“Incredibly, the prosecution in this case would have, through lies and obstruction of justice, had my father, brothers and I convicted for life, obviously to try to further their own careers and other improper reasons.”

Comments by Editor

Free Range Report has explored in detail the diverse allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in the letter written by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) whistleblower, Larry ‘Clint’ Wooten. The letter was not only credible, but its contents were so damning that it destroyed the prosecution’s case against Cliven Bundy and his associated defendants. Ryan Bundy was to be tried during the same phase of proceedings as his father, Cliven. But before their trial even began, charges against defendants were dismissed with prejudice by the presiding federal judge, Gloria Navarro. The dismissal resulted from explosive accounts of federal misconduct, destruction of evidence, harassment, civil rights violations, and withholding of exculpatory evidence by federal prosecutors, revealed in the Wooten letter.

Although the federal case against the Bundy Ranch defendants crumbled in the wake of the Wooten letter, the government has yet to punish those agents whose actions created a toxic atmosphere of arrogance and lawlessness within the BLM, FBI and federal prosecutor’s office. Since then, there has been a bureaucratic reshuffling within various Interior Department agencies, but the status quo remains largely intact. Dan Love, the BLM law enforcement director whose criminality was exposed in two Interior Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports, was relieved of his supervisory post, but to date, no charges have been brought against him.

Ryan Bundy first asked for an evidentiary hearing into the Wooten letter before his charges were dismissed in December of last year. But since that time, federal prosecutors have appealed to the judge to revisit the matter, and retry, yet again, the Bundy Ranch defendants. The request by the federal prosecutors, however, has more to do with politics than the facts of the Bundy Ranch case. A February 7 report in the Oregonian lays out the prosecution’s political concerns:

They urged the judge to consider the fallout from her Jan. 8 dismissal, suggesting it will endanger other federal officers who typically patrol remote public lands alone.

“This case has major ramifications for all public lands law enforcement officers,” Elizabeth White, the Nevada U.S. attorney’s appellate chief, wrote in a 29-page motion.

“Dismissing this entire case with prejudice, based on the government’s non-disclosure of mostly duplicative evidence of law enforcement’s pre-impoundment surveillance and preparation, would encourage the defendants, their supporters and the public to disrespect the law and the lawful orders of the courts.”

Bundy’s latest appeal to the court for a hearing on the Wooten letter is in response to the court’s consideration of the prosecution’s request and potential flip flop. Ryan Bundy’s petition to the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada reads:

Defendant ryan-c: Bundy’s Renewed Notice Requiring an Evidentiary Hearing and Unsealing of BLM Whistleblower Letter of Larry Wooten

Between the time that this Court ordered a mistrial and dismissed the superseding indictment with prejudice, I required this Court to hold an evidentiary hearing to take the testimony of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) whistleblower Larry Wooten. The reason that I made this requirement was because I wanted the Court to have a full and complete record of the violation of my and the other defendants constitutional and other rights by BLM, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the S. Attorney’s Office in this district before it made its ruling on whether to dismiss  the  superseding indictment. I also  asked that the communication from Wooten be unsealed, which to date has not Nor did the Court order an evidentiary hearing before it ordered the dismissal with prejudice.

However now, in light of the prosecution’s motion to reconsider the dismissal of the superseding indictment with prejudice, which motion is inconsistent with its having also having moved to dismiss the indictment with prejudice of the remaining so called “third tier” defendants which include but are not limited to my brothers Mel and Dave Bundy, I renew my requirement for an evidentiary hearing before this Court even considers and later rules upon the motion to reconsider of the S. Attorney.  I also renew my requirement to unseal the letter of BLM whistleblower Wooten, as there is no valid reason to keep it under seal, particularly since it is a matter of extreme public interest and in the interest of the proper and legal administration of justice.

In so doing, there will be a complete record more than confirming that the prosecution’s motion to reconsider this Court’s prior dismissal of the superseding indictment is frivolous and not put forth in good faith, but only to try to insulate them from likely discipline by the now opened ethics and potentially criminal investigation before the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspector General, ordered by Attorney General Jeff  Sessions, into their deceitful, gross, willful and flagrant prosecutorial misconduct which severely prejudiced my constitutional due process and other rights and the rights of the other defendants.

Incredibly, the prosecution in this case would have, through lies and obstruction of justice, had my father, brothers and I convicted for life, obviously to try to further their own careers and other improper reasons. This egregious prosecutorial misconduct cannot be permitted and go unchecked in a civilized society and democracy and the testimony of BLM whistleblower Wooten is necessary to have a complete record of what amounts to not just a deprivation of defendants’ rights, but criminal conduct by the prosecution and its client agencies such as the BLM and FBI.



See the complete Ryan Bundy court document here

Ryan Bundy’s petition sheds light on federal prosecutors’ political motives for seeking a reversal of Navarro’s dismissal with prejudice. Prosecutors claim to be worried about the safety of federal officers, but the facts of the case have confirmed that federal officers were the aggressors at the Bundy Ranch in April of 2014. Not only were their tactics militaristic and reckless, the entire operation and subsequent trial were built on coordinated efforts to hide the truth about the activities of federal agents during the raid, and keep under wraps egregious civil rights violations perpetrated against defendants following their arrests in 2016.

To date, the U.S. District Court in Nevada has not ruled on whether or not it will withdraw its dismissal with prejudice of charges against Ryan, Cliven, Mel and Dave Bundy, and others.

Free Range Report

Thank you for reading our latest report, but before you go…

Our loyalty is to the truth and to YOU, our readers!
We respect your reading experience, and have refrained from putting up a paywall and obnoxious advertisements, which means that we get by on small donations from people like you. We’re not asking for much, but any amount that you can give goes a long way to securing a better future for the people who make America great.

For as little as $1 you can support Free Range Report, and it takes only a moment.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *