In May, I reported on the fact that the US government was seeking to use participation in their stand at Sugar Pine Mine in April 2015, the White Hope Mine in August 2015 and membership in the Idaho III% militia against Bundy Ranch defendants in a retrial set for this summer. Now, after the defendants filed a motion in limine, the prosecutors in the case are doing just that.

Acting US Attorney for the state of Nevada Steven W. Myhre wrote a 17-page response to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler and Steven Stewart’s motion in limine on the 26th of June.

The Cochran Law Firm defines the motion in limine as:

take our poll - story continues below
Completing this poll grants you access to DC Clothesline updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“A motion in limine is a motion filed by a party to a lawsuit which asks the court for an order or ruling limiting or preventing certain evidence from being presented by the other side at the trial of the case. Generally, this motion is filed in advance of the trial, but a motion may be entertained by the court during a trial, before the evidence in question is offered. The purpose of this motion is to prevent the interjection of matters which are irrelevant, inadmissible or prejudicial.”

According to the government’s response, they list 8 charges of the 16 the men were facing and the government failed to make their case against them on those charges earlier this year. The prosecution then went on to state their reasons for the charges.

“These charges all stem from a massive assault on law enforcement officers in April 2014, while those officers were duly executing the order of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada,” reads the prosecutor’s response.

First, there was no “massive assault on law enforcement officers.” In fact, if anything, the massive assault came from those officers, including violations of the First Amendment by erection so-called “First Amendment Zones.” Additionally, video footage demonstrates that those officers assaulted many citizens at Bundy Ranch who were simply exercising their right to protest.

An entire armed force from the central government descended upon Bundy Ranch and a month long no-fly zone was imposed. This all came under the direction of the corrupt Bureau of Land Management agent Daniel P. Love, whom the government will not allow to take the stand in these trials, but has been found to be guilty fo misconduct and lost his job over it.

Second, considering that the central government has no business “owning” any land under our Constitution without the state legislatures authorizing the land ownership makes the entire court order illegal and unconstitutional.

However, the prosecution says that they want to “introduce other evidence during trial. Specifically, evidence that defendants Parker, Drexler, and Stewart affiliated with the Idaho III% shortly after April 12, 2014. In addition, as part of their membership in the Idaho III%, Parker and Drexler participated in two additional “operations” whereby they threated [sic] to use force and/or presented as a show of force, on the public lands to prevent federal officers from taking enforcement actions in those areas.”

Now, the prosecution is referencing the very things I listed at the beginning of this report. However, there was simply no “show of force.” The men acted as security in those situations. Furthermore, if it is a crime for them to be involved with the Idaho III%, why is Mr. Myhre not calling for the arrest of every single person in the Idaho III%? If he is not, why is he claiming that is evidence to be used against these men? Why were no charges filed in the other incidents? Because no crime had been committed. By the way, taking a gun across state lines is not a crime.

Every single thing that Myhre and his team are putting forth occurred after Bundy Ranch, not before. It is not relevant to the case nor does it have any bearing on what took place at Bundy Ranch.

While the prosecution cites previous court ruling concerning “other act evidence” in order to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident,” what they fail to do is to demonstrate this was going on prior to Bundy Ranch.

The men that joined III% did so after Bundy Ranch. Those who were involved in Operation Gold Rush and Operation Big Sky did so after Bundy Ranch. How in the world do you take actions that occurred after what they are being charged with that were not crimes and for which they have not been charged, and use that as some sort of evidence against them?

Well, try as the prosecution might, they presented Facebook posts and photos to bolster their case against these men.

The government is desperate in this retrial after failing miserably to make their case to the jury in the first one. They know that in the second round, the big guns come out with the Bundys and Pete Santilli and those men are not afraid of the bullying and the legal wranglings of men like Steven Myhre and Judge Gloria Navarro. They know they are corrupt.

You Might Like

In April, the jury found Greg Burleson and Todd Engel guilty on several charges against them but was a hung jury when it came to the charges against Richard Lovelien, Scott Drexler, Eric Parker, and Steven Stewart. While the prosecution has sought to dismiss the remaining charges against Burleson and Engel for retrial, claiming it would save the court and the government time, they remain unwilling to do so for the other four men, whom they failed to make a case against so that the jury would find them guilty. In fact, their case was so poor, that documents from the jury indicate that they were leaning towards a verdict of “Not Guilty” on the most serious charges of conspiracy.

The corruption can be seen in Myhre’s previous court documents that cite the Supreme Court, he indicates that defendants could be held up to five years without trial and not vioate their right to a speedy trial. Judge Navarro has also upheld that the men must wear shackles when entering the courtroom, and she will not give them bail.

What’s ironic is the FBI agent who took two shots at LaVoy Finicum in Oregon, was indicted in what can only be explained as attempted murder though his indictment was with regards to obstructing justice, not only pleaded not guilty to obstruction of justice, but also walked out of the courtroom, not even being held on bail. He’s a free man. These men didn’t fire one shot in anyone’s direction. Yet, they are denied bail, treated with contempt, maligned and caged. Does this look like justice to anyone?

If you are able and would like to help the Bundy Ranch political prisoners win their case against the tyranny of the central government or would like to write them, please click here. If you would like to support a house in Nevada that is caring for wives and children of these men as they attend the trials, please click here.

Courtesy of Freedom Outpost

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at and He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.