The Bundy Affair #24 – FBI and Prosecution Conspire to Falsify Evidence

The Bundy Affair #24
FBI and Prosecution Conspire to Falsify Evidence

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 21, 2017

In identifying the Misdeeds of Government, it requires a diligent search of available information.  However, often that research produces some interesting results.  That is the situation with this article, since it begins with events surrounding the arrest of Dave Bundy (The Bundy Affair – #12 – Dave Bundy’s Two Citations), on April 6, 2014, and ends with the declaration of Mistrial on Decembers 20, 2017.  However, in that span of time, over three and a half years, the following events played out.

Dave Bundy was pulled over on Nevada State Highway 170, a road that goes from Interstate 15, near the road to the Bundy Ranch, to Bunkerville.  The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had attempted to close the highway.

Dave got into a dispute with the BLM and was arrested and charged with two citations (explained in the linked article above).  It is this arrest that begins this series of events.  First, we have, from the National Park Service “DIRECTOR’S ORDER #9: LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM”, which, on page 2, explains when and where arrests may be made.

Wait, he was on a state road, not on federal land, and was fleeing from nothing.  Oh, well, let’s move on — but not very far.

Just above this event, there were other BLM agents.  They were photographed on a ridge overlooking the arrest of Dave Bundy.

On the next day, April 7, 2014, both David Russell and Mark Brunk submitted emails to record their participation at the arrest of Dave Bundy.  Interestingly, Larry Wooten (The Bundy Affair #23 – Larry Wooten – Ethical Government Employee, and Rare) received this information.  Wooten, who had been investigating the records was dismissed when he point out irregularities in BLM procedures.

The emails of both Brunk and Russell:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note that Brunk makes a point of never pointing his shotgun at anybody.  He knows the rules, which we will get into.  Both stated Ryan Bundy, however it was, as I understand, when Dave Bundy was arrested.  However, Russell is a different story.  Russell had Brunk’s AR15, “in case the situation escalated.”  Then, and here is where it gets interesting, he “used optics”, not binoculars like Brunk, to aid him in “seeing what was happening in the van.”

Now, that word, “optics”, is explained in another document.  In the BLM and NPS (National Park Service) Operational Component Plan, dated March 26, 2014, for the Operation “Gold Butte Cattle Impound”, we find, on page 9, the following:

Now, Dave (or Ryan) was not armed and posed no threat.  There was no reason to even consider the use of deadly force.  He admits that he was using the optics to see what was happening in the van.  Clearly a violation of the Operational Component Plan.

But, wait, we are not through, yet.  On April 14, 2014, in an FD 302 (an FBI form used to report contact or interview information), filed by Michael D. Pratt based upon an in person interview, we find that Brunk explained what had occurred on April 6:

Well, Brunk was acting as spotter/observer for a BLM sniper (David Russell).  But, wait, that does not sound so good, so the Prosecution said, that will not work.  Could you revise that so that it does not make us look like we broke the rules and did something illegal?  However, the “Clarifying information” was reported on January 30, 2015.

Yes, they wanted “clarifying information from Brunk” as to what he said to Pratt, in the previous FD 302.  This, on an FD 302 eight months after the fact, and prior to the Indictment.  Interestingly, this second FD 302 wasn’t by Pratt, it was by Joel P. Willis, who was Special Agent in Charge during the Gold Butte Impound event and was also Lead Case Agent for the FBI during the trial.

Note that now, by a different hand, Brunk never acted as a spotter/observer, as he had stated in the previous FD 302 and consistent with what the “sniper”, David Russell said in his email of April 7, 2014.

Now, look, again, who was present when the change in “facts” occurred?  First, we have Myhre, then Dan Schiess and Nadia Ahmed.  This is the prosecution team that had been hiding exculpatory information from the defendants.  And, from these exhibits, it appears that they may have encouraged Brunk to perjure himself to make their case even stronger.  Or, should I say, make the case against the government weaker?

With recent revelations coming out of the Courtroom of Judge Navarro, we find that the government was withholding exculpatory evidence.  What has not come out, until now, is that there was an effort to falsify evidence, as well.  A crime that would get you or me thrown into prison, but will probably be no more than a slap on the wrist of US Attorney for the District of Nevada, Steven Myhre, and his two underlings, Dan Schiess and Nadia Ahmed.

Now, you have a true picture of inquisitorial justice, in America, today.  Conviction, no matter what it takes.

 

9 Comments

  1. Paul Niblock says:

    … and the house of cards begins to crumble.
    just frikken awesome, Gary.

  2. Ernest T Bass says:

    Martha Stewart went to prison for less.

    Lying to the FBI is a sin punishable by years in prison, yet Acting US Attorney Stephen Myhre can hide evidence and encourage perjury and go unpunished when caught.

    Myhre can’t even go through 3 and a half witnesses without the case being thrown out for grievous misjustices.

    What ever happened to government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

  3. Sopater says:

    We must do all that we can to ensure that there is no “double standard’ when it comes to federal agents breaking the law, as opposed to the civilian population. We must demand that the justice department investigate and appropriately charge all agents and personnel acting on behalf of the government who are found to have participated in and/or aided in any illegal activity.

  4. Harold poole says:

    Having a rifle means nothing,. BLM has a 2nd amendment right like everybody else

    • ghunt ghunt says:

      True. But, the first 302 said spotter for sniper.They were set up on a ridge. They were brandishing and prepared to shooting unarmed people.
      Later, a new 302 was prepared, under the scrutiny of Myhre. Ahmed, and Schiess, and even though the guy preparing the 302 wasn’t there, he said that there was no sniper.
      That created a plausible deniability, until exposed as a cover up of the original 302.
      If the government exercises the Second Amendment, they same limitations that are imposed upon us should also be imposed on them.
      However, there are four patriots facing prison for what the government employees did, but the government employees are not facing prison.

  5. […] The continued to lie, through the first two trial and into the current trial, claiming that there were no snipers however, the conspired to “wash” some documents of record by having a more senior FBI Special Agent, who is also the FBI agent that is assisting the US Attorney in the current trial.  See The Bundy Affair #24 – FBI and Prosecution Conspire to Falsify Evidence. […]

Leave a Reply