Prosecutors In Nevada Beg Trial Judge To Protect The BLM From Scrutiny During Bundy Trial

Prosecutors In Nevada Beg Trial Judge To Protect The BLM From Scrutiny During Bundy Trial

Prosecutors in Las Vegas filed a Motion In Limine late Tuesday in the case of The United States vs Cliven Bundy et al — in hopes that Nevada District Court Judge Gloria Navarro – will allow the Government to “cover-up” any wrong doing agents in the Bureau Of Land Management – who conducted the Bundy cattle impoundment in April of 2014 – may have committed.

This is just so wrong on so many levels and for so many reasons I could scream; not least of which is because it fundamentally undermines and betrays the very heart and soul of our nation's rule of law -- our organic law -- and our inalienable natural rights endowed by our Creator. Every American should be outraged no matter how they feel about the Bundys because this government position threatens to turn us all from citizens with rights to subjects who are subject to the whims and vagaries and, yes, evils, of man under color of law.

From the Feds' court filings:

Specifically, the government moves to preclude any references in argument or the questioning of witnesses regarding the following matters:
*References to the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the subsequent trial, United States v. Ammon Bundy et al., or the result in that trial.
*References to supposed mistreatment of cattle during the impoundment operation or agency, or officer, misconduct in this or other impoundment operations or investigations.
*Arguments or opinions that the federal government, its officers and agents or its agencies are improperly and excessively armed, use military tactics, act outside their authority or have engaged in the use of excessive force in other venues or at other times.
*Hearsay statements or opinions regarding the BLM, the impoundment operation, or the events of April 12, including opinions and statements of elected or appointed government officials (such as Nevada Governor Sandoval, U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch, Harry Reid, U.S. Congressman-Elect Ruben Kikuen, Nevada Assemblywoman Michelle Fiore).
*Legal arguments or opinions that the federal government does not, or should not, own public lands, that the federal government does not or should not own the Gold Butte range, or that Gold Butte Range has now been designated a National Monument by the President of the United States.
*Legal arguments or opinions that law enforcement officers within the Department of Interior are not constitutional, that "natural law" or other authority permits the use of force against law enforcement officers in defense of property or individual rights, or that the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada is illegitimate.

Natural Law is the law of the land, our Organic Law --

An organic law is a law, or system of laws, that form the foundation of a government, corporation or any other organization's body of rules.

-- And as established in our Declaration of Independence, the first founding document --

U.S. Code (2007) defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.

The Feds' purpose, of course, is to hide the very bad behavior on their part which in fact and in deed led the Bundys et al to take the actions they did, and for which they are now being prosecuted and/or persecuted, and to deny them their natural rights to provide a legal affirmative defense for themselves -- both on that fateful day in Nevada, and today in the courtroom. If we do not have natural rights, then we have no rights at all... only those privileges and entitlements that the government chooses to grant us. And whatever the government has the power to give, it has the power to take away.

And do note their double standards in demanding different protections for themselves than for the defendants:

Further the government which successfully used the idea that some of the defendants in the Oregon trial of the United States vs Ammon Bundy et al .. were also involved in the Bundy Ranch “armed” protest as a reason to deny them a pretrial release, now ask the Judge to not allow any reference to that case including the fact they were acquitted.

In other words, the Feds used the defendants' actions in Nevada against them in the trial in Oregon... but now the Feds don't want their own actions in Oregon used against them in the trial in Nevada.

I have no doubt that the Feds are also thinking of future repercussions in the civil lawsuit being brought by the widow of Lavoy Finicum:

Excessive force, improper police procedures led to LaVoy Finicum's death, lawsuit will claim

A federal civil rights lawsuit in the death of Robert "LaVoy" Finicum will allege that Oregon State Police and the FBI used excessive force in a confrontation that could have ended peacefully, the Finicum family's lawyer says.

The family also will contend that improper police procedures and lack of communication between state police and FBI agents at the scene contributed to Finicum's shooting death, said attorney Brian Claypool.

Any and all testimony in the Bundy et al criminal trials will be fair game for the Finicum civil trial. Since Finicum was present at both the Nevada incident and the Oregon incident, the Finicums can use the abuse of force by Feds at both locations/incidents to justify Lavoy's actions by his legitimate fear for his own life and limb -- and for his passengers -- from rogue law enforcement.

