In a motion that was filed on Thursday by Chris T. Rasmussen, attorney for reporter Pete Santilli, there was an appeal to Judge Gloria Navarro to enforce the court’s order not to use anything from the Oregon case involving Santilli, in which all the charges against him were dropped.
“Fourteen days before trial, the Government has decided to ignore this Court’s Order (Dk: 1613),” wrote Rasmussen.
“Santilli filed a motion to compel disclosure of discovery from the case in Oregon,” Rasmussen continued. “The government arrogantly announced in their response, ‘The Oregon case is not this case.’”
Rasmussen pointed to the court’s order which states, “Judge Navarro found that “the Oregon case is not relevant… especially given that the activity related to the Malheur occupation began well after the events at issue in this case.’”
He then called out the fact that Myhre and company are attempting to ignore the order and “bring in Oregon activity.”
“Although the statements they seek to introduce are not of Santilli’s, their goal is to poison the entire room with unflattering statement from co-defendants,” wrote Rasmussen.
On behalf of Santilli, Rasmussen asks the court to enforce its ruling concerning bringing in information from the Oregon case “or in the alternative allow Santilli to present to the court the fact that the Department of Justice reviewed Santilli’s speech and declared it constitutional resulting in a dismissal of all charges.”
Indeed, his speech was constitutional and right.
Still, we have the prosecution attempting to silence the defendants in the case from defending themselves with information that substantiates why they did what they did and calls into question not only the lawfulness of how government obtains land, but also the heavy-handed and unconstitutional means of the BLM under the direction of now-fired Special-Agent-In-Charge Daniel P. Love.
According to the documents that were filed with the court, the prosecution wants to “preclude the defendants from:”
- addressing in voir dire, opening statement, or closing argument and/or
- adducing or eliciting during direct or cross-examination, an information or argument that: portrays or implies that the law enforcement officers acted unlawfully or unethically during impoundment operations; or that the actions of the defendants were justified by the US Constitution or other law.
Mr. Myhre and company sought to “preclude evidence, information, commentary, beliefs, explanations, or opinions about the following:”
- Self-Defense, defense of others, or defense of property, justification, necessity arguments which have no foundation in the law;
- Third-party/ lay person testimony or opinion about the level of force displayed or used by law enforcement officers during impoundment operations, including operations on April 6, 9 and 12, 2014;
- Opinions/public statements of Governor Brian Sandoval of April 8, 2014, and/or opinions registered by other political office holders or opinion leaders about BLM impoundment operations.
- Allegations of workplace misconduct by the SAC of the impoundment, or regarding those who worked for, or with, him.
- Allegations that officers connected with the impoundment acted unethically or improperly by the way they were dressed or equipped during the impoundment, or that they improperly shredded documents during or after impoundment operations.
- References to supposed mistreatment of cattle during the impoundment operations;
- Legal arguments, beliefs, explanations, or opinions that the federal government does not own the land or have legal authority or jurisdiction over public lands where impoundment operations were conducted, or that the land was or is otherwise owned by the State of Nevada;
- Legal arguments, beliefs, explanations, or opinions regarding infringement on First and Second Amendment rights, including any effort to confuse the jury that there is some form of “journalist” or “protest” immunity for the crimes charged;
- References to punishment the defendants may face if convicted of the offenses;
- References to the Oregon trial of United States v. Ammon Bundy, Ryan Payne, and Ryan Bundy, or the results in that trial;
- References to the outcomes in the previous two trials in this case; and
- Legal arguments, explanations, or opinions advancing defendants’ views of the US Constitution, including claims that law enforcement officers within the Department of Interior have no constitutional authority, 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 US District Court for the District of Nevada has no jurisdiction or authority under the Constitution to order the removal of cattle from public lands.
Yet, they want to talk about social media posts that took place more than two years after Bundy Ranch. They want to talk about actions of the defendants that occurred months after Bundy Ranch, as though they are relevant.
However, when it comes to the Oregon case, the reason the prosecution doesn’t want that coming up except for its own selected portions is exactly what Rasmussen sees as “poisoning the room.”
If they were to allow all the evidence of Oregon into this case, it would be an absolute slam dunk for the defendants because many of the same charges leveled at them were either dismissed or they were acquitted of them all.
We’ll see how things turn out very soon.
If you are able and would like to help the Bundy Ranch political prisoners win their case against the tyranny of the central government or would like to write them, please click here. If you would like to support a house in Nevada that is caring for wives and children of these men as they attend the trials, please click here.