Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
FEB
CaseNo.
RECEIVED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
From the United States District Court For the District of Columbia
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, Presiding
Case No. 1 :06-cv-00670
Pro Se
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 2 of 73
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bush v. Risk Mgmt. Agency/United States Dep’t ofAgric.,2017 WL 2483704 (N.D.
Iowa June 8, 2017 10
Gormley v. Judicial Conduct Comm ‘n, 332 S.W.3d 717 (Ky. Aug. 26, 2010) 19
Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) 25
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010) 17
In re CementAntitrustLitig., 688 F.2d 1297 (9th Cir. 1982) 24
In re Quirk, 705 So. 2d 172, 178 (La. Dec. 12, 1997) 19, 21
Inre United States, 158 F.3d26(lstCir. 1998) 19
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Comm ‘ii on United States--Pacific Trade & mv. Policy,
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23417 10
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Exp.-Imp. Bank, 108 F. Supp. 2d 19 (D.D.C. 2000) 10
Klayinan v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 628 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.D.C. 2009) 13, 14, 20
Klayrnan v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 2d 137 (D.D.C. 2011) 14
LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249(195 7) 24
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) 19,24
Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347 (10th Cir. 1995) 19
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) 25
Republic ofPan. v. American Tobacco Co., 217 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 2000) 19
Scott v. United States, 559 A.2d 745 (D.C. 1989) 18
United States v. Dandy, 998 F.2d 1344 (6th Cir. 1993) 19
United States v. Kelly, 888 F.2d 732 (llthCir. 1989) 19
W. Ctr. for Journalism v. IRS, 116 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2000) 10
Wardv. City ofMonroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972) 18, 26
Wolfv. C.I.A., 569 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008) 10
York v. United States, 785 A.2d 651 (D.C. 200)1 18
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 4 of 73
Statutes
28 U.S.C. § 1651.2,17
28 U.S.C. § 144
. 17, 18, 26
28 U.S.C. § 455 17, 26
Secondary Sources
ABA Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3(C)(1) 12
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 5 of 73
is no parent corporation or publicly-held corporation that owns more than ten percent
A. Parties-Petitioner
B. Parties-Respondent
There are no other interested persons to identify for this specific matter.
D. Amicus Curiae
E. Related Cases
1
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 6 of 73
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
This Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to 2$ U.S.C. § 1651.
“The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all
to the usages and principles of law.” 2$ U.S.C. § 1651. Venue is proper in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit (“DC Circuit”) as the subject
1. Did the District Court err by failing to recuse and disqualify itself despite the
extrajudicial bias and animus against Mr. Klayman that has resulted in severely
prejudicial rulings and denied him due process going into a trial scheduled to
STATEMENT OF FACTS
This Petition centers around the clear personal animus and bias exhibited by
Judge Kotelly towards Mr. Klayman that has resulted in severely prejudicial rulings
that have negatively affected and harmed not just Mr. Klayman, but also his clients.
In order to protect his due process and other rights, Mr. Klayman has filed a Motion
to Disqualify Judge Kotelly, ECF No. 414, which Judge Kotelly predictably denied.
ECF No. 425. As such, given the fact that Judge Kotelly has effectively pre-tried this
2
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 7 of 73
instant matter and precluded Mr. Klayman from even effectively presenting his case
to a jury, Mr. Klayman simply has no recourse but to seek relief from the DC Circuit
in the form of this Petition in order to remedy the deep-seated bias and animus
demonstrated towards him and to preserve what remains of his due process and other
rights, as well as such other relief that may be deemed just and proper.
Klayman is not limited to the instant matter, and has been recently shown the most
(D.D.C) (the “FOIA Case”), which crucially negatively affects not only Mr.
Klayman, but also those whom he represents.’ The FOIA Case is predicated on the
(“FBI”) willful failure to perform its duty to produce relevant documentation under
the Freedom of Information Act sought by Freedom Watch pertaining to the criminal
trial Cliven Bundy (“Mr. Bundy”), who was indicted on charges stemming from a
raid on his ranch by federal agents from the BLM and the FBI in an attempt to seize
his cattle and his land. Freedom Watch filed this case to both inform the public,
because the documents were useful to Mr. Bundy in his defense. From the very
1
Mr. Klayman is the founder, chairman, and general counsel of Freedom Watch.
3
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 8 of 73
outset, of the FOIA Case, Judge Kotelly has exhibited her vindictive bias and animus
The FOIA Case was originally filed on May 25, 2016 as a separate case.2 At
that time, the Defendants in the FOIA case fabricated an issue regarding the
transmission of the underlying FOIA request. Despite the fact that Freedom Watch
submitted affidavits attesting to proper service via fax, Judge Kotelly, vindictively
searching for a way to derail Freedom Watch, Mr. Klayman, and Mr. Bundy,
regrettably but unsurprisingly accepted the FOIA Defendants’ false assertions that
they were never served with the FOIA requests. ECF No. 16 at 9. This forced
Freedom Watch to voluntarily dismiss the original case and refile it under the
currently active case number set forth above. All in all, this caused a severely
prejudicial delay of six months to Freedom Watch, Mr. Klayman, and Mr. Bundy.
