Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1357

Filed 09/27/16

Page 1 of 6

Ryan Bundy, Pro Se

Inmate: Swis# 795070
Multnomah County Detention Center
11540 NE Inverness Drive
Portland, OR 97220
Telephone: (503) 988-3689
Defendant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR-05

Plaintiff,
vs.
RYAN BUNDY,
Defendant.

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS

A MATTER OF LAW
Judge: Hon. Anna J. Brown

Defendant hereby moves for Judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to Federal Rules of
Criminal 29. No reasonable jury could find in favor of the United States regarding any of the
counts pertaining to the Defendant.
First, the conspiracy statute invoked in Count 1, 18 U.S.C. 372, does not criminalize
conspiracies to impede. It criminalizes conspiracies to prevent it.1 This is significant because
while the United States has presented some evidence of defendants general antipathy or hostility

372. CONSPIRACY TO IMPEDE OR INJURE OFFICER

If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by
force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust or place of
confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like
means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are
required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful
discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to
injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his
official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
six years, or both.

Page 1 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1357

Filed 09/27/16

Page 2 of 6

to U.S. agencies, the United States has presented no evidence whatsoever of any agreement
among the defendants to prevent any federal employee from doing any business. Anywhere.
Not only has no specific discussion among defendants (or anyone else) been introduced
showing an intention to prevent employees from going to work. No individual defendant has
been heard stating such an intention.
1.

No evidence that any person associated with U.S. Fish & Wildlife was ever

prevented from working.

2.

No evidence that any person associated with the Bureau of Land Management was

ever prevented from working.

3.

No evidence that any defendant expressed an intent to prevent even a single BLM

or USF&W employee from working at the MWR.

4.

No evidence that any defendant expressed an intent to prevent even a single BLM

or USF&W employee from entering the MWR.

5.

Moreover, the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt thatto the extent that

any BLM and USFW employees stayed away from the Refugethey did so in response to (a)
orders by superiors not to go to work at the Refuge, and (b) the employees WERE PAID to stay
away. (Had the employees NOT been paidor been told they needed to report to work at the
Refuge headquarters to be paidthey would have likely reported to work.)
6.

Thus, under the rule of Rossi v. United States, 49 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1931), the

Government has not offered sufficient evidence to establish the unlawful conspiracy charged.
Rossi found that an alleged conspiracy among town officials to allow vice to thrive so as to
benefit from taxes might be inferred; but there was no evidence of any agreement on the part of
the officers to protect any offender from prosecution for violating the National Prohibition Act.

Page 2 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1357

Filed 09/27/16

Page 3 of 6

The intervening factor (in Rossi, the fact that U.S. prosecutors could freely prosecute for liquor
offenses; here, the fact that it was universally known that supervisors always had control over
whether employees reported at the Malheur Refuge) representsas a matter of both fact and
lawthat there was no agreement on the part of any defendant to prevent the two agencies from
performing their duties.
7.

Even if some of the purported objects of the alleged conspiracy may have been

achieved, the absence of proof of the agreement requires acquittal for all defendants on Count 1.
See Rossi (the object of the conspiracy, if any existed, was largely accomplished by the spread
of elicit liquor and vice, but the case made against the municipal officers was simply this, and
nothing more: From time to time these officers collected tribute from bootleggers, gamblers,
prostitutes, and perhaps other law violators within the city, sometimes openly and sometimes by
subterfuge, but always for the benefit of the municipality.
8.

Moreover, even if the government has proven that multiple men came to the area

around Burns, Oregon to make a hard stand, the existence of such numbers hardly evidences a
conspiracy to prevent BLM or USFWS employees from working. See, e.g., Rossi v. United
States, 49 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1931) (to say that all the numerous, independent competing
bootleggers in that section were conspiring together . . . is a perversion of the facts, a mere
figment of the imagination).
9.

It seems undeniable that some Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to obtain

adverse possession of the Malheur Refuge for Harney County, or perhaps a conspiracy to make a
strong stand against the perceived injustice to the Hammonds. But although such conspiracies
may be reasonably inferred, they were not the conspiracy charged in the indictment. Proof of
different and distinct conspiracies from that charged in the indictment for which the defendant is

Page 3 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1357

Filed 09/27/16

Page 4 of 6

placed on trial, will not sustain a conviction. See Moss v. United States, 132 F.2d 875 (6th Cir.
1943) Wyatt v. United States, 3 Cir., 23 F.2d 791; Ventimiglio v. United States, 6 Cir., 61 F.2d
619.
10. The Indictment appears to be overwhelmingly grounded on acts of speech, press,
petitions for redress of grievances, and mere bearing of arms. Any conviction on this count
would necessarily infringe on the Constitutional rights of defendants.
COUNT TWO
Count Two is an allegation that the Defendant did knowingly possess or cause to be
present a firearm or dangerous weapon in a federal facility located at the Malheur National
Wildlife Refuge, and counseled, commanded, induced and procured the commission thereof,
with the intent that the firearm or dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, to
wit: 18 U.S.C. 372, Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States, in violation of Title
18, United States Code, Sections 930(b) and 2.
As the United States has failed to establish sufficient proof for any conviction on Count
1, the Count 2 firearm count must also fail.
Even if Count 1 were demonstrated, the Government has failed to provide sufficient
proof of Count 2.
1.

While the Government has loaded its case with firearms and ammunition, the mere

fact of such weapons does not provide sufficient proof that any reasonable jury could use to
convict on Count 2.
2.

Conviction requires evidence separate from mere possession of firearms or

ammunition. It requires evidence that the defendant counseled, commanded, induced and

Page 4 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1357

Filed 09/27/16

Page 5 of 6

procured such possession by himself or others with the intent that such firearms be actually
used in the commission of Count 1.
3.

The Government has utterly failed to provide any proof of this claim. Conviction

would require a statement in conjunction with firearm use for preventing BLM and/or USFW
workers from performing duties. Not a single piece of evidence has been offered to support the
Governments allegation.
4.

The Government has produced no evidence of brandishing, threatening, aiming or

pointing any firearms at BLM or USFWS employees.

5.

Government witnesses have repeatedly admitted that the gun possession and

ownership alleged in this case is wholly lawful, in that the firearms evidenced in the case were
all legal for Americans to purchase and use.
6.

Moreover, the Second Amendment precludes convictions on Count 2 in this case.

COUNT 5
The United States has totally and utterly failed to establish a prima facie case for a
violation of 18 U.S.C. 641. The allegation that the Defendant stole cameras belonging to the
U.S. government fails for a wide variety of reasons:
1.

The evidence shown to the jury actually contradicts the allegation. The Defendant

merely touched or held one or two of the cameras for a matter of seconds and then immediately
handed the cameras over
2.

The theft was open, notorious and filmed in broad daylight in front of numerous

news and camera crews, belying any showing of culpable intent even if a theft had otherwise
been shown.

Page 5 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

3.

Document 1357

Filed 09/27/16

Page 6 of 6

Additionally, the evidence shows that no warning was posted anywhere on or near

the cameras declaring them to be the property of the United States. This brings the facts very
closely to those in the famous Morissette v. United States case, where the Supreme Court struck
down a conviction for stealing spent rocket casings where there was no obvious evidence that
Morissette was aware that the objects were the property of the United States.
4.

Conviction on Count 5 requires proof of two elements that are totally absent: (1)

proof of intent to permanently deprive, and 2) proof of intent to USE the property.

Respectfully submitted this 27th day of September, 2016.

s/ Ryan Bundy
ryan c of the bundy society

Page 6 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW