Help strengthen alternative media by visiting our supporters

Sheepdog Supplies

Reports of More Brady Violations in Bunkerville Case

How many more violations will be uncovered before this case is completely finished?

Reports of More Brady Violations in Bunkerville Case

Reports of More Brady Violations in Bunkerville Case

by Shari Dovale

A mistrial was declared in the Bunkerville Trial on December 20th with the prosecution, headed by Acting US Attorney Steven Myhre, criticized by Judge Navarro for blatant violations of the law.

The violations go to BRADY v. MARYLAND in which the Supreme Court held that the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose evidence that is exculpatory to the defense.

We have heard about numerous violations, yet it does not end there. Ryan Bundy filed another motion to dismiss the case on December 19th based on yet another violation by the prosecution.

The government called witness Mary Jo Rugwell, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) District Manager for Southern Nevada from April 2008 through August 2012, to the stand in November. The cross examination revealed several points:

First by Cliven Bundy’s attorney, Bret Whipple:

Whipple:  You had a meeting with Mr. Tom Collins and others?

Rugwell:  Yes.

Whipple:  Do you recall what Mr. Collins said about water rights?

Rugwell:  He said he believed Mr. Bundy should have access to water rights.  

Whipple:  Who owns the water rights on Gold Butte:

Rugwell:  I do not know.

Whipple :  There were range improvements on each and every spring?

Rugwell:  I don’t know. I can’t say that there are range improvements on every spring.

Then, Ammon Bundy attorney, Morgan Philpot followed up with:

Philpot:  Did you do any research into stock watering rights.  

Rugwell:  I did not.

Philpot:  Are you aware that Mr. Bundy had stock watering rights?

Rugwell:  I’d heard that, but it was not relevant.  This was a trespass issue.  I never looked into any stock watering rights myself.

And there was redirect testimony by Prosecutor Daniel Schiess:

Schiess:  You have been asked about stock watering rights.  Do you have any information on who owns water rights?

Rugwell:  No, I don’t.

Rugwell was very clear and concise in her testimony:

  • She knew absolutely nothing about water rights
  • She never investigated Bundy’s water rights
  • She did not know who owned the water rights.

However, a man from Arizona happen to request some documents from the Nevada State Water Resources Board that proved Rugwell’s testimony to be false.

Included on these documents was correspondence with Mary Jo Rugwell in 2008. These letters show that not only did Rugwell, in her capacity as head of the BLM in the District, not only investigated Cliven Bundy’s water rights on Gold Butte, but attempted to eliminate them, as well.

Rugwell tried to have Bundy’s water rights canceled simply because he was not a current grazing-permit holder, as recognized by the BLM.

Rugwell’s testimony was clearly intended to convince the jury that Bundy had no rights to use the public lands in question, yet his rights predated the BLM. She knew this as is shown by her prior investigation, of which she denied on the witness stand under oath.

Read Motion here

The court orders that are continuously referenced by the prosecution do not authorize the destruction of the water infrastructure and improvements.

These letters prove that the BLM recognized the fact that Cliven Bundy owned vested property rights! He had legal right to use these lands, even though the government does not want the public to understand this.

These letters are exculpatory evidence. By not turning them over to the defense, the prosecution AGAIN violated the Brady rule.

This evidence could have easily been used to impeach the testimony of Mary Jo Rugwell and shown her to be untruthful.

What will Judge Gloria Navarro do now? Will she hold Rugwell up on perjury charges? What about Steven Myhre and Daniel Schiess? They knew her testimony was false when they put her on the stand and elicited these answers. Will they be held accountable?

How many more violations will be uncovered before this case is completely finished?


Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here:


6 Comments on Reports of More Brady Violations in Bunkerville Case

  1. Here’s an Update:

    It appears that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Department of Interior “investigated” the alleged perjury issue.

    The truth about the September 2008 letter only came to light because it was discovered through a public records search through the State of Nevada (the Federal gov’t didn’t provide it).

    The government, oncee confronted with the existence of the letter had to “investigate” the matter.

    The result of their “investigation”?

    Well, the OIG found that the sworn testimony provided at the Federal criminal trial DID contradict the information in the 2008 letter. Case closed! Right?

    No — because, OIG went on to conclude that although the testimony contradicted the official government letter that had been authored in the name of the official and signed by the official; these facts don’t matter. Why? Because, despite these truths, OIG concluded that the official didn’t actually write the letter or review the letter — so, obviously, the official did not “knowingly” lie under oath.

    All the official did was sign the letter and receive an extensive response from the State of Nevada (which addressee all the information raised in the letter). That’s all. The official did not lie when testifying contradictory to the info.

    Ha Ha Ha! Some “investigation.”

    Here’s a question: once the OIG concluded that the testimony and letter were contradictory, why didn’t they refer the matter to the Dept. Of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to formally investigate?

    The fact is — the FBI is the one who has responsibility for investigating perjury in Federal cases. Despite this, there’s no mention of the OIG referring the matter to DOJ for review.

    The outcome of this “investigation” is unbelievable. Not sure how OIG could publish this conclusion to the American public and do so with a straight face.

    Whether or not the crime of “perjury” occurred, at minimum this official still appears to have violated the Gov’t Ethics Requirement that says, “You shall endeavor [as a public servant] to avoid any actions creating the appearance that you are violating the law…” (5 C.F.R. part 2635). There is no accountability.

    People ought to be writing their Congressional Representatives and the White House about this supposed investigation! This is an absurd outcome! The public needs to demand honesty and accountability.

  2. So it seems to me that it is time to close and abolish the BLM and turn all land management that is not owned to the state it is in. Finish the job they were supposed to do.

  3. The conspiracy that the government has tried to lay on the Bundy and their supporters, even if such conspiracy really existed which it doesn’t, is eclipsed by the true conspiracy that has been orchestrated by the government

  4. Reading Ryan’s motion, you’d hardly think it was written by a Nevada Cowboy -amazing ! I’d never heard of this “Man from Arizona”, Lance Krig, and wonder how he just happened to be researching the Bundy case. When people – in this case the BLM and Prosecutor Myhre – set up a false construct, they lay themselves open to such serendipity, a bolt from an unexpected quarter. This whole affair has been too bitterly fought, and the Federals have been too vindictive and bloodthirsty.They must be held to account, we certainly owe them no sympathy. What we will give them is just what they have so strenuously tried to deny to the Bundys – a fair trial. A story from the Civil war….A confederate soldier was facing serious charges at court Marital,with General Lee presiding. Seeing his obvious fear, one of his guards tried to reassure him – “Don’t worry, you’ll get justice from General Lee”…”That’s what I’m afraid of !” said the soldier.

5 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. 56: The Bundy Trial Isn’t Just About the Bundys | Society and the State
  2. BOMBSHELL: Myhre Has A History of Brady Violations | Oath Keepers Nebraska
  3. BOMBSHELL: Myhre Has A History of Brady Violations – A-1 Sentry
  4. Will Navarro Dismiss Cases Against All 19 Defendants? – A-1 Sentry
  5. Myhre Begs Navarro For Another Chance – A-1 Sentry

Comments are closed.