Melanie Hendry in the FOIA Case on May 31,2017, Ms. Hendry, after consultations
with the FBI and BLM Defendants, incredulously estimated that it will take “at least
500 months to complete its entire production of responsive documents....” ECF No.
4
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 9 of 73
ECF No. 31 at 1. Indeed, even without the benefit of any additional facts or
patently unbelievable. Any truly neutral and independent arbiter would have
immediately ruled as such, given the fact that under the FOIA Defendants’ ridiculous
and outrageous proposed tirneline, Mr. Bundy, Mr. Klayman, and Judge Kotelly will
all have been dead for many years before documents are produced, and Ms. Hendry
would have likely been retired for decades. However, not only did Judge Kotelly
take no issue with the FOIA Defendants’ obviously false timeline, she took proactive
steps to protect the FOIA Defendants, such as denying Freedom Watch leave to even
rational legal basis for this ruling by Judge Kotelly. It can only be explained by a
clear vindictive, extrajudicial bias and animus against Mr. Klayman and by
Now, it has been further revealed exactly why the FOIA Defendants falsely
asserted that it would take them 41 years to produce relevant documentation, as the
involving the BLM, FBI, and the U.S. Department of Justice (“USDOJ”). This was
revealed by a whistleblower who had served as the lead investigator for the BLM
5
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 10 of 73
following the Bundy Ranch Standoff, Mr. Larry Wooten (“Mr. Wooten”). Exhibit
i. Mr. Wooten wrote that his investigation “indicated that there was little doubt that
there was an improper cover up in virtually every matter that a particular BLM SAC
participated in....” Id. at 5. Part of this cover up was the “loss/destruction of, or
purposeful non-recording of key evidentiary items.” Id. at 11. BLM agents “failed
to properly disclose substantive and exculpatory case and witness bias related issues
to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.” Id. at 8. Crucially, Mr. Wooten shared these
revelations with his supervisors and with Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of
Nevada, Mr. Steven Myhre (“Mr. Myhre”), Assistant U.S. Attorney Nadia Ahmed,
and FBI special agent Joel Willis, and as a result he was precipitously removed from
the investigation and all of his files were confiscated “because they contained
significant evidence of misconduct and items that would potentially embarrass BLM
Law Enforcement Supervision.” Mr. Wooten was informed by his supervisor that it
was Mr. Myhre himself that had “furiously demanded” that he be removed from the
investigation, and he was ordered not to contact Mr. Myhre’s office again. Even
more, as reported by “The Arizona Central,” Mr. Wooten accused Mr. Myhre of
covering up evidence:
Not only did Mr. Myhre in my opinion not want to know or seek out
evidence favorable to the accused, he and my supervisor discouraged
Mr. Wooten’s memorandum was filed under seal, but has since been leaked to the
media, and is available in the public domain. A redacted unsealed version is
attached and incorporated by reference as Exhibit 1.
6
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 11 of 73
the reporting of such issues and even likely covered up the misconduct,”
Wooten wrote. “Furthermore, when I did report the misconduct, ethical,
professional and legal issues, I also became a victim of whistle-blower
retaliation.
prosecutors in the Bundy Prosecution,5 had no choice but the lambast the gross and
illegal bad faith and misconduct of the FBI in conjunction with the prosecuting
EDITORIAL: Judge bans defense arguments in Bundy retrial, Las Vegas Rev. J.,
Jul. 13, 2017, available at:
https ://www.reviewj ournal.com/opinio&editorials/editorial-judge-bans-defense
arguments-in-bundy-retrial/
7
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 12 of 73
A
evidence as she had no choice but to dismiss the superseding indictment against Mr.
Bundy with prejudice due to the gross prosecutorial misconduct and bad faith. While
Exhibit 2.
As set forth previously, a truly neutral and independent arbiter who is free of
extrajudicial bias and prejudice would have sua sponte questioned the FOIA
documentation, given the patent outrageousness of the assertion, even without the
benefit of the knowledge of the damning revelations set forth by Mr. Wooten.
Exhibit 1. Not only did Judge Kotelly simply “rubber stamp” accept this blatantly
false assertion, she precluded Freedom Watch from even taking limited discovery as
to the search. Giving Judge Kotelly the benefit of the doubt, Freedom Watch moved
for leave to take discovery again, recently, on December 19, 2017, ECF No. 51.
