Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 1 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
OREGON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.,
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.

) Criminal Action No.: 3:16-cr-00051-BR

)

RYAN BUNDY,

)
Defendant. )

DEFENDANT (RYAN BUNDY'S)

REPLY BRIEF
RE: ECF NO.'s 1206, 1207, 1208,1209, 1211, 1212, 1213 and 1224
Ryan Bundy, pro se, files this his reply brief in support of ECF No.'s 1206, 1207, 1208,
1209, 1211, 1212, 1213 and 1224(hereinafter Motions or Defendant's Motions).
On September 7, 2016 and September 8, 2016; Defendant Ryan Bundy(hereinafter
Defendant or Bundy) filed discovery Motions among other things in Criminal Action No.:
3:16-cr-00051-BR. The United States Government(hereinafter the Government) filed its'
response in opposition to the same on September 20 th, 2016. For the following reasons, this
Court should reject the Government's conclusory statements or otherwise failure to respond
and compel them into compliance in the interest of justice.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
This Statement of Facts is taken from materials provided by the United States
Attorney's Office's Superceding Indictment. There is a 6-Count Indictment in which the United
States Government contends from November 5 th, 2015 to February 12th, 2016, that 27 codefendants conspired with each other to prevent, by force, intimdation and threats, officers
and employees of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 2 of 24

Management within the United States of Department of Interior, from discharging its duties of
their office at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge(hereinafter the refuge) among other
places in violation of Title 18, Section 373 of the United States Code. Further, the superceding
Indictment refers Defendant's trip to Oregon as a an overt act in the furtherance there of the
purported conspiracy; and also refers to Defendants open carrying firearms as overt acts in
the furtherance of a purported conspiracy; that Defendants prevented federal employees from
discharging their duties at said refuge. The Indictments further charge that the Defendants
aided and abetted each other in a federal facility in the furtherance of their plan to utilize
firearms in the commission of a crime; that they aided and abetted each other to Impeded
officers counsel, command and induce each other and procure the commission thereof.
Specifically, defendants are charged with violations of 18 U.S.C. 372 and Title 18
U.S.C. 930(b) and 2. Further, it alleges Ryan Bundy purportedly participated by 1.)
conspiracy to commit a violent crime; 2.) aiding and abetting by commanding coaching,
inducing or otherwise procuring others to commit a crime; and 3.) aiding and abetting other
Defendants under the same facts from November 5, 2016 to February 12, 2016 to knowingly
utilize use and carry firearms during a violent crime of Impeding Officers. However, the
Superseding Indictment alleges no facts specific to Mr. Bundy. Based on these allegations,
the Indictment concludes that Mr. Bundy committed crimes or conspired to commit crimes.
The Government has turned over materials which consist of over 259,128,000
documents housed on (1) one i-Pad of which Mr. Bundy has had limited/minimal access to
review in the furtherance of his own detriment and due process rights being woefully
breached.
II.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

A Defendant's request for discovery are not limited to those items that the United
2

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 3 of 24

States
Attorney's Office knows of, but rather includes all discovery in the custody, control, care, or
knowledge of any closely related federal agencies. United States v. Bryan, 868 F.2d 1032,
1036 (9th Cir. 1989). As a consequence, the prosecutor must inquire and diligently investigate
whether any information responsive to these discovery requests is within the custody, control,
care, or knowledge of any of these closely related agencies. Kyles v. Whitley,514 U.S. 419,
437-38 (1995).
Moreover, a principle concern of all discovery rules is to make sure the prosecutor
does not have sole access to the evidence. It is especially important that the defense, the
judge and the jury should have the assurance that the doors that may lead to the truth have
been unlocked. In our adversary system for determining guilt or innocence, it is rarefy
justifiable for the prosecution to have exclusive access to a storehouse of relevant fact.
Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 873 (1966). If there is room for doubt as to whether
evidence is exculpatory, it is improper for the prosecutor to decide what is useful for the
defense.Id at 875. See also United States v. Hibler, 463 F.2d 455 (9th Cir. 1972).
Defendant's Statements - Rule 16(a)(l)(A)
Disclosure of the statements of a defendant covered by Rule 16(a)(1)(A) is mandatory.
See United States v. Bailleaux, 685 F.2d 1105, 1114-1115 (9th Cir. 1982). This includes any
written summaries of oral statements contained in handwritten notes of an agent and any
response to any Miranda warnings that were given to him (see U.S. v. McElroy, 697 F.2d 459
(2d Cir. 1982)).
The Advisory Committee Notes, as well as the 1991 amendments, to Rule 16 specify
that the government must reveal all the defendant's statements, whether oral or written,
regardless of whether the government intends to introduce those statements at trial.
3

