Judge Dismisses Bundy Case With Prejudice After Finding of Extensive Unethical Conduct By Federal Prosecutors

600px-US-DeptOfJustice-Seal.svg DOJAnother major case has been thrown out due to prosecutorial abuse by the United States Department of Justice.  We have previously discussed cases where federal prosecutors have withheld evidence and filed false or misleading statements to the court.  Now,  U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro has issued a dismissal with prejudice against the Justice Department in the case against Cliven Bundy and his sons due to what Navarro describes as flagrant and knowing violations of professional ethics and federal law by the Justice Department.  In past cases, the Justice Department has shown little commitment to discipline, let alone terminate, anyone for the violations (or the waste of millions of dollars).  In this case, however, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has called for a review of the case.

Once again, the Justice Department has been accused of  violating the Brady Rule, the foundational evidentiary rule that requires prosecutors to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense.  The Justice Department has been a serial violator of Brady for decades.
While many judges seem to struggle to avoid findings of misconduct against federal prosecutors, Navarro remained firm in upholding the basic tenets of judicial independence and integrity. By dismissing with prejudice, she barred the Justice Department from trying the defendants again in light of the misconduct of the federal prosecutors.
The federal prosecutors have not been particularly successful in their past efforts.  Two Las Vegas juries acquitted or deadlocked on felony charges against Ammon Bundy, 42, and Ryan Bundy, 44. They faced  beat federal felony charges in a case stemming from a 41-day standoff at an Oregon wildlife preserve two years ago.
The latest case was troubling in its effort to use the exercise of free speech as the basis for criminal charges — claiming that Bundy and his sons engaged in inflammatory rhetoric in opposing the government’s effort to stop the grazing cattle outside Bunkerville, Nev., in 2014. The four defendants were charged with threatening a federal officer, carrying and using a firearm and engaging in conspiracy/

Assistant U.S. Atty. Steven Myhre maintained that the federal team had simply “culled the database with witness protection in mind.”  Navarro did not buy it for good reason.


The judge earlier detailed six different types of evidence withheld by the government. This evidence include the presence of an FBI camera on a hill overlooking the Bundy ranch.  The DOJ mocked allegations by the defendants that there were devices planted near the ranch while knowingly withholding evidence of at least one such device.  There were also maps and threat assessments that seemed to support the public statements by the Bundys that they were being surrounded.  Some of these documents were linked to lead bureau special agent Dan Love, who was later fired by the agency. Other evidence showed that an agent did appear near the ranch in tactical gear and carrying a heavy weapon before the call went out for support.

The evidence would have led credence to the call by the Bundys for help in dealing with threats from the government.

Some of the most serious allegations, in my view, dealt with the withholding of threat assessments that concluded that the Bundy did not represent a likely threat of violence.  Such assessments were developed by the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit, the Southern Nevada Counter Terrorism unit, the FBI Nevada Joint Terrorism Task Force, the Gold Buttle Cattle Impound Risk Assessment and the Bureau of Land Management.

The result has been the expenditure of millions on prosecutions based in part on some troubling theories and advanced through unethical means. Yet, there is not even a suggestion of discipline from Main Justice, which is why this pattern will continue in federal courts.  The Justice Department has never shown a particularly credible record of policing its own ranks.  The Brady violations reflect the absence of any real deterrent due to this culture of tolerance and willful blindness at Main Justice.  Hopefully, the review ordered by Sessions will result in real changes and actions by Main Justice to deal with this persistent problem. However, in seeking changes, Sessions will face a bureaucracy with a proven record of resistance to reform.

58 thoughts on “Judge Dismisses Bundy Case With Prejudice After Finding of Extensive Unethical Conduct By Federal Prosecutors”

  1. When will it trickle down to the District Courts & prosecutors in the counties. We need more U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro type judges. Especially in Montague County, Tx.