8
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 13 of 73
a
Freedom Watch’s renewed motion contained the damning revelations set forth by
Mr. Wooten, which indisputably confirm the massive cover-up and scandal
committed by the FOIA Defendants that firmly explains their proposed 41-year
timeline for the production of documents. Yet, even with this this new, concrete
evidence, Judge Kotelly has refused to issue a ruling on Freedom Watch’s motion,
allowing it to languish for nearly two months now. However implausible, it is now
impossible to give Judge Kotelly the benefit of the doubt, and her behavior can only
be explained by her deep-seated extrajudicial bias and animus towards Mr. Klayman
and his clients. In the meantime, the Bundy prosecutors have moved for
claiming that they produced all relevant Brady evidence. But it is now clear why the
FBI, BLM, and the DOJ came up with 41 years to produce under FOIA the the
requested documents.
warranted where there has been bad faith on the part of Defendants, and discovery
is necessary as to the adequacy of the estimated search. Given the concrete evidence
presented in Mr. Wooten’s memorandum, Freedom Watch, to put it mildly, has more
than raised a sufficient question as to their good faith in processing or its search by
Defendants. Indeed, it is clear that extreme bad faith is present. Judicial Watch, Inc.
v. Exp.-Imp. Bank, 10$ F. Supp. 2d 19,25 (D.D.C. 2000) (citing Carney v. US. Dep’t
9
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 14 of 73
of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2nd Cir.1994); see also Woifv. C.I.A., 569 F. Supp. 2d
1, 9—10 (D.D.C. 2008); Bush v. Risk Mgrnt. Agency/United States Dept of Agric.,
No. 16-CV-4128- CJW, 2017 WL 2483704, at *3 (N.D. Iowa June 8, 2017). Even
Judge Kotelly herself has recognized, via a prior opinion, that “[wJhen courts do
agency’s search for documents responsive to their FOIA request.” Judicial Watch,
Inc. v. Comrn’n on United States--Pacific Trade & mv. Policy, 1999 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 23417, *44; See also W. Ctr. for Journalism v. IRS, 116 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8
(D.D.C. 2000) (Another Judge Kotelly opinion holding “Luinder the FOIA, courts
may order discovery where “the affidavits of government agents create genuine
Kotelly has granted discovery in the past in FOIA cases even without the clear
Motion for Leave to Take Discovery, thereby essentially condoning and allowing
the gross misconduct and bad faith to continue. At this point, it is impossible for a
truly impartial and unbiased arbiter to rationally believe that the FOIA Defendants’
and cover-up set forth in Mr. Wooten’s memorandum. Yet, Judge Kotelly has still
refused to act, which can only be explained by her deep personal animus against Mr.
10
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 15 of 73
a
Klayman. In fact, despite Freedom Watch’s attempt to provide Judge Kotelly with
the documents and/or transcripts regarding the damning revelations set forth above,
Judge Kotelly refused to even look at them. ECF No. 49. Furthermore, Freedom
Watch has submitted affidavits confirming that in the year and a half since the FOIA
Complaint was filed, Defendants have only released press releases and clippings,
which are already in the public domain. ECF No. 53-3. Freedom Watch has clearly
raised a genuine issue as to the thoroughness of the Defendants’ search in this matter
— which Judge Kotelly has expressly stated warrants discovery — yet in this instance,
The documents requested by Freedom Watch are more important now than
ever. Notwithstanding the fact that the prosecuting attorneys in the Bundy
Prosecution have moved for reconsideration and may ultimately also appeal Judge
inform the public, as well as to investigate government corruption and abuse. Thus,
not only has Judge Kotelly demonstrated a deep-seated bias and animus against Mr.
6Attomey General Jeff Sessions has even launched an investigation and probe into
the gross prosecutorial misconduct and bad faith described in the Wooten
Memorandum, yet Judge Kotelly still refuses to act. See
http ://abcnews.go.com/arnp/Politics/wireStory/bundy-mistrial-draws-sessions
probe-calls-broad-review-5 1961402.
11
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 16 of 73
Klayman, she has callously allowed this animus and bias to not only severely
II. Judge Kotelly’s Bias and Animus Demonstrated in This Instant Matter
Since the inception of this case in 2006, Judge Kotelly has exhibited a deep-
seated personal animus and bias against Mr. Klayman that has resulted in a continual
list of severely prejudicial rulings that have effectively completely gutted Mr.
Klayman claims against Real Party in Interest Judicial Watch, Inc. (“Judicial
disqualify Judge Kotelly based on instances of misconduct up to that point, ECF No.
298, which Judge Kotelly predictably denied (the “First Motion”). The First Motion
was based on compelling evidence of extrajudicial bias including, but not limited to
(1) allowing Judicial Watch to take discovery of Mr. Klayman’s ex-wife and smear
Mr. Klayman in the media with details of his divorce and false allegations that he
had had an extramarital affair being the reason that Mr. Klayman was forced to leave
Judicial Watch, despite the fact that the Severance Agreement expressly stated that
Mr. Klayman was leaving Judicial Watch on his own volition and on good terms to
pursue other endeavors such as to run for the U.S. Senate in Florida; (2) striking Mr.
the Court’s refusal to grant a one-day extension of time, despite the fact that Judicial
12
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 17 of 73
Watch was granted two weeks additional time, and Plaintiff had just suffered a
serious car accident and was undergoing rehabilitation and had to take a staff
member to the hospital for a serious operation; (3) refusing to uphold Mr. Klayman’s
drastic sanctions on Mr. Klayman for refusing to turn over confidential financial
information, given that Judge Kotelly refused to enter a protective order to safeguard
series of hardships and tragedies, such as the slow death of his mother, the
hospitalization of his wife, and his own serious auto accident; (5) and disrespectfully
extrajudicial bias laid out and demonstrated in the First Motion, Judge Kotelly
refused to recuse herself from the matter. Furthermore, and incredibly, since that
time, Judge Kotelly’s personal animus against Mr. Klayman has actually amplified.
