The Bundy Affair #25 - Steven Myhre and His Fraud upon the Court

[Gary Hunt]

The Bundy Affair #25
Steven Myhre and His Fraud upon the Court

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 2, 2018

Recent events in Las Vegas have led to a completely new perspective on the misdeeds of government.  Failure to provide timely Discovery, especially that of an exculpatory evidence (proving innocence or to impeach witness testimony).

As Judge Gloria Navarro pointed out in the seven know violations, six of them were deemed "willful", where the seventh could possibly be inadvertent.  However, in the closed session that followed the declaration of a Mistrial, there may have been as many as 20 more violations of either Brady or Giglio.  Those cases establish precedence with regard to the timely disclosure of evidence to the Defense.

Before we proceed, perhaps reviews of the timeline of primary events in this case are necessary:

1. The events that are addressed in the Indictment occurred in the first half of April 2014.
2. The initial Indictment was February 3, 2016.
3. The Superseding Indictment was issued March 2, 2016.
4. The current trial, now on hold pending a decision with regard to Mistrial or Dismissal, began in late November 2017.

The Government's Response to recent motions by Ryan Payne, suggesting Dismissal, and Ryan Bundy, demanding Dismissal, begins as follows:

• "As with any large case, this multi-agency, multi-defendant, multi-trial case has presented significant discovery challenges: hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, hundreds of hours of video and audio recordings, and thousands of emails, to name a few, balanced against factors such as witness security and disclosure procedures acceptable to the Court.  This complexity notwithstanding, and ever mindful of its Constitutional, statutory, Department, and Court-ordered discovery obligations, the government has always strived to meet these challenges with diligence, fairness, and efficiency.

First, let's put a little perspective on timing.  It was 23 months from the event (1) that led to the Superseding Indictment (3).  It was another 14 months to the commencement of the trial (4).  That is 37 months, or, 3 years and 1 month.  However, they had the initial Indictment (2) and then modified it to the Superseding Indictment (3), in a month.  You would think that in those 23 months, they would have reviewed the records that they had to assure that they were truthful in what the presented to the Grand Jury, for both the initial Indictment and the Superseding Indictment.

And, most assuredly, they would not have accused the Bundy supporters of lying to the public about calling people to come to the Ranch because the government had snipers and posed a threat to the Bundys, knowing full well that they did have snipers and an FBI SWAT team in place, three days before Ryan Payne arrived at the Ranch.

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 Evid....

Next, let's consider the government's explanation that no harm was done by not providing the information required by both law and the Rules of the Court.  From the last paragraph, page 7/55

• [T]he government’s belated disclosure of these materials is not so grossly shocking or outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice.  Rather, the late disclosures stem from the government’s good-faith reliance on its understanding of its discovery obligations, as informed by its reasonable interpretation of the governing law on available affirmative defenses, and supported by Court orders on these subjects. The government did not withhold material to gain a tactical advantage or harm the defendants. Rather, it litigated these issues in good faith, arguing that the materials were neither helpful nor material, and provided reasoned explanations for its decisions. Although the Court disagreed with the government’s legal reasoning and ordered disclosure, a legal error by the government—remedied immediately upon having the benefit of the Court’s ruling—does not equate with misconduct, let alone flagrant misconduct.

However, it did not immediately remedy the failure to disclose based on Ryan Bundy's motion specific to the snipers and cameras.

Then, we can look at the very next paragraph in the government's Response, which seems to contradict their assertions in the previous paragraph.  From the first paragraph, page 8/55

• The Brady violations found by the Court are regrettable and benefit no one. But because the government neither flagrantly violated nor recklessly disregarded its obligations, the appropriate remedy for such violations is a new trial. That remedy is particularly appropriate here because it will cure all three areas of prejudice alleged by the defendants. Namely, a new trial will provide opportunities to develop different voir dire questions and peremptory challenges, and craft stronger opening statements and cross-examinations in light of the recently produced materials.

Well, if it did not give the government "a tactical advantage", why would they admit that three elements of the Defense strategy would change, now that the information is made available to the Defense?

Now, Steven Myhre, United States Attorney for the District of Nevada (and doesn't like to have his picture taken), cannot say that he doesn't know what the consequences are -- or claim that he wasn't aware of his responsibility, since he was involved in the 2006 United States v. Chapman mistrial.  True, he wasn't involved in that case until 6 months after the Mistrial (contrary to what others have reported) and subsequent Dismissal to the Indictment.  He came on board to handle the more ministerial aspects of dealing with the plea agreements and guilty pleas that were based on the then Dismissed Indictment.  Each one had to have a Motion, a Response, and an Order, to clear the record -- which we fully expect to have happen in the current Bundy case, once the Indictment is Dismissed.

It is possible that since he came on after the fact, that he could argue that he wasn't fully cognizant of what happened that lead to the Mistrial/Dismissal, if it stopped there.  However, that is not the case.

The government sought to appeal the Dismissal to the Ninth Circuit.  Steven Myhre was the lead attorney in the Appeal.  As such, he would have had to bone up on the entire case so as to be able to argue for the Ninth to overturn the lower court decision to Dismiss.  As such, he had to know as much, or more, than the attorneys who had botched the trial case.  However, the Ninth rightfully upheld the lower court's Dismissal of the Indictment.

Steven Myhre has no excuse, in the world, to claim a lack of knowledge on what is both in Rules of the Court and case law (Brady and Giglio) regarding disclosure.  In the Chapman case, the prosecuting attorney brought the information forward, after deceiving both the Court and the Defense.  However, the lies ceased when the information was delivered to the Court and the Defendants.  In the current case, the lies continued and denial of the existence of some records was excused, as Myhre claimed in the opening paragraph, above.  But, not nearly to the extent that has happened in the Bundy trial, especially considering that it is the third trial, costing enormous amounts of the court's time and many millions of dollars of taxpayer money, in what can be describe in minimal terms as a fraud upon the Court and the Defendants.  A criminal act that would have you or me behind bars for many years, should we have been found guilty of what Myhre was paid to do.

Rather ironically, the Chapman case was heard in courtroom 7C, as was the Bundy trial However, the degree of violations in the Bundy trial are far more egregious than those in the Chapman case, and therefore warrant, at least, the degree of judicial discretion as was applied in the Chapman case, meaning Dismissal of the Indictment.

The prosecuting attorneys in this country have become what used to be referred to as the Grand Inquisitor, in the time of the Inquisitions.  The assume that the King can do no wrong, and they consider themselves to be the King's representatives.  This, then, assumes that anything that goes against their narrative must simply disappear.  Otherwise, well, the King might be doing wrong.  And, it was through the diligence of Ryan Bundy, and his cross-examination of witnesses that the hidden disclosure began to open up, eventually becoming a landslide of documents, eight of which are included in the exhibits of the Government's Response, linked above.

The concept that the Founders had when they wrote the Constitution expected that those in government would be honest and have the highest degree of integrity -- That they were expected to be above the average person on the street.  Now, we find that the have less integrity than those on the street, though the average person would be in prison, should he do what these government employees do.

How can we respect our government when it has so little regard for the Constitution, the laws, the people, or Justice?

This article can be found on line at The Bundy Affair #25 - Steven Myhre and His Fraud upon the Court