Page 1 of 40

Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:04 am
by NMgirl
The Defendants:

O. Scott Drexler, 45, ID. Founding member of ID 3%. Attorney: Todd Levanthal (cja)

Richard Lovelien, 52, MT. Regional Director MT State Defense Force (militia). Attorney: Shawn R. Perez (cja)

Eric J. Parker, 33, ID. ID 3%er. Attorney: Jess R. Marchese (cja)

Steven Stewart, 37, ID. ID 3%er. Attorney: Richard Tanasi (cja)

The retrial begins on July 10. This is the Tier 3 defendants' trial.

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:16 am
by NMgirl
Friday Night Document Dump
[Ackshully, in this case taking place on the Wednesday following the appropriate Friday. Sorry, everybody!]

06/23/2017-- 2077-- EX PARTE MOTION to excuse counsel by Eric J. Parker as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart. (Marchese, Jess) (Entered: 06/23/2017)

06/26/2017-- 2080-- MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro, as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart on 6/26/2017. By Deputy Clerk: Aaron Blazevich.
Pending before the Court is a joint request (ECF No. 2077 ) for a letter from the Court explaining that the defense attorneys representing the Tier 3 defendants, Eric Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Ricky Lovelien, and Steven Stewart, will be starting a lengthy trial on July 10, 2017. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 2077 Ex Parte Request for Letter as to Eric J. Parker (11), O. Scott Drexler (12), Richard R. Lovelien (13), and Steven A. Stewart (14) is GRANTED. The requested letters will be mailed separately to each of the attorneys for the tier 3 Defendants. The Court will send the same letters to counsel for the government.
(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB) (Entered: 06/26/2017)

06/26/2017-- 2082-- NOTICE of Supplemental Disclosures under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(G) by USA as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart. (Myhre, Steven) (Entered: 06/26/2017)

06/26/2017-- 2083-- RESPONSE to 2059 Motion in Limine ; filed by USA as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Steven A. Stewart. Replies due by 7/3/2017. (Myhre, Steven) (Entered: 06/26/2017)

06/27/2017-- 2086-- RESPONSE to 2060 Motion ; filed by USA as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart. Replies due by 7/4/2017. (Myhre, Steven) (Entered: 06/27/2017)

06/27/2017-- 2087-- MOTION to Dismiss For Brady, Henthorn, and Giglio Violations by O. Scott Drexler as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart. Responses due by 7/11/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Article)(Leventhal, Todd) (Entered: 06/27/2017)

06/29/2017-- 2100-- RESPONSE to 2064 Motion in Limine ; filed by O. Scott Drexler as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart. Replies due by 7/6/2017. (Leventhal, Todd) (Entered: 06/29/2017)

06/30/2017-- 2106-- RESPONSE to 2065 Motion in Limine ; filed by USA as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart. Government Response in Opposition to Motion in Limine to Preclude Booking Photos Replies due by 7/7/2017. (Myhre, Steven) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

07/02/2017-- 2108-- PROPOSED Voir Dire by Eric J. Parker as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart (Marchese, Jess) (Entered: 07/02/2017)

07/03/2017-- 2109-- PROPOSED Jury Instructions by Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart (Leventhal, Todd) (Entered: 07/03/2017)

07/03/2017-- 2110-- REPLY to Response to 2059 Motion in Limine filed by Eric J. Parker as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Steven A. Stewart. (Marchese, Jess) (Entered: 07/03/2017)

07/03/2017-- 2111-- REPLY to Response to 2060 Motion filed by O. Scott Drexler as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart. (Leventhal, Todd) (Entered: 07/03/2017)

07/03/2017-- 2112-- WITNESS LIST by O. Scott Drexler as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart. (Leventhal, Todd) (Entered: 07/03/2017)

07/03/2017-- 2113-- EXHIBIT LIST by O. Scott Drexler as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Steven A. Stewart (Leventhal, Todd) (Entered: 07/03/2017)

07/03/2017-- 2114-- TRIAL BRIEF by USA as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart (Myhre, Steven) (Entered: 07/03/2017)

07/03/2017-- 2116-- WITNESS LIST by USA as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart. (Myhre, Steven) (Entered: 07/03/2017)

07/03/2017-- 2118-- RESPONSE to 2108 Proposed Voir Dire, Government's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Proposed Voir Dire Questions filed by USA as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart. (Myhre, Steven) (Entered: 07/03/2017)