For instance, Judge Kotelly has further crippled Mr. Klayman’s case, in
continuation of her pattern and practice of exhibiting extrajudicial bias and animus
13
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 18 of 73
against Mr. Klayman, by limiting Mr. Klayman to “nominal damages (or specific
performance) as to all claims other than his claim that Defendants breached the non-
disparagement clause in the Severance Agreement.” ECF No. 401 at 2. Even more,
Judge Kotelly has refused to allow Mr. Klayman leave to amend the operative
complaint to add a claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, despite the
fact that it was clearly demonstrated that there is no prejudice to Judicial Watch and
that Judicial Watch long had actual notice of Mr. Klayman’s claim for emotional
distress. To make matters even worse, Judge Kotelly has even precluded Mr.
2009). Judge Kotelly has even barred Mr. Klayman from “introducing any witnesses
or exhibits at the trial in this action.” Recognizing the enormously prejudicial nature
of her decision, Judge Kotelly even wrote, “in reaching this conclusion, the Court is
fully aware that this sanction precludes Klayman from presenting any affirmative
him.” Klayrnan v. Judicial Watch, Inc., $02 F. Supp. 2d 137, 151 (D.D.C. 2011).
In effect, Mr. Klayman is going to trial on February 26, 201$ with his hands
tied behind his back to take a judicial “lynching” from Judge Kotelly.
I/I
14
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 19 of 73
Tellingly, Judge Kotelly’s animus and bias towards Mr. Klayman has been
manifest in other cases between Mr. Klayman and Judicial Watch. Klayinan v.
action between two parties. The Basulto Case was filed on January 8, 2017, and
briefing for the Motion to Dismiss stage concluded on March 13, 2017. Yet, despite
this, Judge Kotelly intentionally sat on this matter to prevent Mr. Klayman from
taking discovery and moving this case along to trial Judicial Watch. Indeed, at a
hearing for this instant matter on April 20, 2017, Judge Kotelly even indicated that
Judicial Watch’s Motion to Dismiss would be denied. Yet, Judge Kotelly continued
to sit on the Basulto Case until August 30, 2017 — eight months after the original
filing — to finally issue an order denying Judicial Watch’s motion to dismiss. Judge
Kotelly apparently delayed her ruling so Mr. Klayman could not take discovery that
might even be useful in the instant case, which encompasses an on-going related
Similarly, in another matter between Mr. Klayman and Judicial Watch in the
Superior Court for the District of Columbia, Klayman v. Judicial Watch, 16-cv-1208
Court of Appeals, Judge Kotelly again exhibited a deep-seated animus and bias
against Mr. Klayman. Although the Rescission Case was filed by Mr. Klayman in
15
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 20 of 73
the D.C. Superior Court, Judicial Watch filed a notice of removal February 18,2015,
and the matter was assigned to Judge Kotelly. It was not until May 25, 2016— well
over one year later — that Judge Kotelly finally remanded the Rescission Case back
to the D.C. Superior Court, despite there being clear cut issues that the case did not
precluding Mr. Klayman from timely asserting his rights against Judicial Watch
show the deep-seated animus and bias that has been the norm for over a decade now.
In both cases, there was no basis in law or fact for the enormous and prejudicial
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
a clear and convincing showing that her deep-seated extrajudicial bias and animus
against Mr. Klayman has resulted in a pattern and practice of issuing severely
prejudicial rulings and orders that have not only harmed Mr. Klayrnan, but also Mr.
Klayrnan’s clients as well. Given the fact that Judge Kotelly has essentially entirely
gutted Mr. Klayrnan’s claims in this matter and that trail is set to being in just a few
Klayrnan’s Petition.
I/I
16
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 21 of 73
LEGAL ARGUMENT
The All Writs Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1651, authorizes the U.S. Supreme
Court and other courts to issue writs in its discretion. “The [U.S.J Supreme Court
and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or
appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and
principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 165 1(a). “An alternative writ or rule nisi may be
issued by ajustice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 165 1(b).