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 4 of 24

Written or Recorded Statements of Defendant

With respect to the matters constituting a discoverable written or recorded statement
of the defendants under Rule 16(a)(1)(A), a number of principles have emerged:
1. The defendant's statement need not be written out by him. An oral
statement recorded by mechanical, electrical, or other means, such as
stenography, is discoverable. United States v. Gee, 695 F.2d 1165 (9th
Cir. 1983).
2. The statement need not be a recital of past occurrences to be
discoverable. It may itself constitute a part of the alleged offense or be
made in the course of the commission of the offense. Specifically, tape
recordings of a defendant's conversations with cooperatingwitnesses,
informants, undercover agents, or anyone else, which relate to the crime
charged, are discoverable. United Stales v. Gee,695 F.2d 1165 (9th Cir.
1983).
3. An oral statement of defendant, recited or summarized in an
investigative report or in the notes of a government investigator is
discoverable under
Rule 16(a)(1)(A) as a written or recorded
statement without regard to whether it is verbatim or when the report or
notes were made. United States v. Parker, 549 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir.
1977); United States v. Harris, 543 F.2d 1247 (9th Cir. 1976).
Documents and Tangible Objects Under Rule 16a)(1)(C) 1
Rule 16(a)(1)(C) entitles defendants to discover documents or other tangible objects in
three specified situations: (a) those which are material to the preparation of his defense; (b)
those which are intended for use by the government as evidence in its case-in-chief at trial;
and (c) those which were obtained from or belong to the defendant.
The concept of material as used in this subdivision of the Rule is a broad one. In
United States v. Cooper, 983 F.2d 928 (9th Cir. 1993), Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's order dismissing the indictment for the government's failure to preserve and produce
physical evidence seized from an alleged methamphetamine laboratory. The defendant
1The trial judge is charged with the responsibility of conducting the trial as impartially and fairly as possible. As
noted by this court in Smith v. United States, 305 F.2d 197, 205 cert. denied, 371 U.S. 890, 83 S.Ct. 190, 9
L.Ed.2d 124 (1962), a federal trial judge ... is more than a moderator or umpire. He has the responsibility to
preside in such a way as to promote a fair and expeditious development of the facts unencumbered by
irrelevancies. United States v. Trapnell, 512 F.2d 10, 12 (9th Cir. 1975)

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 5 of 24

claimed that the lab was used to manufacture legitimate items. [The defendants] should not
be made to suffer because government agents discounted their version and, in bad faith,
allowed its proof, or its disproof, to be buried in a toxic waste dump. Id. at 933. See United
States v. Clegg, 846 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1988)(classified documents should have been
disclosed to defense because they were relevant to a mistake of law defense).
Reports of Examinations and Tests - Rule 16(a)(1)(D) & (E)
Under the explicit language of Rule 16(a)(1)(D), defendant is entitled to be provided
with the results of any scientific analysis of the evidence. United States v. Barrett, 703 F.2d
1078, 1081 (9th Cir. 1983). Under Rule 16(a)(1) (E), the government must provide written
summaries to any testimony it intends to introduce under Rules 702, 703, or 705 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence that describe the witness' opinions, the bases and reasons
therefore and the witness' qualifications.
Names of Witnesses
There is inherent judicial power to order the disclosure of government witnesses in
appropriate cases. See United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d 1453, 1469 (9th Cir. 1984); United
States v. Richter, 488 F.2d 170, 173, 174 (9th Cir. 1973); United States v. Neap, 834 F.2d
1311 (7th Cir. 1987); United States v. Tucker, 716 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1983); United States v.
Cook, 608 F.2d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 1979) (observing that defense has equal right to talk to
witnesses).
Statements of Witnesses
As previously discussed, Rule 16 only sets forth the minimal requirement for discovery
in the federal courts and it does not limit the inherent powers of the Court to order discovery. I
appropriate circumstances, statements of government witnesses to be called at trial have
been ordered discoverable even when the statements are covered by the Jencks Act.
5