07/03/2017-- 2119-- STATEMENT of Case by USA as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart . (Myhre, Steven) (Entered: 07/03/2017)

07/03/2017-- 2120-- PROPOSED Jury Instructions by USA as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Myhre, Steven) (Entered: 07/03/2017)

07/03/2017-- 2121-- EXHIBIT LIST by USA as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart (Myhre, Steven) (Entered: 07/03/2017)

07/05/2017-- 2126-- REPLY to Response to 2065 Motion in Limine filed by O. Scott Drexler as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart. (Leventhal, Todd) (Entered: 07/05/2017)

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:29 am
by NMgirl
USA Statement of Case-Trial 1.pdf
I downloaded this because it gives a list of the charges.The charges in the Nevada trials carry significantly more prison time than the charges in the Oregon trials.
Government's Trial Brief-Parker's Testimony.pdf
Parker’s Testimony from the Previous Trial is Evidence that the Government Can Admit Against All Four Defendants
Eric Parker was the only retrial defendant who testified in the first trial.
Defendants' Joint Proposed Voir Dire.pdf
Govt's Oppo to Defendants' Voir Dire Q's.pdf
It may seem unusual for one party to actually have to file a response in opposition to the proposed voir dire questions. This is an unusual case. In this case, the defendants admit that they stood over federal law enforcement officers, brandishing their firearms toward them, hoping to attain the release of the cattle in the officers custody. With this factual foundation, the defense strategy at trial appears to be a hodge podge of anti-federal government sentiment, appeals to the sanctity of the First and Second Amendments (despite the fact neither Amendment offers a defense to violent crimes), and wholly-unsupported claims that the victims deserved to be assaulted. In short, the defense subsists nearly entirely of impermissible jury nullification.
The proposed voir dire questions are a continuation of this strategy, a shockingly brazen one.
I haven't had an opportunity to look at any of the other documents listed in the document dump, but I hope to do that tonight and will attach any that look interesting. If anybody else sees a document that would be of interest, please let me know so I can attach it.
Edit: Edited to add Defendants' Proposed Voir Dire

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:27 am
by Burn'em Down
Yeah, more "double jeopardy" claims forthcoming on social media.

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:41 am
by NMgirl
High Country News has an article up about the retrial:
Bundy Ranch ‘gunmen’ face retrial in Las Vegas
New evidence links defendants to other anti-government gatherings in the West.
http://www.hcn.org/articles/public-land ... -standoff/

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:25 am
by Maybenaut
NMgirl wrote:High Country News has an article up about the retrial:
Bundy Ranch ‘gunmen’ face retrial in Las Vegas
New evidence links defendants to other anti-government gatherings in the West.
http://www.hcn.org/articles/public-land ... -standoff/
high country news wrote:Two additional defendants originally charged in the case — Gregory Burleson and Todd Engel — were convicted of eight and two charges each, in April, and will not be retried.
Each/respectively. Potayto/potahto.

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:51 am
by Northland10
Maybenaut wrote:
NMgirl wrote:High Country News has an article up about the retrial:
Bundy Ranch ‘gunmen’ face retrial in Las Vegas
New evidence links defendants to other anti-government gatherings in the West.
http://www.hcn.org/articles/public-land ... -standoff/
high country news wrote:Two additional defendants originally charged in the case — Gregory Burleson and Todd Engel — were convicted of eight and two charges each, in April, and will not be retried.
Each/respectively. Potayto/potahto.
It is also not new evidence. It is evidence they chose not to use the first time.

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:58 am
by pipistrelle
Northland10 wrote:It is also not new evidence. It is evidence they chose not to use the first time.
If it's permissible, am baffled why they didn't use it in Oregon for those to whom it applied. The analogy of robbing a bank after robbing a bank after robbing a bank does show a pattern. Although from their perspective robbing a bank may be clearly illegal, while threatening and aiming at federal officers and LEO isn't.

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:06 am
by Maybenaut
pipistrelle wrote:
Northland10 wrote:It is also not new evidence. It is evidence they chose not to use the first time.
If it's permissible, am baffled why they didn't use it in Oregon for those to whom it applied. The analogy of robbing a bank after robbing a bank after robbing a bank does show a pattern. Although from their perspective robbing a bank may be clearly illegal, while threatening and aiming at federal officers and LEO isn't.
Well, pattern probably isn't the right term. The government isn't allowed to put on evidence that a person has the propensity to commit certain crimes. In other words, they can't put on evidence that the defendant is a bad person, because the concern is that he or she would be convicted on the basis of some crime they weren't charged with committing.