This Court considers a petition for writ of mandamus by applying the factors
identified in Hollingsworth v. Ferry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010). A party seeking issuance
of a writ need only establish that (1) no other adequate means exist to attain the relief
he desires; (2) the party’s right to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable;
and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Id. at 190.
b. Disqualification
Judge Kotelly’s conduct towards Klayman and his clients makes recusal and
thus disqualification necessary under both 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455. As
set forth in supra section II, Judge Kotelly’s personal animus against Klayman has
not only created the appearance of partiality necessary to trigger 28 U.S.C. § 455,
17
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 22 of 73
but also resulted in acts manifesting actual bias and prejudice to trigger 2$ U.S.C. §
144. See ECf No. 414.
This statue is not ambiguous—if the requirements are met, another judge must be
the Constitution and is an integral part of maintaining the public’s confidence in the
judicial system. Ward v. City ofMonroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 61-62 (1972). To ensure
that this right is protected, Congress has sought to secure the impartiality of judges
ensure that justice is carried out in each individual case, judges must adhere to high
standards of conduct.” Yorkv. United States, 7$5 A.2d 651, 655 (D.C. 2001). “A
reasonably be questioned. . ..“ ABA Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3(C)(1); See
also Scott v. United States, 559 A.2d 745, 750 (D.C. 19$9) (en banc).
Disqualification or recusal is required when there is even the appearance that the
1$
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 23 of 73
court’s impartiality may be called into question, and “could suggest, to an outside
that ‘fair judgment is impossible.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 127
L. Ed. 2d 474, 114 5. Ct. 1147 (1994). Similarly, other courts have even held that
single instance of serious, egregious legal error, particularly one involving the denial
misconduct.” In re Quirk, 705 So. 2d 172, 178 (La. Dec. 12, 1997). “Intentionally
refusing to follow the law constitutes a legal error made in bad faith and may also
may even be sanctioned if the judge committed at least one serious, obvious,
egregious legal error that is clearly contrary to settled law.” Gormley v. Judicial
Conduct Cornm’n, 332 S.W.3d 717, 728 (Ky. Aug. 26, 2010). As evidence of the
Appeals for the Fifth, First, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have said that close
Tobacco Co., 217 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir. 2000); In re United States, 15$ F.3d 26,
30 (1st Cir. 199$); Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347, 352 (10th Cir. 1995); United States
v. Dandy, 99$ F.2d 1344, 1349 (6th Cir. 1993); Un ited States v. Kelly, $88 F.2d 732,
19
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 24 of 73
personal animus and extrajudicial bias that require disqualification. Judge Kotelly’s
would make fair judgment impossible” for Mr. Klayman. Indeed, after severely
crippling Mr. Klayrnan’ s ability to even present his case against Judicial Watch in
this matter by barring him “testifying to or introducing into evidence any documents
counterclaims” and “introducing any witnesses or exhibits at the trial in this action,”
Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 628 F. Supp. 2d 84,96 (D.D.C. 2009, Judge Kotelly
has now limited Mr. Klayman to solely nominal damages or specific performance
on each of his claims not involving Judicial Watch’s disparagement and prevented
Mr. Klayman from amending the operative complaint despite the fact that there is
clearly no prejudice to any party given the fact that Judicial Watch has had actual
notice of the underlying facts warranting the amendment for years. Judge Kotelly
has essentially taken this case out of the hands of the jury and “pre-tried” the case in
favor of Judicial Watch. As a result, Klayrnan’s ability to receive a fair trial, and
thus due process, in this matter is not even in question — it has already been denied.
20
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 25 of 73
Perhaps even more egregiously, Judge Kotelly’s clear extrajudicial bias and
animus against Mr. Klayrnan has been manifest in the FOIA Case. Judge Kotelly has
schedule while also denying Freedom Watch the ability to take discovery into the
government’s clearly inflated search and production “estimates.” Now, despite the
fact that Mr. Klayman has provided Judge Kotelly with clear evidence of a mass-
scale cover up involving the Defendants in the FOIA Case in the form of the Wooten
Memo, which clearly explains why Defendants proposed such an outrageous and
still steadfastly refuses to order production of relevant documents, much less even
grant freedom Watch leave to take limited discovery into the scope of the
Defendants’ “search.” Indeed, at this point, it is frankly impossible for any truly
neutral and detached arbiter — which is what Judge Kotelly purports to be — to take
the FOIA Case Defendants’ word that a good faith “search” has been conducted. To
refuse to even allow freedom Watch to take limited discovery on this issue — in the
face of clear evidence of the massive cover-up and scandal confirmed by Mr.
Wooten — can only be explained by deep-seated anirnus and bias against Mr.
Klayrnan and his clients. Indeed, as set forth by Quirk, Judge Kotelly’s conduct in
the FOIA Case constitutes a serious, egregious intentional legal error, which
21
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 26 of 73
and animus.
Judge Kotelly’s conduct in other cases before her involving Mr. Klayman
either as counsel or a party further demonstrate the strong personal anirnus and bias
against him that makes it impossible for Mr. Klayman to receive a fair trial in this
matter. As set forth previously, Judge Kotelly, based on her palpable personal bias
and prejudice against Mr. Klayman, has gone above and beyond to protect Judicial
Watch (not coincidentally the Defendant in this action) in other actions involving
the two parties and to prevent Mr. Klayman from swiftly exercising his rights against
Judicial Watch. Indeed, it took eight months for Judge Kotelly to issue an order on
the Basulto Case, despite the fact that it is a simply breach of contract action that she
herself stated early on would likely survive the motion to dismiss stage.
