Charges Against Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy and His Sons Tossed from Federal Court

The federal government's long efforts to get Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and members of his family behind bars seems to have come to an end, as U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro today dismissed with prejudice all federal charges against Bundy, his sons Ammon and Ryan, and co-defendant Ryan Payne. (The "with prejudice" part means the government can't just try again on the same charges.)

Judge Navarro complained of "flagrant prosecutorial misconduct" in the case against the Bundys, including violating the Brady rule regarding withholding potentially exculpatory evidence from the Bundys legal team.

This decision comes after the same judge last month declared a mistrial in the case; the government was trying to get a new trial launched. As Fox News reported, "Navarro had suspended the trial earlier and warned of a mistrial when prosecutors released information after a discovery deadline. Overall, the government was late in handing over more than 3,300 pages of documents. Further, some defense requests for information that ultimately came to light had been ridiculed by prosecutors as 'fantastical' and a 'fishing expedition.'"

What Navarro objected to withholding most, as reported by Arizona Republic:

•Records about surveillance at the Bundy ranch;


•Maps about government surveillance;


•Records about the presence of government snipers;


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


•Law-enforcement assessments dating to 2012 that found the Bundys posed no threat;


•Internal affairs reports about misconduct by Bureau of Land Management agents.



"Failure to turn over such evidence violates due process," Navarro said last month. "A fair trial at this point is impossible."

Former Acting Nevada U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre, leading the prosecution, wrote all the above off as either inadvertent or insignificant error, not malfeasance, on the government's part.

http://reason.com/blog/2018/01/08/charges-against-nevada-rancher-cliven-bu


No telling how much money the Bundy's had to spend to defend themselves from an out of control government trying to railroad them.

Ahh...the Nevada welfare ranchers.

I'd like to see the briefs/arguments, because the listed Brady materials seem pretty clerical and picayune. My question is, how are they important?

Original Quill wrote:Ahh...the Nevada welfare ranchers.

I'd like to see the briefs/arguments, because the listed Brady materials seem pretty clerical and picayune.  My question is, how are they important?

Maybe the judge will email them to you. I'm sure a hotshot lawyer like you runs in the same circles as her.



In any event, at least justice has prevailed. Often times there is no justice once the Feds of decided your guilt.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Ahh...the Nevada welfare ranchers.

I'd like to see the briefs/arguments, because the listed Brady materials seem pretty clerical and picayune.  My question is, how are they important?

Maybe the judge will email them to you. I'm sure a hotshot lawyer like you runs in the same circles as her.

I doubt it. A Federal District Court judge doesn't email things because you are a "hotshot lawyer".

Maddog wrote:In any event, at least justice has prevailed. Often times there is no justice once the Feds of decided your guilt.  

As you very frequently point out, there is very little justice to be had in the US. Hence, my query.

Maybe we can find an article that connects up these seemingly random materials, to some part of the defense.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Maybe the judge will email them to you. I'm sure a hotshot lawyer like you runs in the same circles as her.

I doubt it.  A Federal District Court judge doesn't email things because you are a "hotshot lawyer".

Maddog wrote:In any event, at least justice has prevailed. Often times there is no justice once the Feds of decided your guilt.  

As you very frequently point out, there is very little justice to be had in the US.  Hence, my query.

Maybe we can find an article that connects up these seemingly random materials, to some part of the defense.

James Bovard, a lifelong chronicler of federal police power abuse, wrote in USA Today last week about many of the government's seemingly malicious missteps in the prosecution, including that:


The feds charged the Bundys with conspiracy in large part because the ranchers summoned militia to defend them after they claimed that FBI snipers had surrounded their ranch. Justice Department lawyers scoffed at this claim in prior trials involving the standoff but newly-released documents confirm that snipers were in place prior to the Bundy's call for help.

The feds also belatedly turned over multiple threat assessments which revealed that the Bundys were not violent or dangerous, including an FBI analysis that concluded that BLM was "trying to provoke a conflict" with the Bundys. As an analysis in the left-leaning Intercept observed, federal missteps in this case "fueled longstanding perceptions among the right-wing groups and militias that the federal government is an underhanded institution that will stop at nothing to crush the little guy and cover up its own misdeeds."

This will be the same Federal Court that screws over the Black Hill native Americans every time that a mining survey finds gold, uranium or oil on native reservations ???

One rule for rich white ranchers, and another for native Americans still suffering from broken treaties..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

This will be the same Federal Court that screws over the Black Hill native Americans every time that a mining survey finds gold, uranium or oil on native reservations  ???

One rule for rich white ranchers, and another for native Americans still suffering from broken treaties..