    1. Oh heck yes. We need Opry Winnebago too, who, it is said, will “eat Trump alive”. She been eatin’ somethin’ alive, dats for sho. And it is absolutely the fact that women have no more important role than a career in any field. Why who needs babies? The population is being imported. The American birthrate is in a “death spiral” and, in 100 years, there won’t be an American left in America. The outcome of feminaziism is extinction. Yep. “Girls Just Want To Have Fun.” They’ve got nothing better to do, right?

  2. “Judge Dismisses Bundy Case With Prejudice After Finding of Extensive Unethical Conduct By Federal Prosecutors”

    The ethical conduct of justice must now be turned on the FBI and DOJ with extreme prejudice.

    The FBI of the DOJ is infected with corruption in its abetting the “deep state” coup d’etat in America including strategic “leaks.”

    To wit,

    The Hill

    “In one exchange, FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and bureau lawyer Lisa Page engaged in a series of texts shortly before Election Day 2016 suggesting they knew in advance about an article in The Wall Street Journal and would need to feign stumbling onto the story so it could be shared with colleagues.

    “Article is out, but hidden behind paywall so can’t read it,” Page texted Strzok on Oct. 24, 2016.

    “Wsj? Boy that was fast,” Strzok texted back, using the initials of the famed financial newspaper. “Should I ‘find’ it and tell the team?”

    Subsequent to:

    On a potential Trump 2016 election victory:

    “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok texted on Aug. 15, 2016. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

    – Peter Strzok to his paramour Lisa Page in the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

      1. Why haven’t Strozk, Page, Ohr, Comey, the “Fraudulent Prosecutor”, Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller, Abedin, Hillary, Obama et al. been perp-walked?

        Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller must be the most egregious. He knows there is no such thing as “Russian Collusion.” Mueller is abusing the power of government against the People. He’s like Mike Nifong of Duke lacrosse fame who conspired to falsely convict under the color of authority.

  3. “The DOJ mocked allegations by the defendants that there were devices planted near the ranch while knowingly withholding evidence of at least one such device.” This has been the trend in a weaponized, politicized government agency alphabet soup. The IRS did not target conservative organizations. The NSA did not gather information without a warrant. Comey did not leak classified information.

    Until it is proven that they did.

    Finally, a single step towards accountability. We cannot have two tracks of law, one for well-connected government officials, and one for the peasantry.

    1. We cannot have two tracks of law, one for well-connected government officials, and one for the peasantry.

      Yes we can; and we do. I know, the cannot part would be extended to say if we are to have equal justice under the rule of law. I couldn’t help myself, please forgive me. 🙂

      1. There are a lot of financially poor people that live rich and fulfilling lives. They would argue they have the upper hand in every aspect of life that is important to them, here in the good old US of A.

    2. Hold a deep state (unelected) bureaucrat responsible for felonies against innocent Americans? Hahahaha……In 2013 March, in open hearing, Congress asked then-DNI Director James Clapper whether the NSA “collects any type of data at all” on millions of Americans, to which Clapper, under oath, replied, “No, sir” and “not wittingly,” both direct and unequivocal felony perjury, for which he should now be doing about ten years hard time.

      Instead, he enjoys his handsome goobermint pension, plus extra side money for appearing on TV promoting more deep state lies, plus occasionally more public pumping for more deep state lies.

      But even that is nothing v. the USA’s all time most egregious uncharged to date felonies perpetrated by Soweto bin Bama’s so-called “Justice Dept,” which concocted lies specifically to insure that Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase and his bankster friends got clean away with stealing multiple trillions of dollars in the Great Depression of 2008.

      Cantor Fitzgerald is the world’s biggest defender of white collar felons. CF paid Soweto $450k for an hour long speech, and employ bin Bama’s ex-AG Eric Holder, and 2 of Holder’s then-DOJ lieutenants. If this professionally produced 45 minute video does not convince you all three are major felons, nothing will. The Veneer of Justice in a Kingdom of Crime:

      If I had the money, I’d put a blank check IFO Turley and have him fill in the zeros as donations to his favorite charity, to examine the evidence and if justified in his mind, write a book confirming the evidence presented in the video, making the case for Holder’s felonies and those of his 2 then-lieutenants/now coworkers.