Given the fact that Judge Kotelly has nearly completely gutted Mr. Klayman’s
case and prevented Mr. Klayman from introducing evidence or testimony, as set
forth above, Judge Kotelly is aware that she is vulnerable to severe criticism on
appeal, as well as reversal of her rulings. For this reason, she has put on the
Mr. Klayman’s Motion for Leave to Amend Second Amended Complaint, ECF No.
407, as well as consider allowing Mr. Klayrnan to present some severely limited
22
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 27 of 73
evidence and testimony, but in the end, she unequivocally denies each and every one
of Mr. Klayrnan’s requests. In this regard, Mr. Klayman currently has a pending
operative complaint, ECF No. 440, but given Judge Kotelly’s pattern and practice of
vindictive and prejudicial behavior towards Mr. Klayman, it will surely be denied.
In any event, Mr. Klayrnan reserves the right to supplement this Petition in this
regard.
what amounts to her charade to shore up her vulnerability on appeal, is in clear error.
Incredibly, Judge Kotelly ruled that undue delay warranted denial of Mr. Klayrnan’s
motion, when it Judge Kotelly that stayed this case for years, not Mr. Klayrnan
because Mr. Klayrnan sought to use his legal right to challenge the participation of
Judge Kotelly in this case. Indeed, Judicial Watch could easily have moved earlier
to lift the stay. Instead, they did not file to lift the stay until March 20, 2015, ECf
No. 376, and unsurprisingly, Judge Kotelly delayed ruling and lifting the stay until
furthermore, Judge Kotelly erred when she found that Judicial Watch would
be prejudiced by the proposed amendment, despite the fact that Mr. Klayrnan clearly
demonstrated that Judicial Watch had been on notice of Mr. Klayrnan’s emotional
distress claims since the outset of this case, as has been documented throughout, with
23
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 28 of 73
citations to the record. ECF No. 447. Judge Kotelly simply chose to ignore the
evidence set forth by Mr. Klayman and issue another severely prejudicial ruling in
order to award Judicial Watch the victory before the case is even tried. As set forth
above, Mr. Klayrnan reserves the right to supplement this Petition to inform this
Court of new and ongoing instances of severe extrajudicial prejudice and bias.
Even if it were not so plain that the District Court committed clear errors in
denying the motion to dismiss, it would be appropriate for this court to exercise its
supervisory mandamus authority over the district court “to ensure that the judicial
688 F.2d 1297, 1307 (9th Cir. 1982); see also LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.s.
249, 259-60 (1957) (“We believe that supervisory control of the District Courts by
system.”). As set forth previously, the District Court’s rulings in this case show a
clear and continuing intent to severely prejudice not just Mr. Klayman, but also his
clients, which warrant disqualification under Liteky. This obviously contravenes the
24
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 29 of 73
obtain needed immediate review of these significant rulings and relief from onerous
Mr. Klayman respectfully requests that this Court exercise its authority to stay
the District Court’s proceedings while it considers this mandamus. Whether to issue
a stay is “an exercise ofjudicial discretion “to be guided by sound legal principles.”
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 41$ 433-34 (2009) (internal citations omitted), based on
the following factors: (1) the applicant’s likely success on the merits; (2) irreparable
injury to the applicant absent a stay; (3) substantial injury to the other parties; and
(4) the public interest. Hilton v. Braunskill, 4$1 U.S. 770, 776 (19$7). Trial in this
matter is set for February 26, 201$. In the event that this Petition cannot be resolved
before trial, Mr. Klayman requests a stay of proceedings while the Petition is
resolved. This delay will not prejudice any party, given the fact that this case has
now been ongoing for twelve years. As set forth above, this delay was attributable
to Judge Kotelly and Judicial Watch, not Mr. Klayman. Mr. Klayrnan was simply
As set forth previously, Mr. Klayman’s Petition is based upon sound facts and
law, which render Mr. Klayrnan likely to succeed on the merits. Furthermore, it is
clear that should Mr. Klayman be forced to try his case in front of Judge Kotelly, he
25
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 30 of 73
will suffer irreparable injury, as Judge Kotelly has already taken the case out of the
jury’s hands and pre-tried the case in favor of Judicial Watch. There is no injury to
any other party — all Mr. Klayrnan requests is an opportunity to even the playing
field with a truly neutral and detached judge presiding over the case. Indeed, any
opposition by Judicial Watch is, in and of itself, an admission that it has received
clearly favorable treatment from Judge Kotelly in this and other matters. Lastly, a
stay serves the public interest, as it maintains the integrity of the judicial system in
ensuring that Mr. Klayman is entitled to exercise his due process and other rights
fully.