The rule allows other acts evidence to prove motive, intent, plan, knowledge, and absence of mistake (there might be other permissible uses of this sort of evidence; these are the ones that spring immediately to mind). So they would use this evidence to show that that they intended to threaten or impede, or whatever, but not to show propensity.

I know they gave notice of this evidence (as required by the rule), but has the judge ruled on its admissibility yet? It's been a while since I looked -- didn't the defense file a motion in limine to keep it out?

As to the Oregon trial, well, that case had different prosecutors. Plus, I doubt the prosecutors thought they needed it. They had what should have been a slam dunk case. And by the time they realized that it was all going pear-shaped (assuming they did), it would have been too late. They have to provide notice of the intent to use this sort of evidence prior to trial.

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:03 pm
by Mary Quite Contrary
Is there any reason that "their state of mind" should be allowed as to their defense?

I can't seem to wrap my brain around how their non-reality based ideas were even included the first go round.

Thanks all.

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:16 pm
by Northland10
Maybenaut wrote:... and absence of mistake...
I went out to my car one morning, tripped, and suddenly found myself on a bridge in Nevada pointing an assault rifle at federal officers. It was all one big mistake your honor.

Is the fact that I could see a Poot actually using this excuse a sign that I have been following them for way too long?

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:00 pm
by Sterngard Friegen
Mary Quite Contrary wrote:Is there any reason that "their state of mind" should be allowed as to their defense?

I can't seem to wrap my brain around how their non-reality based ideas were even included the first go round.

Thanks all.
Proving state of mind is an element of a criminal offense.("Mens rea.") The other element, which may include many acts, is the act or are the acts, which constitute the offense. ("Actus reus.")

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:03 pm
by Tiredretiredlawyer
Northland10 wrote:
Maybenaut wrote:... and absence of mistake...
I went out to my car one morning, tripped, and suddenly found myself on a bridge in Nevada pointing an assault rifle at federal officers. It was all one big mistake your honor.

Is the fact that I could see a Poot actually using this excuse a sign that I have been following them for way too long?
Uhm, sit down, N10, we need to talk.... :think:

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:04 am
by NMgirl
Friday Night Document Dump

07/05/2017-- 2126-- REPLY to Response to 2065 Motion in Limine filed by O. Scott Drexler as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart. (Leventhal, Todd) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
Hey! Those photos the prosecutors intend to show the jury make us look like low-life scumbags.

07/07/2017-- 2130 -- ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part Government's 2011 Motion for an Equal Number of Peremptory Challenges as to Eric J. Parker (11), O. Scott Drexler (12), Richard R. Lovelien (13), and Steven A. Stewart (14). Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 7/7/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
The Government gets some more peremptory challenges; but just to be fair, so do the defendants.
Peremptory Challenges.pdf
Tattoos Make Defendants Look Like Criminals!.pdf
[I know that tattoos is misspelled, but I'm too tired to correct the doc title. Maybe later. Or not.]

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:44 am
by Tiredretiredlawyer
Love the summaries in red!

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:56 am
by pipistrelle
NMgirl wrote:Friday Night Document Dump
Peremptory Challenges.pdfTattoos Make Defendants Look Like Criminals!.pdf
[I know that tattoos is misspelled, but I'm too tired to correct the doc title. Maybe later. Or not.]
I'm confused by this one — defendants don't stipulate they are the people in the photographs? The gumint been hiring people to pose for their booking photos?

Tattoos are commonplace among many age groups and classes. Well, not gang tattoos, or teardrop tattoos, etc. Are these guys saying they have criminal tattoos?

Are they going to be allowed to cover them in court (assuming any visible, like neck, face, and hands)? I've read that's often allowed. But usually with crime-/gang-related tattoos, not butterflies.

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:57 am
by pipistrelle
Also, is this self-awareness that maybe they don't look like stellar citizens, or did the lawyers say, "Uh-oh . . ."

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 10:05 am
by rpenner
Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:Love the summaries in red!
Snark FTW.

