Posted on 12/19/2017 7:21:32 AM PST by azkathy
Prosecutors have asked the judge in the Bundy case to limit defense theories, and not allow Cliven Bundy, his two sons and Ryan Payne to claim federal officers provoked their armed standoff over the roundup of Bundy cattle, or that they were entrapped or acted in self-defense in April 2014.
In a motion filed late Monday, Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre argues that the defendants are relying on "theories of defenses that are not legally cognizable.''
The motion to restrict the defense theories comes as the trial is stalled, and the judge is considering whether the government violated its obligation to turn over FBI reports and multiple agencies' threat assessments that could assist the defense. The judge is also considering what remedy she should impose for any violations.
U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro signaled last week that she was inclined to find that the prosecution team hadn't provided a host of documents or information to defendants in a timely manner and hinted that she could delay the trial, strike certain witness testimony or declare a mistrial. She told jurors and lawyers from both sides not to return to court until Wednesday.
The judge cited information that trickled out as the trial got underway about a surveillance camera on a hill above the Bundy Ranch, a law enforcement log that captured who viewed the live-feed camera, reports on FBI and National Park Service tactical officers' roles, an FBI sniper on surveillance outside the Bundy residence and multiple agency threat assessments conducted of the Bundys between 2011 and 2014.
Defendants have argued the information about surveillance of the Bundy Ranch in early April 2014 is directly relevant, as the indictment alleges that Payne and others were deceitful and falsely suggested that the Bundy Ranch was surrounded by federal snipers and isolated when Payne put out a call for militia to respond.
Prosecutors say there's no information that federal officers used excessive force, and the defendants shouldn't be allowed to contend they acted in self-defense when they organized hundreds of armed supporters to thwart a lawful federal court order to impound Bundy family cattle trespassing on federal public land.
Cliven Bundy , his sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy and Payne are charged with federal conspiracy, threat, assault and extortion charges.
"The Court needs to put a stop to these illegal theories and defenses in order for the government to receive a fair trial,'' Myhre wrote. "The government, too, is entitled to a fair trial.''
No matter how the defendants perceived the federal response, "the officers use of a camera or 'snipers,' or their proximity to and purpose for being near the Bundy home on April 5-7, do not constitute immediacy of harm days later on April 12,'' Myhre wrote.
"Nothing about the presence of either cameras or snipers provides an excuse, justification or defense to the charges in this case,'' Myhre wrote.
Prosecutors contend the "normal activities of a police officer'' - including patrolling, surveilling, making arrests - do not provide any basis for defendants to "resist by force.''
The prosecutor's motion also follows the sharing with defense lawyers a Nov. 27 whistleblower memo by a Bureau of Land Management agent who alleges his agency displayed recklessness and "heavy handedness'' in its 2014 cattle impound operation and withheld information that would embarrass the agency.
If the defense is not permitted to argue that they were somehow provoked by the militaristic stance of federal officers, the whistleblower's memo might not be considered relevant or allowed to be introduced at trial.
The government's motion also contends Ammon Bundy, accused of blocking a federal convoy during the cattle roundup, has changed his explanation as to why he did so in early April 2014. Ammon Bundy testified on the witness stand in federal court in Oregon last year that he believed the dump truck during the impound convoy held cattle killed by federal law enforcement. In the Nevada trial, Bundy has said that he stepped in front of the truck because it was hauling water pipes that weren't part of the federal cattle impound order.
Regardless, the defendants shouldn't be allowed at trial to contend why they did an unlawful act, or raise their beliefs that the Bundys have water rights on the public land.
"The defendants' intention to state that they believed they had a good reason for their conduct is not admissible evidence - it is jury nullification,'' Myhre's motion said.
His motion suggests the defendants submit their response by Jan. 1, which could delay any further testimony until next year, if the trial is allowed to proceed.
That statement is almost laughable except it's not funny. The Government has been anything but fair to the Bundy family.
That’s just asking for a mistrial on appeal....................
If it wasn’t for the special agent Wooten (Whistle Blower) the BLM and the Prosecutors would be able to continue to lie and railroad these political prisoners.
If you haven’t read the 16 page memo released by the Whistle blower, here is some of what he wrote, “Wooten accused Dan Love, the former special agent-in-charge of the cattle roundup for the Bureau of Land Management, of intentionally ignoring direction from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and his superiors “in order to command the most intrusive, oppressive, large scale and militaristic trespass cattle impound possible.’’ He described Love as immune from discipline, though Love eventually was fired from the bureau for misconduct in an unrelated case.
Wooten said he learned from other agency supervisors that Love had a “Kill Book’’ as a “trophy,’’ in which he essentially bragged about “getting three individuals in Utah to commit suicide,’’ following a joint FBI-BLM investigation into the alleged trafficking of stolen artifacts.
Wooten said his supervisor took photos in 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, and emailed out the photos, although no photos were allowed to be taken in that area.
Wooten called prosecutors in the Bundy case and told Myhre and Assistant U.S. Attorney Nadia Ahmed, as well as FBI special agent Joel Willis, of his fears that his supervisors weren’t sharing key witness statements with them.”
Fired?
He needs to be tarred and feathered and thrown in Lake Mead.
Bttt.
5.56mm
Perhaps, Groom Lake
Waco 2.0...................................
Laughable if it weren't so serious.
Pres Trump should have had these cases dismissed and the Hammond's out of jail.
Don't know what his stance is.
The prosecutor’s statement is probably a widespread perspective. Completely consistent with how Courts deal with “frivolous” arguments in tax cases. Also, how they deal with asset forfeiture. Are they interested in truth? Justice? What about a presumption of innocence? This is abuse of power by an institution with unlimited resources.
You are absolutely correct, “This is abuse of power by an institution with unlimited resources.”
I know for a fact that when the FBI arrested Mel Bundy in Southern Arizona In March 2016, he was severely beaten after being taken into custody and he didn’t resist arrest. I have a friend who has friends in the jail where Mel was shackled after he was beaten and left for days without food or bathroom breaks. I think they nearly beat him to death and some of the “good cops” ended up saving his life.
http://americanfreepress.net/relative-of-jailed-nevada-ranchers-speaks-out-about-blm-misconduct-upcoming-trial/
“When Mel was arrested, Briana said, he and some associates were stormed by 30 federal agents. She added that Mel had calmly identified himself to federal agents and indicated with his hands in the air that he harbored no aggression, but he was still hit with the butt of a gun. The feds clearly were looking for a fight, based on what Briana believes was nasty propaganda fed to the agents beforehand, in order to demonize area Nevadans.”
Can't have them presenting a defense in front of the jury or the federal railroad might jump the tracks.
Kind of shoots down the argument that self defense is an invalid argument.
Only in the prosecutions Amerika is a defendant not allowed to offer their own defense.
Dan “Love,” the POS, is the one who should be on trial.
Check out the info from DHSWhistler above.
This is outrageous for the prosecution to be allowed to decide what arguments the defense may make. They are free to make ANY argument they want. Then the jury can agree or not.
But it’s Stalinist to order the defense not to make certain arguments. More evidence of the growing police state.
Never understood how judges could bar defendants from bringing up the Constitution, and particularly the second amendment, in their defense cases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.