      You could line up every lie Trump ever told, and it pales next to Obama’s public persona that he hates the very same banksters he sleeps with every night. The name Obama is engraved for eternity as the bankster’s all time best friend.

  4. The result has been the expenditure of millions on prosecutions based in part on some troubling theories and advanced through unethical means.

    The result was more than that. Cliven Bundy spent nearly 2 years in prison. Another man was killed by federal agents. I expect citizens will violate the law. That is human nature. I also expect those within the justice department will at times violate the law. They have the same human nature. The consequences for the citizen (amateur) can be very extreme, including imprisonment and/or death. The consequences for those in the justice department (professional) are significantly less severe, if any at all. We have our system of justice completely backwards. The “professional” that violates the law should be held to a higher standard than the “amateur”. At the absolute minimum, the professional should suffer the very same consequences as the amateur, if they violated their sworn duties in the prosecution of the amateur.

  5. One more example of what happens when you don’t enforce the rules. But my question relates to this statement by JT:

    “While many judges seem to struggle to avoid findings of misconduct against federal prosecutors, . . .”

    Why??? Why do federal judges struggle to avoid those findings??? Why aren’t those judges impeached???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Bundy created a lot of problems for other ranchers when his group hijacked their legitimate grievances.

  6. We really need more judges like this. It is so weird to hear people say that other people don’t deserve to be treated with justice. This is indicative of our society, one which in general, fails to grasp the important idea of the rule of law belonging to everyone. Instead of seeking justice, even for people we don’t like or agree with, (as clearly commenters above do not), people say it’s o.k. for the govt. to violate the law with impunity as long as it’s not against them or their clan.

    This isn’t a partisan issue. It’s not a liberal vs conservative issue. Above, many people seem to portray this as the result of evil liberals. If that is the case, we would not have mass incarceration of poor people and people of color, a situation which is equally unjust and out of control in this nation.

    What we really have is an out of control govt. unlawfully exercising force and power over citizens. That can only be stopped by citizens who seek and will stand up for, the right of all citizens to justice. First they came…

    1. Jill, I wholeheartedly agree with the majority of your statement. This is exactly why I oppose Big Government, the end goal of Progressives. I do not want the government to rule by fiat. It is not benign. Individual rights are the guarantor of liberty.

      As for the mass incarceration of poor people, studies have linked poverty with higher crime. They have also irrefutable linked single motherhood with exponentially bad outcomes for their children. That does not mean that the poor can commit crimes with impunity, getting a pass because they are poor. A just law applies equally to everyone, regardless of race, creed, or political persuasion.

      However, we do need to ensure that sentencing is applied equally, based on the same extenuating factors and prior history. There should be no racism in sentencing.

      The true way to decrease incarcerations is to improve economic activity, upward mobility, education, and most of all, restore the nuclear family to poor communities. If fathers abandoning single mothers to raise their children are one of the highest risk factors for poverty, incarceration, joining gangs, and dying an early death for their kids, then this is a crisis. It may be PC to say that stable, healthy nuclear families raise more law abiding, healthy, well adjusted children than single mothers, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. These are the uncomfortable facts that are so hard to discuss. From my perspective, the answer is not to lower the bar on poor communities, refusing to prosecute them for crimes they commit, but to address the misery that leads to higher crime in the first place. If we have to make a human chain of mothers walking kids to school and beating off drug pushers and gang members along the way, so be it. Kids deserve to grow up safe and loved and well educated.

      I have seen the devastation of indifferent parenting with my own eyes, and it is true regardless of race. There is no better way to condition an innocent baby full of promise into a criminal than to neglect him, not want him, and not invest any effort into teaching him values, respect for women, responsibility, or his education.

      This does not mean that single mothers should despair. It means that forewarned is forearmed. If you love your kids, and you’re a single mother, then you have obstacles to overcome. There are other situations for families that are also obstacles. There are successes to emulate, and programs that can help and should be replicated.