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 6 of 24

In United States v. Isgro, 974 F.2d 1091 (9th Cir. 1992), the Ninth Circuit held that a
government witness' prior trial testimony was not protected from pretrial disclosure by the
Jencks Act. Because the prior trial testimony, which was a matter of public record, contained
prior inconsistent statements of the government witness, the prosecutor's action in
withholding it from the defense was subject to sanctioning. Id at 1095, 1098. Grand Jury
Testimony - Rule 6(e)
In Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 89 S. Ct. 1849 (1966), the Supreme Court
seemed to have greatly loosened the standard of particularized need for disclosure of Grand
Jury testimony. The Dennis court isolated relevant factors.
Moreover, as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has stated, nothing in Rule 6(e) itself
purports to limit the trial court's discretion to order disclosure; the particularized need test
could well be regarded
adhere

merely as a minimum standard to which the courts must

in granting disclosure without limiting the court's power to order disclosure in

additional situations where a showing of particularized need has not been made. United
States v. Youngblood, 379 F.2d 365, 369 (2d Cir. 1967). See also United States v. Wallace,
848 F.2d 1464 (9th Cir. 1988).
Notes Prepared by the Government Agents
Notes prepared by government agents must be preserved until the Court can
determine whether they are producible. The government may not destroy notes without prior
judicial approval. United States v. Harris, 543 F.2d 1247, 1251-3 (9th Cir. 1976); United
States v. Rewald, 889 F.2d 836 (9th Cir.1989); United States v White, 766 F. Supp. 873, 889
(E.D. Wash. 1991).
If notes are occasionally read back to a witness to see whether or not the government
agent correctly understood what he was saying, that act constitutes adoption by the witness.
6

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 7 of 24

If the note are a substantially verbatim recital of a witness' oral statement and are prepared
contemporaneously under the Jencks Act and may even fall under Brady. Therefore, the
notes and any other recordings may be produced. United States v. Bushell, 952 F.2d 1101,
1105(9th Cir. 1991), Rewald, 889 F.2d at 867.
Disclosure of Intent to Rely on Evidence of Similar Acts or Crimes
Upon request of the accused, the prosecution shall provide reasonable notice in
advance of trial of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to use. The failure of
the government to reveal prior to trial the identity of the person who the government will rely
upon to show similar acts or wrongs at the trial may result in a reversal. United States v.
Baum, 482 F.2d 1328, 1331 (2d Cir. 1973).
Specific Requests Re: Witnesses
To help focus the duty of disclosure, the defendant is made specific requests for
disclosure, itemizing likely sources of impeaching information within the knowledge or
possession of the government. See United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); United
States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985).
Conviction Records
Defendant's

request

for

information

regarding

prior

felony

convictions

and

juvenile adjudications invokes a customary avenue of impeachment that Rule 609 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence expressly condones.

See United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d

1197(9th Cir. 1988). The inclusion of guilty verdicts in the request results from decisions
authorizing their use request results from decisions authorizing their use, even though not
reduced to judgment, for purposes of impeachment. United States v. Caraday, 466 F.2d 1191
(9th Cir. 1972). Discovery should also extend to production of any and all so-called rap
sheets for witnesses.

United States v. Jennings, 960 F.2d 1488, 1491 (9th Cir. 1992);
7

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 8 of 24

United States v. Alvarez- Lopez, 559 F.2d 1155 (9th Cir. 1977)
Misconduct
The Federal Rules of Evidence also give the Court discretion to permit a defendant
cross-examination of a witness as to specific instances of misconduct, so-called bad acts,
even though such behavior does not amount to felony conviction, if the evidence impeaches
the witness' truthfulness. FED. R. EVID. 608(b); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154
(1972).
Consideration or Promises
The government must disclose any and all consideration that it has held out to a
witness or for which the witness subjectively hopes or expects, as such consideration gives
rise to a direct inferenceof bias or partiality. United States v. Shaffer, 789 F.2d 682 (9th Cir.
1986);see United States v. Mayer, 556 F.2d 245, 248 (5th Cir. 1977) that cross-examination
of a witness who has had prior dealings with the prosecution or other law enforcement
officials ought to be give the largest possible scope and reversing conviction). The
government must disclose whether it has made promises or held out other inducements in
exchange for a witness' cooperation and agreement to testify against the defendant, as well
as the substance of those promises or inducements. Shaffer, supra; United States v. Harris,
462 F.2d 1033 (10th Cir. 1972)
In Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), the Supreme Court made plain that
this duty is an affirmative one which the government must discharge responsibly, and the
ignorance of one prosecutor does not excuse the failure to disclose. Id See also Shaffer,
supra. In the instant case, the prosecution is obliged to exercise due diligence to determine
what consideration, broadly defined, it has offered to its witnesses or bestowed upon them
and disclose it to the defense. The obligation includes total compensation or benefits paid to
8

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 9 of 24

or expected by each witness. See United States v. Antone, 603 F,2d 566, 569-70 (5th Cir.
1979) (attorney's fees paid by state law enforcement officers cooperating in the investigation).
The benefits include any assistance in the business world, e.g., United States v. DiCarlo, 575
F.2d 952, 958-60 (1st Cir. 1978); any assistance in avoiding prosecution by other authorities,
e.g., Azbill v. Pogue, 534 F.2d 195, 196 (9th Cir. 1976); and, assistance in bonding out of
custody, e.g., United States v. Garza, 574 F.2d 298, 301-02 (5th Cir. 1978). In addition,
[w]hile it is clear that an explicit agreement would have to be disclosed ..., it is equally clear
that facts which imply an agreement would also bear on [the witness'] credibility and would
have to be disclosed.