We will have to wait and see how the judge rules. In the meantime, I'm waiting for Trump to weigh in on these issues; the Bundy et al case in specific, and the bad behavior of the BLM and other federal agencies in general, as testified to Congress:

Threats, Intimidation and Bullying by Federal Land Managing Agencies

I am fervently hoping and praying that the Finicums will stand on principle and refuse to settle with the Feds, allowing full exposure in court of the Feds' longstanding and ongoing abusive tactics to the public.... but I'm not holding my breath.

originally posted by: Boadicea
In the meantime, I'm waiting for Trump to weigh in on these issues; the Bundy et al case in specific, and the bad behavior of the BLM and other federal agencies in general, as testified to Congress:

I doubt he'll pick a side publicly. This really is a matter for the courts.

Bundy was taking advantage of public land. He wasn't causing harm. Trump probably respects that in private. The courts may face Trump's private wrath and never know what hit 'em ... but probably not.

a reply to: Snarl

I doubt he'll pick a side publicly. This really is a matter for the courts.

You may be right about that -- at least regarding the Bundy et al trials. Regarding the BLM and other federal agencies in general, especially given the congressional hearings held, and as the "executor" of those agencies, I believe it is appropriate for Trump to address those issues publicly. And to take corrective action going forward. I am not especially optimistic that I would like his position though.

Bundy was taking advantage of public land. He wasn't causing harm. Trump probably respects that in private. The courts may face Trump's private wrath and never know what hit 'em ... but probably not.

I have wondered how these trials will play out in light of a Trump win, as opposed to under an Obama or a Clinton presidency.....

These 2 should be the most concerning:

the government moves to preclude any references in argument or the questioning of witnesses regarding the following matters:

impoundment operation or agency, or officer, misconduct

Arguments or opinions that the federal government, its officers and agents ...act outside their authority

those are 2 of the biggest reasons why a case should be dismissed and why cases are dismissed.

If misconduct and acting outside their authority didn`t happen then the prosecutor would have no need to request that the court turn a blind eye to those things. that`s an admission that misconduct did take place and the government agencies acted outside their authority.

Looks like the government is pre-admitting they may have erred.

a reply to: Boadicea

What the BLM and FBI are trying to do, is make it a State case. Further reading (sorry, I don't have the link) tells us that the government agencies were asked to be there by State organizations.

For instance in Nevada. Civil State courts asked the BLM to weigh in on the subject matter because the Bundy's wouldn't pay their fines, which in turn, turned into the stand off.

In Oregon, the State police requested the FBI's help to remove the protesters.

So what the FED is trying to do is make it separate incidents with separate State repercussions.

Don't get me wrong, this is Tyranny at it's finest.

I live in Vegas and followed the Bundy protest closely. I stayed up until 2am listening to the live feed of David Fry (the last hold out in Oregon) give in to the FBI with the fear of imminent death.

The government overreach and the bully tactics by the militarized "civil government agencies" is amazing.

I hope the Judge allows all cases and evidence to be used. Once a FED agency is involved, it should be a FED case. Not a State case.

originally posted by: Boadicea
I have wondered how these trials will play out in light of a Trump win, as opposed to under an Obama or a Clinton presidency.....

Incidents like the one we're talking about seem to occur most frequently under the (D)'s. The (R)'s seem to not want to involve themselves in neither the pursuit nor the outcomes. I'd guess that the (R)'s weigh the risk -vs- reward far differently.

What the BLM (and their contracted thugs) did under 0bama should have lead to criminal indictments. For a while there, I was wondering if there was going to be an uprising and major bloodshed. I was glad to see the militia's saner heads prevail.

a reply to: Tardacus

those are 2 of the biggest reasons why a case should be dismissed and why cases are dismissed.

Excellent point -- thank you for adding that.

If misconduct and acting outside their authority didn`t happen then the prosecutor would have no need to request that the court turn a blind eye to those things. that`s an admission that misconduct did take place and the government agencies acted outside their authority.

That deserves repeating on its own.