CONCLUSION
both 2$ U.S.C. § 455 and 2$ U.S.C. § 144, this case must be immediately transferred
to a different judge, and Judge Kotelly should forthwith remove herself or be
disqualified on the case as required by the statutes and all of her orders must be
ordered vacated in the interest of justice and fundamental fairness. Judge Kotelly’s
patent extra-judicial bias against Mr. Klayman, which have been demonstrated in
tenet of the judicial system that the right to a “neutral and detached judge” in any
public’s confidence in the judicial system, Ward 409 U.S. at 61-62, and has already
26
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 31 of 73
severely curtailed and severely harmed Mr. Klayrnan’s fundamental rights in this
and detached” judge so that what remains of Mr. Klayman’s due process and other
Pro Se
27
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 32 of 73
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 13, 2018, I submitted an original and three
copies of the foregoing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by depositing the foregoing in a Federal Express drop-off box for Overnight
Delivery to the following address:
A copy was deposited in a Federal Express drop-off box for Overnight Delivery
Service to following:
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
This brief complies with the length limits permitted by Rule 32(c)(2). The Petition
is 6,448 words or 27 pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P.
32(f), if applicable. The briefs type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(5) and (6).
28
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 33 of 73
EXHIBIT 1
_____
_____
_,
the miconduct himsell was present when the issues were reported to both of us, or was
the reporting party himself. When I reported these issues,. my supervisor seemed
geneEally unsurprised and uninterested and was dismissive, and seemed unconcerned.
I tied to respectfully and discretely urge and Influence my supervision to stop the
misconduct thenselves, correct and/or further report the issues as appropriate and remind
other employeesthat their use of electronic communications was likely subject to Federal
Records Protections, the case Litigation Hold,. the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
and Case/Thai Discovery. I also tied to convey to my supervisor that the openly made
statements. and actions could also potentially could be considered bias,. used in witness
impeachment and considered exculpatory and subject to trial discovery.
As the Case Agentand Lead Investigator fOr the DOVBLM (for approximately 2 years
and 10 months), I found myself in an unusual situation. I was specifically asked to lead a
comprehensive, professional, thorough unbiased and independent investigation into the
largest and most expansive and important investigation ever within the Department of
Interior. Instead of having a normal investigative team and chain of command, a BLM
Assistant Special Agent-rn-Charge (ASAC) decided to act as a subordinate cocase agent,
but also as.my supervisor. Agent’s senior tome acted as my helpers. I was basically the
paper wo*k, organizational, and research guy. I did all the stuff that the senior and
supervisory agents didn’t want to do, but they called me the “Case Agent” and “Lead
Investigator.” They.often publicly recognized and thanked me, and nominated me for
many awards, but their lack of effprt and dependability led to numerous case
issues. During this timeframe. my supervisor (but subordinate), a BLMASAC
specifically wanted and had the responsibility of liaison and coordinator for interaction
with higher agency officials, cooperating/assisting agencies and with the U.S. Attorney’s
Office, Mthoigh the BLM ASAC was generally uninterested in the mundane day to day.
work, he specifically took on assignments that were potentially questionable and
damaging (such as dOcument shredding research, discovery email search documentatiOn
and as.the afflant for the Dave Bundy iPad Search Warrant) and attended coordination
and staff meetings. Sometimes, I felt lilce he wanted to steer the investigation away from
misconduct, discovery by refusing. to get case assistance, dismissing my concerns and
participating in the misconduct himself. In February of 2017, it became clear to me that
keeping quite became an unofficial condition of my future employment with the BLM,
future awards, promotions, and a good futurejob reference.
The longer the investigation went on,, the more extremely unprofessional3 familiar, mcy,
vulgar and bias filled actions, open comments, andinappropriate electronic
communications I was made aware of, or I personally witnessed. In my opinion, these
issues would likely undermine the investigation, cast considerable doubt on the
professionalism of our agencyand be possibly used to claim investigator
bias/unprofessionalism and to impeach andundennine key witness credibility. The
ridiculousness, of the conduct unprofessional amateurish carnival atmosphere,, openly
made. statements, and electroni ‘communications tended to. mifigate.the defendant’s
culpability and cast a shadow of doubt of inexcusable bias, unprofessionalism and
embarrassment on our agency. These actions and comments were in my opinion
offensive in a professional federal law enforcement work environment and were a clear
3
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 36 of 73
violation of professional workplace norms, our code: of conduct, policy, and possibly
even law. The misconduct caused considerable disrnpdon in. our workplace, was
discriminatory, harassing and showed clear prejudice against the defendants, their
supporters and Mormons. Often times this misconduct centered on being sexually
inappropriate, profanity, appearance/body shaming and likely violated privacy and civil
tights.