      1. Single parenthood is preferred to having sex abusing men like T rump and Roy boy Moore in your Casa.

      2. Karen,

        Drug sentencing alone refutes your argument. Wealthy people can beat drug raps. Poor people cannot, even when they are wholly innocent of any crime. Plea deals are taken under duress. The article that anonymous posted above shows debt peonage is alive and well. Much of the establishment is on cocaine yet there is not one arrest. (A really interesting documentary on this is: “Inside Job”.

        This isn’t about single parents, it’s about the state’s power over our population, especially people who are poor. One look at the oligarchy shows people who come from two parent families, people of enormous social, educational and economic privilege who commit murder, torture, rape, financial fraud (see the banks and panama papers) and remain free to roam the earth carrying on their destruction.

        We don’t normally admit to the level of sociopathy that wealthy, “upstanding”, “normal” people engage in. We are trained not to see it. “Some people rob with a gun, some people rob with a pen”. We only see the one, not the other.

        No one is looking at the parenting of these wealthy gangsters who commit the most heinous crimes with impunity. This is not about having a single mom. It is about raw power.

  7. Our system depends on real justice and more importantly, the perception that our system is just.

    When both the FBI and the prosecutors conspire to subvert justice, the whole nation suffers; who can trust the system (note to lefties, the sword cuts both ways; ask Robespierre how the terror worked out for him)?

    The carpers in the thread are upset that the other side lost, they forget that in this case, we all – Americans – lost.

    Request to those complaining about the judge’s ruling – be Americans first and Pinkos second.

  8. Bundy and his ilk are first class A holes. In Oregon they gave no concern to the land that belongs to all of us and zero concern to Native American claims on land they were $hiting on. However, the actions of the Feds in this case prove the Bundy’s point to lots of people that will only make A holes like them come out of the woodwork to cause more destruction of public lands. Indeed, many of the Feds involved in this should not only loose their jobs, I hope they are sued personally and if possible, criminal charges should be filed.

    Disgusted by all involved in this mess.

    1. For years, liberals and their like-minded judges feasted on police departments who failed to follow procedure. The results were people walking the streets who were a danger to society, and should have been in jail.

      The idea was that the government itself can be as big a threat to individuals as conventional criminals, and their power needs to be checked.

      After Ernesto Miranda’s kidnapping and rape conviction was thrown out by the Supreme Court, would you have trusted your daughter’s safety around him? Yet his name is tied to Miranda rights. Yes, a defendant has the right to counsel, and yes, that includes even the guilty ones.

      The federal government needs to make sure their law enforcement arm follow basic and proper procedures too, not just the states and localities.

      “Federal prosecutors have withheld evidence…” — another individual right rescued by the Supreme Court. Brady v Maryland. If the prosecutors have evidence that might exculpate the defendant, they need to share it with the defendant.

      “…and filed false or misleading statements to the court.” — In other words, the prosecutors probably lied. False statements are one thing; false statements that are also misleading are quite another.

      You really wanted Judge Navarro to overlook those facts?

      In the Wild West, we probably had more to fear from gunslinging rednecks than from agents working for federal government.

      That’s not true anymore.

    1. Agreed. Imprison the prosecutors who engaged in such criminal behavior

    2. Then why even give people a hearing?

      Are you channeling John Mitchell or what?

      Hope your logic finds you in the same dilemma someday.

    3. It’s not an “error.” Withholding exculpatory evidence of this magnitude is willful and in my mind, worthy of termination. I worked for a prosecutor’s office w/ integrity. If a prosecutor did this, he/she were gone that day!

  9. Topic: Policing the pigs. Prosecutors should have no immunity from a Section 1983 (or similar statute for federal agents) lawsuit for civil damages, punitive damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief.
    Withholding evidence when you are prosecuting a person should also be a crime.

  10. Obama hated what Bundy stood for. Good buddy Eric Holder tried to please. Flagrant and knowing violations of professional ethics and federal law by the Justice Department? Par for the course.

  11. Trump’s been complaining about the FBI and the DoJ. Here’s his chance to fire some folks and clean house.

Comments are closed.