access Before TrialFirst, and foremost, the prison prevented a group meeting between defendants, attorneys, and private investigators. Two attorneys and four private investigators waited for hours until the prison informed them that only visits permitted would be one-on-one. Six defendants in Tier 3 each face (now) 15 criminal counts capable of amounting to more than 100 years in prison. Three of the four defendants from Idaho traveled to and from the Bundy Ranch Protest together. Their cases are inseparably relevant one to the other ; they need to have as pre-trial meeting.

Stewart’s attorney motioned for this accommodation. The Court, so far, fails to acknowledge the request. Defendants and attorneys will try again Sunday for a meeting. Continue reading “Attorneys Denied Access Before Trial”

The Impact of Stacked 924(c) "Crime of Violence" Charges – And Why They May Be Unconstitutionally Applied

Introduction

Defendants in the USA vs Bundy et al case face multiple charges of 18 USC 924(c), or “Crimes of Violence”. These charges are “enhancements” that get stacked upon a “predicate offense” (the primary offense). A 924(c) charge is unique primarily for two reasons:

  • It introduces stiff mandatory minimum sentences that cannot be subject to probation and
  • cannot be served concurrently with any other 924(c) conviction or concurrently with any other sentence for an applicable predicate offense.

The outcome is one where first-time offenders could potentially face absurdly excessive penalties, including life sentences, simply for being in possession of a weapon; exactly what we are seeing with regard to Idaho’s four political prisoners. Continue reading “The Impact of Stacked 924(c) "Crime of Violence" Charges – And Why They May Be Unconstitutionally Applied”

Tier 3 Defendants Submit Jury Selection Questions

On Friday, 16 December 2016 attorneys for the six “tier three” defendants submitted 46 potential questions to be used in the jury selection process for the upcoming trial, beginning Monday, 06 February 2017. Besides asking if potential jurors were affected by the (absurdly incorrect) Kihuen Flier, the question pool directly addresses issues related to the First and Second Amendments, as well as probing for the ability of a juror to think critically and not accept an opinion as fact. Here are the proposed questions: Continue reading “Tier 3 Defendants Submit Jury Selection Questions”

Eric Parker Discusses 09 December 2016 Status Hearing

Motions to Sever and Dismiss were argued before the judge…

Eric Parker discusses some of the motions argued before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen. Motions to Sever and Motions to Dismiss were argued by both the US Attorneys and Defendants Attorneys.

Almost all defendants had motions to sever, including a motion from the Government to sever the defendants into three tiers. Cliven Bundy had a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the Government has no jurisdiction over the Bunkerville Allotment. Ammon Bundy had a Motion to Dismiss based on the BLM’s destruction of evidence at the impoundment area. Finally, almost all defendants had motions to joinder to Motion to Dismiss 924(c) “crime of violence” charges. Continue reading “Eric Parker Discusses 09 December 2016 Status Hearing”

The Bundy Ranch Standoff – What Really Happened on April 12th, 2014

The Government’s Narrative Is False…

The Federal Government and Mainstream Media disseminated a misleading version of what happened on Saturday, April 12th, 2014; now commonly known as the Bundy Ranch Standoff. The purpose of this website is to educate the public with regard to

  • how events transpired,
  • in what order they transpired,
  • why the outcome of the trial is of paramount importance
  • and finally, introduce you to the individuals at the center of the entire ordeal

The sky-view summary of the content found in this webpage is as follows: four men (Eric Parker, Scott Drexler, Steve Stewart, and Todd Engel) traveled to Nevada beginning on Friday, April 11th 2014. They were going to protest heavy-handed, unlawful behavior by the Bureau of Land Management in conjunction with their establishment of “Free Speech Areas”. By the time they arrived early in the morning on the 12th, there was only a small window of time to sleep before Cliven Bundy’s regular morning rally. During this rally, the local county Sheriff declared that the roundup operation of Bundy’s cattle would cease. Protesters proceeded to an area close to the corral. Horseback riders would lead the cattle back to the ranch and protesters accompanied them under the I-15 overpass to wait for the release of the cattle. A crowd gathered on the I-15 bridge for no other purpose than to watch the return of Bundy’s cattle.

Shortly thereafter, militarized units of the BLM and U.S. Park Police needlessly, recklessly, and without provocation, began to escalate the otherwise peaceful situation in front of them. They announced intent to use gas disbursement to push back the protest. When the crowd peacefully, and with hands up, continued toward a temporary fence… these agents announced authorization to use lethal force. These militarized units, in conjunction with armed snipers, took a tactically ready posture displaying a willingness to exact unlawful force on a group of men, women, and children.

Reasonably fearing for imminent grave bodily injury or death for themselves and those in the wash under the bridge, lawfully armed men postured defensively for a brief period of time for the sole purpose of defending innocent, unarmed protesters. When the danger passed, these men left Nevada and returned to Idaho.

Today Parker, Drexler, Stewart, and Engel are all incarcerated, pending trial, and have been denied pre-trial release despite no relevant or substantial criminal history. Their right to a speedy trial has been denied. They will have been in prison for nearly a year by the time trial comes around. Their right to a public trial has been denied. Evidence is under protective order thereby shielding it from the media and public.

This is a watershed constitutional case. Convictions here will rubber stamp the ability of the Federal Government to lawlessly threaten unarmed civilians who cannot defend life and liberty without the threat of an avalanche of litigation that could yield an effective lifetime sentence.

These men leave behind families who need support while they focus on preparation for trial. Consider using the links on this page to donate directly to the families. Every one-time or recurring gift, no matter the size, advances the cause of natural, unalienable liberty.