Shaffer, 789 F.2d at 690 (emphasis added). If the arguably

exculpatory statement of witnesses ... were in the prosecutor's file and not produced, failure
to disclose indicates the tip of the iceberg of evidence that should have been revealed under
Brady. United States v. Griggs, 713 F.2d 672, 674 (11th Cir. 1983). In relying on Griggs and
other case law, the Ninth Circuit held in Shaffer, supra, that information, which the
government failed to disclose-the extent of the witness' assets and the fact that the
government would not enforce the witness' civil tax liability in exchange for his cooperationwas exculpatory material that could indicate the tip of the iceberg of a secret deal of
leniency which had to be disclosed.Id. at 691. These examples are only intended to make
the principle clear and do not exhaust the range of consideration that defendant's requests
seek.
Bias
In addition to promises of consideration which might promote a witness' cooperation
with the government, the accused is entitled to be advised of any matter which might cause a
witness to color his testimony in favor of the government out of fear or interest in selfpreservation. E.g., United States v. Sutton, 542 F. 2d 1239 (4th Cir. 1976) by F.B.I. agent to
9

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 10 of 24

prosecute witness intended to induce witness' cooperation).

Evidence of a witness' wrongdoing, even though not amounting to a felony conviction
or comparable evidence of moral turpitude or bad character, may nonetheless be relevant to
show the bias or self-interest of the witness. McCormick, Evidence, Section 40 at 78-80 (2d
Ed. 1972);

United States

v. Alvarez-Lopez, supra, 559 F.2d 1155.

of this category is

information concerning the witness' possible vulnerability to prosecution, revocation of parole

or probation or other sanction by the government.
In United States v. Bonanno, 430 F.2d 1060 (2d Cir. 1970), the court condemned the
government's failure to disclose an outstanding indictment against its witness since the
pendency of the charge would have shown possible motivation of the witness to testify
favorably for the government. Id. at 1062. Similarly, in United States v. Padgent, 432 F.2d
701 (2d Cir. 1970), the Court reversed the defendant's conviction because his counsel had
been denied the right to question a government witness on cross-examination with regard to
the witness' vulnerability to future indictment for bail jumping. See also United States v.
Gerard, 491 F.2d 1300, 1304 (9th Cir. 1974).
The Supreme Court of the United States granted habeas corpus relief to a defendant
who was precluded from similar inquiry in Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974); see also
Meeks v. United States, 163 F.2d 599, 600 (9th Cir. 1947).
Other motivation factors are material. For example, a threat to revoke citizenship, see,
e.g., United States v. Haderlein, 118 F. Supp. 346 (N.D. Ill. 1953), to deport the witness
would qualify. Even without threats, so would the fact of a witness' imprisonment, as he might
well be affected by fear or favor growing out of his detention. A ford v. United States, 282
U.S. At 693; United States v. Garcia, 531 F.2d 1303, 1306(5th Cir. 1976).
Prior Testimony Regarding Case at Bar
10

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 11 of 24

If the government has available information that may lead to proof of prior inconsistent
statements or other evidence helpful to the accused, fundamental fairness requires that it be
turned over to the defense without further delay.2 United States v. Isgro, 974 F.2d 1091,1095
(9th Cir. 1992). As the Ninth Circuit stated:
We agree with the trial court that [the witness'] statement was in part
exculpatory material and should have been turned over to the defense.
The fact that the government concluded in good faith that the evidence
would not be very helpful to Miller does not excuse its failure to disclose
the statement. The prosecutor is not merely an advocate for a party; he
is also an administrator of justice. Considering the vast investigatory
resources and powers at the government's disposal, an elemental
sense of fair play demands disclosure of evidence that in any way may
be exculpatory. If the government, upon request of the accused, has
serious doubts about the usefulness of the evidence to the defense, the
government should resolve all doubts in favor of full disclosure. Such a
rule appears particularly appropriate since disclosure could cause no
harm to the government while suppression could very well prejudice the
defendant.
United Slates v. Miller, 529 F.2d 1125, 1128 (9th Cir. 1976) in original) (footnote omitted).
Prior Testimony in Other Proceedings
If the witness is a cooperating witness, informer, accomplice, or co-conspirator, the
defendant should also be advised of all occasions known to the government on which the
witness has previously testified, even if the government discerns no relation to the case at
hand. As to crucial and inherently suspect witnesses, the defendant must have the greatest
possible latitude in investigation as well as in cross-examination. See, e.g., United States v.
Isgro, supra;

United States v. Mayer, 556 F.2d at 248- 49;

United States v. Alvarez-

Lopez,559 F.2d at 1160.

