Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 1 of 21

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, et al.,

)
Defendants.

DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION

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 7th and September 8th , 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 20th, 2016. For the following reasons, this Court should reject the Government's
conclusory statements or otherwise failure to respond and compel them into compliance.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
This Statement of Facts is taken from materials provided by the United States Attorney's Office's Superseding
Indictment. There is a 6-Count Indictment in which the United States Government contends from November 5th,
2015 to February 12th, 2016, that 27 co-defendants conspired
Note: One (1) day after the government filed it's response in opposition to Defendants motions; whereas
1
Defendants were not able to properly reply to the Governments erroneous response within 7 days.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 2 of 21

with each other to prevent, by force, intimidation and threats, officers and employees of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land 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 superseding
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
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 2 million pages of documents
housed on (1) one i-Pad of which Mr. Bundy has had only very minimal access to review in the furtherance
of

his

own

detriment

and

due

process

rights

being

woefully

breached.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 3 of 21

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

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 4 of 21

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 cooperating witnesses, 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)
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 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)

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 5 of 21

(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.
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

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 6 of 21

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 merely as a minimum standard to which the courts must adhere 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. If the note are a
substantially verbatim recital of a witness' oral statement and are prepared contemporaneously with
the interview, they are statements which fall 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 CrimesUpon request by the
accused, the prosecution shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial of the general nature of any

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 7 of 21

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, 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); 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 crossexamination 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).

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 8 of 21

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 inference of 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 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,

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 9 of 21

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 cooperation-was 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 self-preservation. E.g., United States
v. Sutton, 542 F. 2d 1239 (4th Cir. 1976) by F.B.I. agent to 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

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 10 of 21

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
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).

10

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 11 of 21

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. AlvarezLopez,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 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).

11

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 12 of 21

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, 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.
35. 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 any evidence 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

12

Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S. Ct. 961 (1969).

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

61. DEFENDANT

i.)

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 13 of 21

BUNDY'S REPLY AND ARGUMENT

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 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[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 FRCrP 12).

13

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 14 of 21

Indeed, the Government's argument is not well founded in the facts or the law because Bundy
filed his motions on (date) 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.
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.
Again, 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 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.
Further, Bundy is unable to properly form his own defense without knowledge of the allegations that are
specifically against him.

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]. 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 and misrepresented his filings which depicted as
ECF No 1309 and then affixed his signature to the signature block asserting to the factual

14

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 15 of 21

basis and truthfulness of said filing. As of September 22, 2016, Mr. Williams called .... as Government
witnesses to testify on behalf of the U.S Government. Indeed, those witnesses were confidential in fact and
nature and never disclosed to Defendants; hence, no defense preparation could be waged against such
spurious tactics. Such acts and omissions constitutes a trial by ambush when the Government withholds
material evidence/testimony from Defendants in the hope that he cannot make a formal showing of a
defense against the same during trial.

For example, September 22, 2016, Mr. Williams called Mr. Mark McConnell as
Government witnesses to testify on behalf of the U.S Government. Indeed, this witness was
identified in trial as a confidential informant in fact and nature and never disclosed to Defendants;
hence, no defense preparation could be waged against such spurious tactics.
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 they
were restated.
The Government has stated that they did comply with discovery requests regarding CoDefendant 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 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.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 16 of 21

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 of discovery documents to
Defendant's assigned/procured paralegals to further take custody of the [p]urported propounded
discovery for the purpose of preparation.
iv.)

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

Defendant incorporates his arguments in (Subparagraph (i, ii, and iii) in their entirety as if they
were 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)

Defendant incorporates his arguments in ( Subparagraph (i, ii, iii and iv) in their entirety as if
they were restated.

16

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 17 of 21

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 co-defendants 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. 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

17

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 18 of 21

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 they were 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 documents on a small iPad 259,128,000 Documents (+)(See Exhibit 1). 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.)
2

Exhibit Lists

The U.S Government should have no problem with allowing Defendant to ascertain what was stated in the
Grand Jury if they truly have a good-faith belief that Mr. Bundy committed these crimes and the indictments were
lawfully procured or reasonable as a basis to arrest him. Indeed, there should be full disclosure and transparency instead
3 of concealment and secrecy.
Defendant requests this Court order his stand-by counsel to turn over all discovery documents to his paralegals
so that they may organize, review and present them to Bundy for his inspection in a reasonable and timely manner.

18

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

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

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 19 of 21

Injunctive Relief re: Law Enforcements Retention of Rough Notes.

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 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 over 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 stand-by
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 Government.
xvi.) Disclosure of Government Witness List. (ECF No. 1224)

19

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 20 of 21

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 guarded by Defendant's stand-by counsel and his access to the 259,128,000 documents (Exhibit
1) 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 ECF
Doc No.: 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1211, 1212, 1213 and 1224 and order Defendant's stand-by counsel
to cooperate with Defendant's paralegals in the organization and preparation of documents regarding
discovery

20

or

otherwise;

and

any

further

relief

this

Court

deems

proper

and

just.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1352

Filed 09/27/16

Page 21 of 21

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ryan c bundy
______________________________
of the bundy society
Dated: 9/26/16

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 c bundy
_________________________
ryan c of the bundy society

Certificate of Service
This the 26th day of September 2016 a true and correct copy of the
foregoing was served to the court, and opposing counsel by firstclass mail or better.
/s/ryan c bundy
______________________
ryan c of the bundy society

ryan c