But it also begs the question of potential jury nullification orders by the judge (at the prosecution's request of course), and the ability of the jury to exercise their right judge the law as well as the case, by denying them knowledge of the very question of whether the Feds have the power to enforce these laws to begin with.

originally posted by: RiptKeys
a reply to: Boadicea

What the BLM and FBI are trying to do, is make it a State case. Further reading (sorry, I don't have the link) tells us that the government agencies were asked to be there by State organizations...So what the FED is trying to do is make it separate incidents with separate State repercussions.

Don't get me wrong, this is Tyranny at it's finest.

I understand what you're saying, but in the end it's all just legal technicalities and gamesmanship for plausible deniability of responsibility and liability!

The government overreach and the bully tactics by the militarized "civil government agencies" is amazing.

I hope the Judge allows all cases and evidence to be used.

Me too.

Once a FED agency is involved, it should be a FED case. Not a State case.

I agree. And we know if the Feds thought it was in their best interests to do so -- i.e., if there were any political gains to be had -- they'd be front and center to claim the glory. It's only because they don't want their involvement to see the bright light of day that they are trying to hide behind the states.

a reply to: Snarl

What the BLM (and their contracted thugs) did under 0bama should have lead to criminal indictments. For a while there, I was wondering if there was going to be an uprising and major bloodshed. I was glad to see the militia's saner heads prevail.

It was close, I agree.... but I'm not sure it's over yet. It may depend on exactly what comes out in the upcoming trials -- both criminal and civil. And what the new administration/Congress do about it.

a reply to: Boadicea

The FBI actively murders (pre meditated 1st degree) US citizens on behalf of the BLM so this double standard of one law for average Joe and one law for government is par-for-the-course - it's the same jungle justice that sees Clinton avoid jail, furiously fast gun running and arming ISIS.

The US government and her agencies are rotten to the core with corrupt career criminals.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Boadicea

The FBI actively murders (pre meditated 1st degree) US citizens on behalf of the BLM so this double standard of one law for average Joe and one law for government is par-for-the-course - it's the same jungle justice that sees Clinton avoid jail, furiously fast gun running and arming ISIS.

The US government and her agencies are rotten to the core with corrupt career criminals.

Truth ^^^.

If Trump really wants to drain the swamp, he needs to take out their enforcers as well.

a reply to: Boadicea

They're asking to let the legitimacy of blm stand firm.

They're asking for further permissions to shoot on site anyone travelling to the negotiation table, there is no negotiation table?

If the court grants these ethics violations, the court will not be a legitimate arm of government.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Boadicea



The US government and her agencies are rotten to the core with corrupt career criminals.

Repeat this to yourselves EVERY time ANY government agency speaks. Period. Seekers of public offices are wanna be gang members looking for money and power. ( Note how proud each division is of their gang colors? )

Sure, there are good LEOs, but they still " just follow orders ", something we seem to have abhored in the aftermath of WWll, but embrace today.

Two rules prevail, Follow orders without question, and never admit another gang member did wrong.

Crips, Bloods, Hells Angels, ABC Agencies, just gangs all.

VF.

PS. It is not a red-blue thing. Some skunks are black with a white stripe, and some are white with a black stripe. They both stink the same.

a reply to: loveguy

If the court grants these ethics violations, the court will not be a legitimate arm of government.

Indeed! At that point, why even pretend to have a trial? Give us (and the jury!) the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, or it's just a kangaroo court.

a reply to: Boadicea

i wonder if that little piss ant harry reid had anything to do with this. maybe he's trying to cover his a@@.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Boadicea

i wonder if that little piss ant harry reid had anything to do with this. maybe he's trying to cover his a@@.

Yes!!! I had exactly the same thought when I read this in the federal filings:

*Hearsay statements or opinions regarding the BLM, the impoundment operation, or the events of April 12, including opinions and statements of elected or appointed government officials (such as Nevada Governor Sandoval, U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch, Harry Reid, U.S. Congressman-Elect Ruben Kikuen, Nevada Assemblywoman Michelle Fiore).

It seemed rather odd that Harry Reid was slipped in with those elected officials who supported the Bundys. There's something they want to hide there.

Also Ruben Kihuen -- the proper spelling of his name -- who is now being sued by Cliven Bundy for defamation after the Congressman-Elect attacked and exploited the Bundys for his election campaign.

So it's not just the BLM that the prosecutors are trying to protect.