Ryan Bundy Files For Dismissal Of Superseding Indictment
*Update: The motion was amended on Dec. 29th. The attachment below reflects the amended motion.
By Wendy Kay
You and your family are enjoying a Sunday BBQ in your back yard when suddenly heavily armed thugs rush into your yard intent on stealing your pets, your food and your water and harming your wife, children and other family members!
Fortunately for you, neighbors and friends having been alerted to this band of armed robbers come to your rescue to show their support…the thugs depart.
Two years later other heavily armed thugs show up, arrest you for resisting the previous thugs, throw you in prison and abuse you for nearly two years, while their cohorts in criminal court weave a vicious story about YOUR armed resistance to “law enforcement”.
What do you do????
Well, you could do as Ryan Bundy has done, study law for those nearly two years, defend yourself in the notoriously vicious, wicked court and SLAM the prosecution!
Today is the day! All briefs, motions, etc. in support of the defendants mandates of dismissal with prejudice of this case must be filed today.
Ryan’s opening statement was AWESOME and his documents filed today are no less AWESOME!
First, Judge Navarro’s failure:
“Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 26.3. Mistrial ‘Before ordering a mistrial, the court must give each defendant and the government an opportunity to comment on the propriety of the order, to state whether that party consents or objects, and to suggest alternatives.’
Judge Gloria Navarro failed to provide ryan-c: any such opportunity. ryan-c: stood up near the conclusion of the hearing, and was fully prepared to state an objection, and/or comment as to his consent to a mistrial; but Ms. Navarro denied his request to speak further regarding the matter. “RTOP” Page 16-36, Lines 6-9″
Second, the prosecution’s failures:
“The second prong under Chapman provides for dismissal of the indictment for one of two reasons: ‘[First, a] district court may dismiss an indictment on the ground of outrageous government conduct if the conduct amounts to a due process violation. [Second, i]f the conduct does not rise to the level of a due process violation, the court may nonetheless dismiss under its supervisory powers’. US v. Chapman, at 1084, Id.
Judge Gloria Navarro has authority and duty to dismiss the indictment pursuant to either/or of the aforementioned reasons, as witnessed by and through her Order of December 20, 2017, where she repeatedly noted violations that ‘subvert[ed] the due process rights that the defendants are guaranteed by the Constitution’ and also the ‘Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses.’ US v. Chapman, Id. Judge Gloria Navarro concluded that these violations, while reviewed individually, provided ‘collectively’ under ‘Kyles v. Whitley’, that each and every violation was ‘willful’, resulting in ‘multiple Brady violations’. See ‘RTOP’, Page 16-22, Line 8. These Violations will forever prejudice these men from receiving a fair trial.”
” While the Chapman Court held that a dismissal was proper under the lesser standard of the District Court’s ‘supervisory powers’, ryan-c: submits, this case rises to a much higher level, a level of gross systematic and perpetual prosecutorial corruption, gross prosecutorial misconduct and gross malpractice that exceeds, ‘outrageous government conduct’ Chapman Id. Lead prosecutor AUSA Stephen W. Myhre is demonstrating a continued disregard for applicable law in prosecution of these cases, resulting in persecution of the individuals as named (Chapman and now Bundy). “
“Steven Myhre, a morally bankrupt man and ABA BAR attorney, has shown himself in this case, as well as the Chapman case, to be a lawyer without ‘integrity'(ABA Ethics Codes 1-1). Rather than to rely on competence Myhre has resorted to engage himself in ‘illegal and morally reprehensible conduct’ (ABA Ethics Codes 1-5). His willful actions of fraud and concealment are evidence that his ‘respect for the law’ is lower than a ‘platitude’ (ABA Ethics Codes 1-5). Additionally, Steven Myhre, is in violation of each of the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION’s Disciplinary Rules, DR 1-102(A), Misconduct, ‘A lawyer shall not: Violate a disciplinary rule; Circumvent a disciplinary rule through actions of another; Engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude; Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law’.”
In this writer’s opinion, Ryan has gone above and beyond in his work to show that the misconduct and reprehensible behavior of the prosecution and Ms. Navarro can legally only result in a dismissal with prejudice in this case and lead to the vacating of all previous plea deals, guilty verdicts, and sentences.
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: Paypal.me/RedoubtNews