The prosecution in the upcoming Bundy Ranch trial has filed its first documents, known as the Rule 16 document, which lists the witnesses they plan to call to testify, what their expertise is and what their specific testimony is to be about.
“Rule 16 is revised to give greater discovery to both the prosecution and the defense. Subdivision (a) deals with disclosure of evidence by the government. … The language of the rule is recast from “the court may order” or “the court shall order” to “the government shall permit” or “the defendant shall permit.”
Deb Jordan of Guerilla Media Network provided the prosecution’s submittal of witnesses. You can view those documents here.
The ridiculous nature of how this prosecution is willing to attempt to gag the defense as to the motives behind the defendants coming to stand with the Bundys, but are willing to employee some of the most asinine tactics to persuade the jury that the defendants are criminals, when they were simply exercising their constitutionally protected rights to stand in opposition to the tyranny of the central government.
The government is calling the following people to testify:
- Special Agent Chad Simkins, Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Special Agent Michael Abercrombie, Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Special Agent Joel P. Willis, Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Special Agent Mark Seyler, Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Mary Jo Rugwell, former District Manager for Southern Nevada District Office (SNDO) in Las Vegas from 2008 to 2012
- Erich Smith, physical scientist forensic examiner with the FBI Laboratory in Quantico, Virginia
- Charle J. Key, former member of the Baltimore Police Department
First, look at what each individual is called to testify about.
Simkins is called to testify about video and photographs of images taken on April 12. One of the funny things the prosecution offers is that Simkins, with all his expertise and training will “identify persons carrying, using, brandishing, or pointing firearms, and will further describe his observations and understanding of how the weapons were deployed as revealed by the images.”
He’s also going to count the number of guns that protesters legally had who stood with the Bundys.
Now, I ask you, how hard would that be to identify for the average person?
One thing Mr. Simkins won’t be asked to identify is 300 armed central government goons who trained their weapons on citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.
Mr. Simkins will also not expound on the Second Amendment and how it was written with the thought of the very thing the Bureau of Land Mangement engaged in in mind.
He will also not testify to the amount of firearms that the BLM had in Bunkerville either, despite the fact that the FBI pulled out of Bunkerville due to the heavy handed tactics of BLM agent in charge Daniel P. Love, a criminal himself, and yet still holds a job at the BLM while the DOJ will not prosecute him for his crimes.
Mr. Abercrombie will also testify about videos and photographs of defendants taking certain positions based on his experience in the military despite the fact that none of the people in the videos or pictures have served in the military.
As for Willis and Seyler, these guys are going to testify about…. wait for it… social media! Yes, they will be informing the jury about how Facebook and YouTube work and how people posted certain things on Facebook and YouTube that were simply free speech, something that again, is protected under the First Amendment, which I’m sure Willis and Seyler took an oath to uphold when they joined the FBI, not that that means much these days.
It’s interesting that those who have never taken such an oath seem to care more about it than those who have taken the oath.
Ms. Rugwell, who formerly served as the District Manager for Southern Nevada District Office (SNDO) in Las Vegas fr om 2008 to 2012 will testify “as what lands are designated public lands in Southern Nevada, including Gold Butte area,” as well as “review and present summary testimony regarding SNDO’s official interaction and correspondence with Cliven Bundy over the years leading up to the 2012 litigation.”
I wonder if the prosecution will allow defense testimony to rebut what is and is not public or federally owned land according to the US Constitution because that is one of the things they objected to in the previous trials.
Mr. Smith will use his expertise in firearms to render an opinion as to whether the arms defendants bore lawfully in the pictures… “correspond with a known make/model/type of firearm and whether that make/model/type of firearm is designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.”
Seriously? The prosecution is bringing in a guy to tell the jury whether or not arms the defendants carried shot a bullet by means of an explosion in the bullet casing causing the bullet to be expelled down the barrel and out the end of the gun? Can you say emotional manipulation by the prosecution?
Finally, Mr. Key will testify, due to his twenty-five year service as a member of the Baltimore Police Department, about all sorts of training with police, but he will not testify about the training of federal agents.
He will also testify about sounds and images “depicting law enforcement encounters with civilians during impounding operations conducted by the Bureau of Land Management on April 6, 9, 12.”
What he will not testify to is the violation of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and those same BLM agents setting up a “First Amendment Zone” to corral citizens into. He will also not testify to the fact that the “impounding operations” were also operations where federal agents killed multiple cattle that belonged to Cliven Bundy and his family, something that was not supposed to be part of the operation.
Additionally, Mr. Key will not testify to the unlawful conversations of BLM agents about killing protesters or cattle; just so you know how the prosecution is seeking to protect the guilty at the expense of the innocent.
Key will also be in the trial at various times to “assist counsel and to listen to testimony” and will address evidence that is specific to police use of force, police training, police policies and police procedures is offered during the trial.
I hope the defense will eliminate Mr. Key’s testimony by simply asking if federal agents are held to the exact same training, use of force, policies and procedures as local law enforcement.
It does come to mind that the Baltimore Police are easily manipulated when it comes to those in authority above them though. I just mention that in light of the Freddie Gray case and Baltimore prosecutor Marilyn Mosby’s direction of police to target the area he was arrested in.
Now, we wait to see what all the prosecution will object to by the defense to combat their charges considering they’ve already took steps to silence evidence and constitutional arguments against the foundation of the BLM and the claim of federal land.