Personnel Records
If a government employee serves as a prosecution witness, the defendant is entitled to
have access to his or her government personnel file in order to ascertain whether there is
11

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 12 of 24

information within it which could be of an impeaching nature. United States v. Henthorn, 931
F.2d 29, 30 (9th Cir. 1991). In United States v. Brumel-Alvarez, 976 F.2d 1235 (9th Cir.
1992), the Ninth Circuit held that defense counsel was entitled to impeaching information
contained in a retired DEA Group Supervisor's memorandum regarding the government's
main witness, an informant.
Law enforcement witnesses are not immune from this principle. In United States v.
Garrett, 542

F.2d 23 (6th Cir. 1976), the Court of Appeals reversed a drug distribution

conviction in which the defendant had been denied access to disciplinary records of the chief
witness, a police officer, who had been suspended from duty for refusal to take a urine test.
He was also restricted in cross-examining the officer about the reasons for his suspension.
See also, United Slates vb. Hitchmon, 609 F.2d 1098 (5th Cir. 1979) (reversing conviction
because trial court prohibited [cross-examinations] of government witnesses concerning an
internal D.E.A investigation into the possibility that two of its agents had given perjured
testimony in an effort to obtain a conviction).
Impeaching Information
This request embraces information which impeaches the witness' competency and
capacity and opportunity to observe, remember, recall, and narrate, as well as his character
for veracity and his partiality (prejudice, bias, motive, interest, and corruption). The
government must disclose evidence of basic mental trouble suffered by a witness. Wyman
v. Powell, 293 F. 2d 605, 608, (5th Cir. 1971); Powel v. Wilman, 287 F.2d 275, 278-79 (5th
Cir. 1961).
The same requirement of disclosure would be true if the government knew a witness
was using narcotic drugs at the time of the relevant events, see United States v. Fowler, 475
F.2d 566, 570-74 (DC. Cir. 1972), or during trial, see Wilson v. United States, 232 U.S. 583,
12

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 13 of 24

568 (1914). Impeachment comes in many forms and to the extent that the government
recognizes it-either by virtue of the flagging in this Motion or otherwise-it should not be
excluded.
Evidence the Prosecution Intends to Introduce at Trial to Provide Defense
Opportunity to Suppress Evidence Pretrial
Rule 12(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a defendant to
request notice of the prosecution's intent to use anyevidence so he may have an opportunity
to move to suppress it pretrial. The defendant is entitled to discovery of facts that will provide
the basis for pretrial motions. See United States v. McElroy, 697 F.2d 459 (2d Cir. 1982)
(reversing conviction due to prosecutor's failure to inform defense of defendant's invocation of
right to remain silent and right to counsel).
Electronic Surveillance
A number of decisions have upheld the right of the defense to discovery of electronic
surveillance by the government, so that the Court may resolve any suppression motions
arising under the doctrine of Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S. Ct. 961 (1969).
III.

DEFENDANT RYAN BUNDY'S REPLY AND ARGUMENT

i.)

Motion for Production of Expert Witnesses and Summaries of any

Expert Witness Testimony. (ECF No. 1206)

The Government has failed to respond to ECF No. 1206 to the extent that Defendants
have requested forty-five (45) discovery items; wherefore, Bundy argues is discoverable or
alternatively tends to be material/exculpatory. Indeed, the Government only provided a
response to paragraph eleven (11) in the instant response in opposition[ECF Doc. No. 1309;
at p2; 2].
Further, Bundy requested all written reports and summaries memorialized by experts
whether they plan to be introduced or not. Regardless of the Government's plans to not
13

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 14 of 24

introduce, rely on or otherwise offer this information at trial is wholly irrelevant; therefore it is
not moot. because the reports/summaries provide probative material and/or exculpatory
information.
Moreover, the Government has waived all arguments or objections to the production of
the remaining forty-four items in ECF No. 1206 because they failed to respond to the same in
their response in opposition. Therefore, this Court should compel production of all requests
articulated in said motion to the extent that they exist in the care custody and control of the
United States Government; and order Bundy's stand-by counsel to transmit said propounded
discovery responses and documents to Defendant's paralegals.
ii.)