Yup, that's America.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I doubt it.  A Federal District Court judge doesn't email things because you are a "hotshot lawyer".



As you very frequently point out, there is very little justice to be had in the US.  Hence, my query.

Maybe we can find an article that connects up these seemingly random materials, to some part of the defense.

James Bovard, a lifelong chronicler of federal police power abuse, wrote in USA Today last week about many of the government's seemingly malicious missteps in the prosecution, including that:


The feds charged the Bundys with conspiracy in large part because the ranchers summoned militia to defend them after they claimed that FBI snipers had surrounded their ranch. Justice Department lawyers scoffed at this claim in prior trials involving the standoff but newly-released documents confirm that snipers were in place prior to the Bundy's call for help.

The feds also belatedly turned over multiple threat assessments which revealed that the Bundys were not violent or dangerous, including an FBI analysis that concluded that BLM was "trying to provoke a conflict" with the Bundys. As an analysis in the left-leaning Intercept observed, federal missteps in this case "fueled longstanding perceptions among the right-wing groups and militias that the federal government is an underhanded institution that will stop at nothing to crush the little guy and cover up its own misdeeds."

If the Bundys knew of these materials and took action on them, then the information wasn't withheld.

I call the Bundys 'welfare cowboys' because they were using Federal grazing land to feed their herds, claiming no obligation to pay for it.  It's not free for the taking.  Maybe I could borrow a Federal automobile so I don't have to pay for one myself.

One of the reasons so many American Beef and Sheep farmers are such incompetent and useless scumbag thieves and corrupt bastards...

Other reasons include heavy government subsidies, heavy tariff protection against foreign imports, and cheap water..

One of the reasons that Aussie, Kiwi and Argentinian graziers are more efficient, is that they don't have it anywhere near as easy as those lazy-arsed thieving "welfare" farmers over there --  in many other countries, most farmers have to work for their money  !

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:


James Bovard, a lifelong chronicler of federal police power abuse, wrote in USA Today last week about many of the government's seemingly malicious missteps in the prosecution, including that:


The feds charged the Bundys with conspiracy in large part because the ranchers summoned militia to defend them after they claimed that FBI snipers had surrounded their ranch. Justice Department lawyers scoffed at this claim in prior trials involving the standoff but newly-released documents confirm that snipers were in place prior to the Bundy's call for help.

The feds also belatedly turned over multiple threat assessments which revealed that the Bundys were not violent or dangerous, including an FBI analysis that concluded that BLM was "trying to provoke a conflict" with the Bundys. As an analysis in the left-leaning Intercept observed, federal missteps in this case "fueled longstanding perceptions among the right-wing groups and militias that the federal government is an underhanded institution that will stop at nothing to crush the little guy and cover up its own misdeeds."

If the Bundys knew of these materials and took action on them, then the information wasn't withheld.

I call the Bundys 'welfare cowboys' because they were using Federal grazing land to feed their herds, claiming no obligation to pay for it.  It's not free for the taking.  Maybe I could borrow a Federal automobile so I don't have to pay for one myself.

The FBI withheld the evidence and then lied about it.  

I thought you were a lawyer?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If the Bundys knew of these materials and took action on them, then the information wasn't withheld.

I call the Bundys 'welfare cowboys' because they were using Federal grazing land to feed their herds, claiming no obligation to pay for it.  It's not free for the taking.  Maybe I could borrow a Federal automobile so I don't have to pay for one myself.

The FBI withheld the evidence and then lied about it.  

I thought you were a lawyer?

You haven't connected the evidence to any prejudice.  In fact, I don't think Brady covers evidence that the accused already knew about. If the claim of the Bundys was that they knew about the snipers, and acted accordingly, how have they been prejudiced?

They were free to argue the claim, weren't they?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The FBI withheld the evidence and then lied about it.  

I thought you were a lawyer?

You haven't connected the evidence to any prejudice.  In fact, I don't think Brady covers evidence that the accused already knew about.  If the claim of the Bundys was that they knew about the snipers, and acted accordingly, how have they been prejudiced?

They were free to argue the claim, weren't they?

The federal judge sees it different than you. She says the FBI withheld vital evidence.

Do you ever read anything or is it comprehension that trips you up?

Justice Department lawyers scoffed at this claim in prior trials involving the standoff but newly-released documents confirm that snipers were in place prior to the Bundy's call for help.


They lied during trials. Is the FBI allowed to lie during a trial?

Do you want the FBI lying at trials?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You haven't connected the evidence to any prejudice.  In fact, I don't think Brady covers evidence that the accused already knew about.  If the claim of the Bundys was that they knew about the snipers, and acted accordingly, how have they been prejudiced?

They were free to argue the claim, weren't they?

The federal judge sees it different than you.  She says the FBI withheld vital evidence.  

Do you ever read anything or is it comprehension that trips you up?

You are a loser if you attack the messenger and cannot address the topic.

A District Judge is a political appointee. Based upon who appointed her, she looks at whose ox she is goring. The rest is predictable.

Have you ever taken a basic civics class? You display an amazing ignorance of American institutions. Is this a Texas thing?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The federal judge sees it different than you.  She says the FBI withheld vital evidence.  

Do you ever read anything or is it comprehension that trips you up?

You are a loser if you attack the messenger and cannot address the topic.

A District Judge is a political appointee.  Based upon who appointed her, she looks at whose ox she is goring.  The rest is predictable.

Have you ever taken a basic civics class?  You display an amazing ignorance of American institutions.  Is this a Texas thing?

Do you support the FBI lying during a trial?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are a loser if you attack the messenger and cannot address the topic.

A District Judge is a political appointee.  Based upon who appointed her, she looks at whose ox she is goring.  The rest is predictable.

Have you ever taken a basic civics class?  You display an amazing ignorance of American institutions.  Is this a Texas thing?

Do you support the FBI lying during a trial?

If it was relevant and prejudicial, I wouldn't hesitate to object.  I'm basically an civil libertarian.

But I just have a hard time getting behind the Bundy's, who were just trying to cheat the Federal government out of a revenue source.  Things aren't free...and if you cheat, you are just another crook.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Do you support the FBI lying during a trial?

If it was relevant and prejudicial, I wouldn't hesitate to object.  I'm basically an civil libertarian.

But I just have a hard time getting behind the Bundy's, who were just trying to cheat the Federal government out of a revenue source.  Things aren't free...and if you cheat, you are just another crook.

The Bundy's cheated, and the Feds cheated right back.

Who do you hold to the higher standard?

I'm not as smart as you Quill. What exactly does this mean?

"flagrant prosecutorial misconduct"

Maddog wrote:I'm not as smart as you Quill. What exactly does this mean?

"flagrant prosecutorial misconduct"

Nor is this about you...stay on topic.

Brady v. Maryland held that exculpatory evidence must be disclosed to the defendant. I don't think it meant that things that are common knowledge must disclosed. Otherwise, there would be a flood of motions that the Feds didn't disclolse the sun would rise that morning.

The Bundys knew the Federal snipers were up in the hills, as they even took action on it. Brady isn't about foundation. They were free to have someone take the stand and say, ...we know they were there. What Brady anticipates is the circumstance where unknown information was withheld.

A subsequent case has held: "Exculpatory evidence is 'material' if "there is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed.' Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 296 (1999). The Bundys already knew. How would the outcome of this case have been any different, when the defendants already knew and were free to present evidence of the facts?

Frankly, I think the District Judge erred.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:I'm not as smart as you Quill. What exactly does this mean?

"flagrant prosecutorial misconduct"

Nor is this about you...stay on topic.

Brady v. Maryland held that exculpatory evidence must be disclosed to the defendant.  I don't think it meant that things that are common knowledge must disclosed.  Otherwise, there would be a flood of motions that the Feds didn't disclolse the sun would rise that morning.

The Bundys knew the Federal snipers were up in the hills, as they even took action on it.  Brady isn't about foundation.  They were free to have someone take the stand and say, ...we know they were there.  What Brady anticipates is the circumstance where unknown information was withheld.

A subsequent case has held: "Exculpatory evidence is 'material' if "there is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed.'  Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 296 (1999).  The Bundys already knew.  How would the outcome of this case have been any different, when the defendants already knew and were free to present evidence of the facts?

Frankly, I think the District Judge erred.

The Bundy's knew there were snipers up there, but jurors heard from the Justice Department that there were no snipers. The Bundy's were being charged in part, for their reaction to the snipers, which were not there according to the Feds.

Frankly, the district court had no choice in light of the government prosecutors being lying pieces of shit.

Why are you defending lying pieces of shit?

Maddog wrote:The Bundy's knew there were snipers up there, but jurors heard from the Justice Department that there were no snipers. The Bundy's were being charged in part, for their reaction to the snipers, which were not there according to the Feds.

Exactly my point. Why didn't the Bundys tell the jurors that the sinpers were up there? Everyone knew it.

It sounds to me like malpractice on the part of the Bundy's lawyers.

There was no prejudice, and I think the Court erred.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:The Bundy's knew there were snipers up there, but jurors heard from the Justice Department that there were no snipers. The Bundy's were being charged in part, for their reaction to the snipers, which were not there according to the Feds.

