BOMBSHELL: FBI Screws Up & Puts Porn into Bundy Trial
By Shari Dovale and Aubrie Bosworth
The Malheur Protest Trial continued with jury selection being finished by mid-afternoon.
From there, they tackled the Facebook evidence fiasco brought about by the inept FBI.
The defendants argument was presented by Per C. Olson, David Fry’s attorney.
Olson contends that FBI Special Agent Ronny Walker testified under oath in court on July 18th that the unresponsive evidence obtained through the Facebook warrant had been secured by that point. Some weeks later it was determined that the evidence had not been secured and had been shared with people of the court.
There was even speculation that the evidence could have been taken home by FBI or anyone else that may have had access.
Scott Bradford, representing the United States, responded with the argument that the order allowed them to wait to seal the evidence until the end of 180 days, which would put the deadline in the middle of the current trial.
The Court seemed to understand the defendants argument that the order was to search for evidence for up to 180 days. Any reasonable person would know that once the search was complete, the unresponsive evidence, or unnecessary evidence, was to be locked up and secured at that time.
However, the FBI seems to contend that, though they completed the search, they can continue to view the unresponsive evidence for the full 180 days.
This is relevant because of what the unresponsive evidence contains.
During a short break, this reporter met with Matthew Schindler, Kenneth Medenbach’s standby council counsel, and got a synopsis of what the evidence contained.
“I’ll give it to you in a nut shell,” Mr. Schindler said, “I opened up this guys Facebook evidence and saw a bunch of naked pictures of his girlfriend.”
This brings back the point of why the FBI insisted on keeping the evidence unsecured for the full 180 days. What is it that they want to do with all these naked pictures?
Considering the ethical dilemmas that the Court is forced to deal with on these issues, and the multiple Constitutional violations to the defendants rights, is this really something else they want to address?
Non responsive evidence are things outside the scope of the warrant. They are unnecessary to the case at hand. It is important that this information not make it to the principles in the case. This is exactly why the warrant was written how it was. To protect the defendants.
The FBI, and it’s gross mishandling of this warrant, has turned this into a pornography issue, which completely changes the course of this trial.
The false testimony of FBI Special Agent Walker must also be addressed. The prosecution contends that just because he said false statements, it doesn’t mean he was lying. I contend that they should first be issued a basic dictionary.