Disclosure of Identities of Informants. (ECF No. 1207)

The Government has argued that Bundy's request for disclosure of the identities of all
confidential informants is untimely as well as other motions[ECF Doc. No. 1309; P2; at 3];
hence it should be denied. Under Fed. R. Cr. Pr. 12(b)(3), untimely pre-trial motions may be
granted by the Court if Defendants can show good cause for why the requests were not made
prior to trial(See Fed. R. Cr. Pr. 12(c)(3)). Indeed, the Government's argument is not well
founded in the facts or the law because Bundy filed his motions on September 9, 2016; which
was prior to the start of trial; and Rule 12 allows litigants to continue discovery to the extent
that Defendant's become aware of new witnesses or potential material/exculpatory evidence.
Indeed, Bundy can show good cause for any delay and can
Further, in a conclusory fashion, the Government stated
if this Court considers the merits, the government has disclosed
information provided by confidential sources, but does not intend
to call any of those sources as witnesses Id.
First, this argument is non-responsive and does not suffice Bundy's need and desire to
discover material/exculpatory evidence that may tend to prove his innocence or refute the
14

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 15 of 24

Government's accusations against Mr. Bundy who may choose to call said confidential
sources as adversarial witnesses which he would not be able to do and prepare for unless
the identities of those individuals were properly disclosed. Second, the Government has not
shown where or cited to what document or discovery index for which it has disclosed said
confidential sources.

Third, Bundy is unable to properly form his own defense without

knowledge of the allegations that are specifically against him; notwithstanding, the
Government has already called these confidential sources to testify against it's assertion that
it did not intend to do so.
Additionally, the Government argues under Roviaro that
Defendant can not compel disclosure of their identities unless he
can demonstrate that disclosure is either relevant and helpful to his
defense or essential to a fair determination of the case. Id.
Clearly, the Government is being disingenuous in their response in opposition to ECF
Doc. No. 1207 because they filed the same stating the government does not intend to call
any of those sources as witnesses.[ECF No. 1309; P2; at 3]; yet they called their
confidential informants or otherwise co-defendants to testify during the trial.

Indeed, the

posture taken by the Government in stating the above is egregious, oppressive and another
example of the Government breaching its duty of Candor to this Court and the Defendants.
The U.S District Attorney, Billy Williams flat-out lied in his filing depicted as ECF No
1309 and then affixed his signature to the signature block asserting to the factual basis and
truthfulness of said filing. As of September 22, 2016, Mr. Williams called Mr. Mark McConnell
as Government witnesses to testify on behalf of the U.S Government. Restated supra, this
witness was identified in trial as a confidential informant in fact and nature and never
disclosed to Defendants; hence, no defense preparation could have been formed or waged
against such spurious tactics which constitutes a trial by ambush. The Government has
15

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 16 of 24

withheld material evidence/testimony from Defendants in the hopes that Ryan Bundy and
others are unable to make a formal showing of innocense or sufficient defense against the
same during a trial.
For example Informant Mark McConnell was in contact with the FBI informing them
about people in vehicles, the time of the vehicle's departure from the resource center, and the
direction they were traveling etc. There was also surveillance from the air which was offered
during trial but never disclosed during discovery. This Court should sanction the U.S District
Attorney and institute a protective order against these unconstitutional practices which violate
Bundy's and other Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process; notwithstanding, the Court
should find that Defendants rights have been crystallized in the current proceedings based on
the District Attorney's willful, wanton and reckless acts and omissions in failing to disclose his
witnesses.
This Court should sanction the U.S District Attorney and institute a protective order
against the aforementioned practice against Defendants as well find that Defendants rights
have been crystallized in the current proceedings based on the District Attorney's willful acts
and omissions in failing to disclose his witnesses.
iii.)

Disclosure of Co-Defendant and Co-Conspirator Statements.

(ECF No. 1208)

Defendant incorporates his arguments in ( Subparagraph (i) and (ii)) in their entirety as
if restated.

The Government has stated that they did comply with discovery requests

regarding Co-Defendant and/or Co-Conspirators. However, this statement is illusory because

their idea of compliance is not objectively reasonable nor would any Competent Court agree
with. The U.S District Attorney omitted from his response that the documents he refers to was
produced by Defendant's stand-by counsel on an [i]Pad; whereas Defendant was given an

16

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 17 of 24

hour to review (2) Two Million (+) documents which were hurled at Mr. Bundy in a little room
on a digital medium. Indeed, his standby counsel did not organize the documents nor could
she retrieve the documents Mr. Bundy requested during the meetings. No reasonable person
would expect someone to be able to prepare, find, or discover information from one iPad, no
hard-copies and virtually no time to review the documents. Clearly, the Government's
argument rings hollow and no Court could expect a litigant to prepare under such oppressive
circumstances.
Further, the Government has not identified or cited the applicable documents which
they purport are disclosed on the [i]Pad including no document name, date, bates stamp or
any other marker that would identify or prove that said information was disclosed and
complied with. In a conclusory fashion, it was stated that compliance was made but there is
no evidence of the same in their response. The Court should reject such posturing and
GRANT Defendant's motion in ECF No. 1208; Order Bundy's stand-by counsel to turn-over all
hard-copies or otherwise discovery documents to Defendant's assigned/procured paralegals
to further take custody of the [p]urported propounded discovery for the purpose of preparation
or alternatively a new trial.
iv.)