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 10:23 am
by Tiredretiredlawyer
rpenner wrote:
Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:Love the summaries in red!
Snark FTW.
:rotflmao:

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 10:58 am
by NMgirl
In re booking photographs:
Court ends routine access to federal mugshots
By JOSH GERSTEIN 07/14/2016 02:42 PM EDT Updated 07/14/2016 03:28 PM EDT
Public access to mugshots of people arrested on federal criminal charges will be dramatically curtailed under a ruling issued Thursday by a federal appeals court, unless the Supreme Court steps in.

On a 9-7 vote, the full bench of the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a two-decade-old legal precedent that allowed news organizations and others to obtain booking photos of criminal defendants who've appeared in federal court.

Writing for the majority, Judge Deborah Cook found erroneous a 1996 6th Circuit decision essentially guaranteeing access to mugshots requested under the federal Freedom of Information Act. Both that case and the one the court ruled on Thursday were brought by the Detroit Free Press.

Calling mugshots "squarely within [the] realm of embarrassing and humiliating information," Cook noted that they're considered so damaging to a person's reputation that they can't normally be shown at a trial.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the ... cts-225546

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:07 am
by pipistrelle
I wonder how that works when the booking photos are taken by the sheriff's department, as in Oregon, but the charges are federal? The Oregonian ran those booking photos 6 million times (patriot math).

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:20 am
by NMgirl
pipistrelle wrote:I wonder how that works when the booking photos are taken by the sheriff's department, as in Oregon, but the charges are federal? The Oregonian ran those booking photos 6 million times (patriot math).
Yabbut, note the date of the 6th Circuit's ruling: July, 2016, well after the booking photographs in the Oregon trials had been published by the Oregonian, among other media sources.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear the Detroit Free Press' challenge of a ruling that allows law enforcement agencies to withhold criminal mug shots in federal cases.

Without comment, the justices included the case of Detroit Free Press v. Department of Justice among those it was declining to schedule for arguments, leaving in place a decision last year by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/2017/05 ... 335905001/

That doesn't mean I'm not :confused: as well. Why was the 6th Circuit ruling not cited by the Nevada defendants' attorneys :?: (Is this a stupid question :?: )

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:36 am
by pipistrelle
NMgirl wrote:
pipistrelle wrote:I wonder how that works when the booking photos are taken by the sheriff's department, as in Oregon, but the charges are federal? The Oregonian ran those booking photos 6 million times (patriot math).
Yabbut, note the date of the 6th Circuit's ruling: July, 2016, well after the booking photographs in the Oregon trials had been published by the Oregonian, among other media sources.
I could be wrong, but I think the Oregonian has run them since then as well. But I could be wrong since I haven't paid as close attention.

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:44 am
by NMgirl
pipistrelle wrote: I could be wrong, but I think the Oregonian has run them since then as well. But I could be wrong since I haven't paid as close attention.
The Oregonian is still publishing the mugshots. :confused:

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-stando ... flore.html

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #1--The Retrial of Parker, Drexler, Lovelien, Stewart.

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 12:10 pm
by bob
The 6th Circuit (which includes neither Oregon nor Nevada) ruled that the DOJ could not be compelled to release mugshots (via FOIA requests) without, on a case-by-case basis, first balancing the public's interest versus the arrested's privacy interests. The 6th explained:
Bound by Free Press I, the United States Marshals Service (USMS) adopted a "bifurcated policy" for releasing booking photos. Within the Sixth Circuit's jurisdiction, the USMS would honor all requests for photos under the circumstances outlined in Free Press I. Outside the Sixth Circuit, however, the USMS continued to follow its long-standing policy of refusing requests for booking photos. "Straw man" requesters in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee accordingly exploited the policy to obtain photos maintained in other jurisdictions, securing Bernie Madoff's booking photo in one prominent example.

The USMS's patchwork disclosure system persisted until the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits considered booking-photo disclosure and disagreed with Free Press I's analysis. . . . Bolstered by these decisions, the USMS abandoned the bifurcated policy in 2012 and refused — nationwide — to honor FOIA requests for booking photos.
Although the Politico article says mugshots are not "normally" shown at trial, there are many exceptions. Including if a defendant disputes identity. A common-enough occurrence is where a witness describes the perpetrator as, say, having a mustache and no glasses. The defense will object, and note the person in court is clean shaven and wearing glasses. So then the prosecutor will introduce the mugshot to show what the perpetrator looked like when arrested, i.e., closer in time to when observed by the witness.