Exactly my point.  Why didn't the Bundys tell the jurors that the sinpers were up there?  Everyone knew it.

It sounds to me like malpractice on the part of the Bundy's lawyers.

There was no prejudice, and I think the Court erred.

They did say they were up there. The Fed's said they weren't. Do you support the Fed's lying?

How about cops? Can they lie on the stand too?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Exactly my point.  Why didn't the Bundys tell the jurors that the sinpers were up there?  Everyone knew it.

It sounds to me like malpractice on the part of the Bundy's lawyers.

There was no prejudice, and I think the Court erred.

They did say they were up there.  The Fed's said they weren't.  Do you support the Fed's lying?  

How about cops? Can they lie on the stand too?  

Sounds like a question of fact for a jury to decide.  It happens all the time.

No big deal.  That's what trials are all about.  Each side presents its case, the jury decides the facts, the judge decides questions of law.  This was a question of fact.

The judge erred in entering onto a question of fact. That is solely a jury question.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

They did say they were up there.  The Fed's said they weren't.  Do you support the Fed's lying?  

How about cops? Can they lie on the stand too?  

Sounds like a question of fact for a jury to decide.  It happens all the time.

No big deal.  That's what trials are all about.  Each side presents its case, the jury decides the facts, the judge decides questions of law.  This was a question of fact.

It's not up to the jury to decide if the prosecution is lying. The prosecution can't do that.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Sounds like a question of fact for a jury to decide.  It happens all the time.

No big deal.  That's what trials are all about.  Each side presents its case, the jury decides the facts, the judge decides questions of law.  This was a question of fact.

It's not up to the jury to decide if the prosecution is lying.  The prosecution can't do that.  

No harm, no foul. Even if the government was lying, nothing precluded the defense from presenting it's own evidence. That's what a trial is all about...who do you believe? The judge was intruding onto the jury's province.

It's as important for the judge to stay out of the jury's business, as it is to stick it's nose into matters. The judge determines matters of law; the jury is the sole arbiter of the facts. The judge committed error, and she knows it.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's not up to the jury to decide if the prosecution is lying.  The prosecution can't do that.  

No harm, no foul.  Even if the government was lying, nothing precluded the defense from presenting it's own evidence.  That's what a trial is all about...who do you believe?  The judge was intruding onto the jury's province.

It's as important for the judge to stay out of the jury's business, as it is to stick it's nose into matters.  The judge determines matters of law; the jury is the sole arbiter of the facts.  The judge committed error, and she knows it.

The government is not allowed to lie about evidence.

"Failure to turn over such evidence violates due process," Navarro said last month. "A fair trial at this point is impossible."



Hey Quinn, are you opposed to due process too?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No harm, no foul.  Even if the government was lying, nothing precluded the defense from presenting it's own evidence.  That's what a trial is all about...who do you believe?  The judge was intruding onto the jury's province.

It's as important for the judge to stay out of the jury's business, as it is to stick it's nose into matters.  The judge determines matters of law; the jury is the sole arbiter of the facts.  The judge committed error, and she knows it.

The government is not allowed to lie about evidence.  

Yes, but there's also the 'harmless error' doctrine. It's the legal form of: no harm,
no foul. If the defendant knew the truth of the matter, there was no harm.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The government is not allowed to lie about evidence.  

Yes, but there's also the 'harmless error' doctrine.  It's the legal form of: no harm,
no foul.  If the defendant knew the truth of the matter, there was no harm.

It's about false testimony. The government giving false testimony is hardly harmless. The jury is making decisions on facts that are actually lies. It's like the cops saying he had a gun, when he didn't.


Are you really this obtuse?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, but there's also the 'harmless error' doctrine.  It's the legal form of: no harm,
no foul.  If the defendant knew the truth of the matter, there was no harm.

It's about false testimony. The government giving false testimony is hardly harmless. The jury is making decisions on facts that are actually lies. It's like the cops saying he had a gun, when he didn't.


Are you really this obtuse?

It's not about me, Maddog.

The 'false testimony' led to no harm. The jury heard that the defendants were aware of the snipers. No harm, no foul. You're making a mountain out of a mole hell.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's about false testimony. The government giving false testimony is hardly harmless. The jury is making decisions on facts that are actually lies. It's like the cops saying he had a gun, when he didn't.


Are you really this obtuse?

It's not about me, Maddog.

The 'false testimony' led to no harm.  The jury heard that the defendants were aware of the snipers.  No harm, no foul.  You're making a mountain out of a mole hell.

Your comments are about you. You can't seem to comprehend that the government can't lie about material facts.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not about me, Maddog.

The 'false testimony' led to no harm.  The jury heard that the defendants were aware of the snipers.  No harm, no foul.  You're making a mountain out of a mole hell.

Your comments are about you.  You can't seem to comprehend that the government can't lie about material facts.  

So, you are conceding the point about the Bundy case: the government didn't lie, but remained silent. The judge ruled on a Brady issue...the issue of a Brady argument is non-disclosure. End of...

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Your comments are about you.  You can't seem to comprehend that the government can't lie about material facts.  

So, you are conceding the point about the Bundy case: the government didn't lie, but remained silent.  The judge ruled on a Brady issue...the issue of a Brady argument is non-disclosure.  End of...

The government claimed multiple things that were untrue.

Perhaps you should go reread the OP. You missed most of it the first time.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So, you are conceding the point about the Bundy case: the government didn't lie, but remained silent.  The judge ruled on a Brady issue...the issue of a Brady argument is non-disclosure.  End of...

The government claimed multiple things that were untrue.  

Perhaps you should go reread the OP.  You missed most of it the first time.  

The Court reversed on the basis of Brady v. Maryland. That's a violation of disclosure rules, not lying.

I can even intuit why the Court didn't base her ruling on lying: because the defendant knew the facts already! If the deception was unsuccessful--if the defendant already knew--it's no harm, no foul. Being silent may be duplicitous, but it's not an affirmative lie.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The government claimed multiple things that were untrue.  

Perhaps you should go reread the OP.  You missed most of it the first time.  

The Court reversed on the basis of Brady v. Maryland.  That's a violation of disclosure rules, not lying.

I can even intuit why the Court didn't base her ruling on lying: because the defendant knew the facts already!  If the deception was unsuccessful--if the defendant already knew--it's no harm, no foul.  Being silent may be duplicitous, but it's not an affirmative lie.

The jury was counting on evidence from the Justice Department to be accurate. They lied, and you're defending that lie.

Why are you defending the government lying. Is that something you approve of?

What Navarro objected to withholding most, as reported by Arizona Republic:

•Records about surveillance at the Bundy ranch;


•Maps about government surveillance;


•Records about the presence of government snipers;


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


•Law-enforcement assessments dating to 2012 that found the Bundys posed no threat;


•Internal affairs reports about misconduct by Bureau of Land Management agents.



"Failure to turn over such evidence violates due process," Navarro said last month. "A fair trial at this point is impossible."

Maddog wrote:The jury was counting on evidence from the Justice Department to be accurate. They lied, and you're defending that lie.

Why are you defending the government lying. Is that something you approve of?

Indeed, the evidence the government did present was in no way falsified.  The problem is they omitted some of it.

Maddog wrote:What Navarro objected to withholding most, as reported by Arizona Republic:

•Records about surveillance at the Bundy ranch;


•Maps about government surveillance;


•Records about the presence of government snipers;


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


•Law-enforcement assessments dating to 2012 that found the Bundys posed no threat;


•Internal affairs reports about misconduct by Bureau of Land Management agents.

"Failure to turn over such evidence violates due process," Navarro said last month. "A fair trial at this point is impossible."

Right.  You've just listed the documents that I've said were subject to the non-disclosure.  Non-disclosure also violates due process of law.  That is only to say it is a 5th-Amendment violation.

The basis of the dismissal was these documents, not any falsehood.  The reason why the Court avoided the 'falsehood' argument you proffer, is that if it were couched as a falsehood the government could argue that the defendants knew everything in those documents anyway...ergo, no harm, no foul.  Thus the Court went to the non-disclosure argument.

You're beginning to repeat yourself and act as if you are stamping your foot.  Repetitive arguments are a waste of time.  I'll check back in when, and if you have anything new to present.

What Navarro objected to withholding most, as reported by Arizona Republic:

•Records about surveillance at the Bundy ranch;


•Maps about government surveillance;


•Records about the presence of government snipers;


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


•Law-enforcement assessments dating to 2012 that found the Bundys posed no threat;


•Internal affairs reports about misconduct by Bureau of Land Management agents.

"Failure to turn over such evidence violates due process," Navarro said last month. "A fair trial at this point is impossible."

Maddog wrote:What Navarro objected to withholding most, as reported by Arizona Republic:

•Records about surveillance at the Bundy ranch;


•Maps about government surveillance;


•Records about the presence of government snipers;


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


•Law-enforcement assessments dating to 2012 that found the Bundys posed no threat;


•Internal affairs reports about misconduct by Bureau of Land Management agents.

"Failure to turn over such evidence violates due process," Navarro said last month. "A fair trial at this point is impossible."

No answer. I thought not.