Injunctive Relief Related to Spoliage.( ECF No. 1209)

Defendant incorporates his arguments in ( Subparagraph (i, ii, and iii) in their entirety
as if restated. To the extent that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, Defendant
seeks the protection and injunctive relief of this Court to ensure that no documents, work
product, notes or otherwise evidence is destroyed and is preserved by Federal, State and
Local law enforcement agencies.
v.)

Disclosure of Grand Jury Transcripts and Materials.(ECF No.

1211)2

2In Hubbard, the Court found that the defendants' allegations of prosecutorial misconduct were
17

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 18 of 24

Defendant incorporates his arguments in ( Subparagraph (i, ii, iii and iv) in their entirety
as if they were restated The Government states in pertinent:
This Motion mirrors one filed by defendant Shawna Cox seeking disclosure of
grand jury transcripts and materials. Like that Motion (ECF No. 986), this Motion
should be denied because defendant has failed to show a particularized need for
the information.
Defendant requests the Grand Jury Transcripts and Materials that procured the
indictment against Defendants including all transcripts and materials from government
employees which Defendant asserts will not corroborate the testimony given by codefendants who have been offered substantial plea-deals to cooperate with the federal
government.
Moreover, Defendant will be able to establish all prior inconsistent statements of
witnesses, whether or not their statements to the grand jury established probable cause
against Defendant and whether they will testify to the same effect during the trial.
For example, Defendant believes that the statements were untruthful and the
transcripts will assist him in establishing prior inconsistent statements under the rules of
evidence. This information will assist a jury in weighing the information offered by witnesses
during the trial. Without having access to the grand jury transcripts, Bundy will not know if he
is being prosecuted on the same facts where as his indictment was founded.
Further, most of the witnesses were either government employees or co-defendants.
Both are interested parties and have something to significantly gain by their testimony.

unpersuasive..........Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, and in view of the affidavits filed by the defendants to
support their claim, the Court will order the government to produce the transcripts of the Grand Jury's
proceedings for an In camera inspection by the Court. See People v. Sears,49 Ill.2d 14, 273 N.E.2d 380 (1971).
If any improprieties are discovered, they will be brought to the attention of all counsel, and in that event the Court
will consult with counsel to determine the appropriate action to take under the circumstances. United States v.
Hubbard, 474 F. Supp. 64, 78 (D.D.C. 1979)

18

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 19 of 24

Access to the transcripts and materials will assist Defendant in ferreting out factual testimony
which conflicts with one another before the grand jury. In essence, Defendant will be able to
locate knowingly false statements given by the Government and others to the Grand Jury and
raise those issues at trial.
Hence, this Court should GRANT Defendant access to the Grand Jury Transcripts and
materials over the Government's 2 objections.
vi.)

Compel Production of Jenck's Materials Pre-trial.(ECF No

1212)

Defendant incorporates his arguments in ( Subparagraph (i, ii, iii, iv and v) in their
entirety as if restated. The Government states that it has at least partially complied with the
request but it does not state how it complied. There is no citations or reference to what it has
complied with or identified its discovery documents by any sort of unique numbering system
or bates stamp. Indeed, this conclusory statement is toothless because Defendant has not
reviewed any such documents to date as seen supra 3. The Court should order the
Government to at least cite to the document in their propounded discovery response and
summarize what the document is to make a valid response that it has in fact complied. There
is no evidence to this effect because neither Defendant nor any paralegals have reviewed the
same; but only on an [i]Pad for an unreasonably small amount of time was Defendant granted
access to the propounded 259,128,00 documents on a small electronic device(iPad).
Further, the government has advanced documents it purports to show the Federal
Government owns the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Harney, County, state of Oregon.
Defendant was not provided these documents (Dkt. #1230-1) and there appears to be
substantial credibility issues with them, i.e., altered numbers, no indication they are certified
documents, missing pages two to eight (2-8) signature page on different paper etc.

19

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 20 of 24

Additionally there appears to be annotation at the bottom left side of the page Case File
Page 69 of 338. That reference shows with numeric reference sequencing at the bottom of
each page. Defendant objects to these documents moving forward with the instant case.
Further, Defendant has been ambushed with these documents; hence Ryan Bundy seeks
protection from this Court in ascertaining how the admission of these documents will
substantially prejudice him absent adequent disclosure and time to prepare for the same.
Obviously, there is more undisclosed documents which the government has not
remitted in bad faith, thus Defendant moves the Court for an Order requiring the Government
to provide this discovery at once; and explain to the Court and Defendant why it did not
produce this material in a timely fashion breaching its duty of candor. The Court should order
the Government into compliance and institute a protective order against such further
gamesmanship and illusory statements.
Defendant's Omnibus Motion(ECF No. 1213)
vii.)

Rule 16 Material

viii.)

Pretrial Hearing Regarding the Conspiracy as a Pre-cursor to Admission

of Co-Conspirator Statements Under Rule 801(d)(2)(E)

ix.)
x.)

Exhibit Lists.
Injunctive Relief re: Law Enforcements Retention of Rough Notes.

xi.)
xii.)
xiii.)
xiv.)
xv.)

Witness Lists.
Transcript of Grand Jury Minutes
Interview Notes/Reports for Non-Witnesses
Notice of Prior Bad Acts or Defendant's Own Prior Convictions.
Early Jenks.

Defendant incorporates his arguments in ( Subparagraph (i, ii, iii, iv, v and vi) in their
entirety as if they were restated. To the extent that the Government argues compliance has
been made; this is baseless and without merit. As exhaustively argued above, at the least, the

20

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 21 of 24

Government should have cited to where the document and information was provided in the
propounded discovery, when it was complied with and what the information stated as a
summary. Instead in a conclusory fashion, the Government disingenuously states that it [h]as
complied with the requests. This is not true.
Defendant asserts that he has not discovered any documents on the one [i]Pad he was
allowed to look through that purportedly contained 259,128,000 documents. Further, neither
Defendant or his paralegals have access to said material which the stand-by counsel is in
sole possession of; hence neither have reviewed anything resembling what the Government
purports; thus, the Government's argument is without any substance and as stated supra
continues to prejudice Bundy's rights under the rules of discovery.
This Court should order the Government into compliance as well as Defendant's standby counsel. Indeed, they should turn over all discovery documents to Defendant and his
paralegals who are assisting Defendant with organizing and researching the matter. Further,
Defendant requests this Court protect him from further harmful acts and omissions by the U.S
District Attorney and his office.
xvi.) Disclosure of Government Witness List. (ECF No. 1224)
Defendant incorporates all previous paragraphs above in their entirety as if they were
restated. Again, the Government has not complied or alternatively, the method of their
compliance is so abusive that no reasonable person could gain any meaningful information
from its mode of distributing the propounded discovery responses. Indeed, the Government
failed to cite to the page identifier where the witness list is located in their discovery or
otherwise produce an exhibit which would have been simple for all relevant purposes. Clearly,
the Court should not accept this answer absent at least a reference to where the specific
content is located. Further, the Government's purported discovery responses are being
21

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 22 of 24

gaurded by Defendant's stand-by counsel and his access to the 2,000,000 (+) documents
was on via an [i]Pad for minimal time where his stand-by counsel did not organize , or
otherwise direct Defendant to the specific documents that he is looking for. Moreover,
Defendant's paralegals do not have access to the propounded discovery documents;
whereas they could have organized and presented said content presuming that it exists which
is doubtful based on the Government's failure to cite to the location of the information in their
propounded discovery responses.
This Court should order the Government and stand-by counsel to avail this content to
Defendant on a reasonable medium of media(preferably in hard-copy to Defendant and via
electronic format to the paralegals).
WHEREFORE, for the above mentioned reasons, this Court should GRANT
Defendant's motions in their entirety and order Defendant's stand-by counsel to cooperate
with Defendant's paralegals in the organization and preparation of documents regarding
discovery or otherwise; and any further relief this Court deems proper and just.

Dated: September 29, 2016

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ RYAN BUNDY

Ryan Bundy - Pro Se
Bureau of Federal Prisons
Portland, Oregon Division

22

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 23 of 24

Verification
I certify the foregoing is true and correct under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC
1746 that I am over the age of 18 years, that I have personal knowledge of the facts stated
herein, and that I am fully competent to testify to those facts.
/s/ RYAN BUNDY
Ryan Bundy Pro Se
Bureau of Federal Prisons,
Portland, Oregon Division

23

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1389

Filed 10/04/16

Page 24 of 24

Certificate of Service
This the 29th day of September 2016 a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
served to the court, and opposing counsel via CM/ECF.

/s/ RYAN BUNDY

24