Many times, these open unprofessional and clisrespeciful comments and name cailiug
(often’byIaw.enforcement supervisors who are. potential witnesses and investigative team
supervisors) reminded me of middle school. At any given time, you could hear subjects
of this investigation openly referred to as “rettrds,” Hr*dnecks,” “Overweight woman
with the bigjowls,” “d*uche bags,” “tractor-face,” “idiots,” ‘inbr*d,” etc., etc.,
etc. Also, it was common to receive, or have electronic communications reported to me
during the course of the investigation in which senior investigators arid law enforcement
supervisors. (some are potential witnesses and investigative team members) specifically
made fium of suspects. and referenced’”Cliven Bundy felony.. .jüst kind of rolls. off the
tongue, doesn’t it?,” dildos, western themed gy bars, odors of sweat, playing chess
with menstru*ting. women Chven Bundy shitthing on cold stainless steel,. personal
lubricant and Ryan Bundy holding a giant penis (on April 12, 2014). Extremely bias and
degrading fliers were also openly displayed and passed around the office, a booking
photo of Cliven Bundy was (and is) inappropriately, openly, prominently and proudly
displayed in the office of a potential trial witness and my supervisor and an altered and
degrading suspect photos were put in an office presentation by my
supervisor. Additionally this investigation also indicated that former BLM SAC Dan
Love sent photographs of his own feces and his girl-friend’s vagina to coworkers and
subordinates. It was also reported by another BLMSAC that fomierBLM SAC Dan
Love told him that there is no way he gets more pu$$y than him. Furthermore, I became
aware of potentially captured comments in which our own law enforcement officers
allegedly bragged about roughing up Dave Bundy, grinding his face into the ground, and
Daye Bundy having little bits of gravel stuck in his face (from April 6, 2014). On two
occasions, I also overheard, a BLM SAC tell a BLM ASAC that another/other BLM
employee(s) and potential trial witnesses didn’t properly turn in the required disôovery
material (likely exculpatory evidence). My supervisor even instigated the unprofessional
monitoring ofjail calls between defendants and their wives, without. prosecutor or FBI
consent, for ‘the apparent purpose of making urn of post arrest telephone calls between
Idaho defendants/FBI targets (not subjects of BLM’s investigation). Thankfully, AU$A
Steven Mybre’ stopped this issue. 1 even had a BLM ASAC tell me that he tried to report
the misconduct, but no one listened to him. I had my own supervisor tell me that former
BLM ‘SAC Dan Love is the BLM’OLBS “Directors boy” and they indicated they were
going to hide and protect him. The BLM OLES Chief of the Office of Professional
Responsibility/Internal Affairs indicated to me the former BLM OLES Director protected
former BLM SAC Love and shut the’ Office’of Professional Responsibility out when
misconduct allegations were reported about Love and that the former BLM OLES
Director personally (inappràpriateiy) investigated misconduct allegations about
Love. Another former BLM ASAC indicated to me that former BLM SAC Love was a
liability to our agency and the Cliven Bundy Case. I was even told of threats of physical
harm that this former ELM SAC made to his subordinate employee and his family.
4
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 37 of 73
Also, more and more IL was becoming apparent that the numerous statements made. by
potential thai witnesses and victims (even by good officers under duress), could
potentially cast an unfavorable light on the BLM. (See openly available video/audIç
footage titled “The Bundy Trial 2017 Leaked Fed Body Cam Evidence,” or a video
posted on You Thbe titled”Leaked BodyCams from the Bundy Ranch!” published by
Gavin Seim..) Some of these statements included the following: “Jack-up Hage” (Wayne
Hage Jr.), “Are you fuc OCX people stupid or what,” “Fat dude, right behind the tree
has a long gun,” “MotherfuXXXX, you come find me and you’re gonna have hell to
pay,” “FatAsX slid.down,” “Prettr’ much. a shoot first, ask questions. later,” “No gun
there. He’s just holding his back standing like a’ sissy,” “She must not be. married,”
“Shoot his. fl,icXXXX dog. first,” “We gotta have fucXXXX fire discipline,” and “I’m
recording by the way guys, so..” Additional Note: In this.timeframe, a key witness
deactivated his body camera. further Note: It became clear to me a serious public and
professional imageproblem had developed within the BLM Office ofLaw Enforcement
and Security. Ifelt I needed to work to .colTect this and mitigate the damage it no doubt
had already done
This carnival, inappropriate ‘and childish behavior didn’t stop with the directed bias and
degradation of subjects of investigations. The óbildisb misconduct extended to citizens,
cooperators from other.agencics and even.’our own employees. BLM Law Enforcement
Supervisors also openly talked about and gossiped about private, employee personnel
matters such as’ medical conditions (to include mental illness), work performance,
marriage issues, religion, punishments,. internal investigations and derogatory opinions of’
higher level BLM supervisors. Some of these open comments centered on Blow JObs,
Ma$terbation in the office closet, Addiction to POrn, a Disgusting Butt Crack, a “Weak
Sister,” high self-opinions, crying. and scared women, “Leather Face,” “Mormons (little.
Mormon Girl),” “he has mental problems and that he had some sort of mental
breakdown,” “PTSD,” etc.,. etc., etc.
Additionally,. it should be noted that there was a “religious test” of sorts. On two
occasions, I was asked “You’re not a Mormon are you” and I was told “I bet you think .1
am going,to hell, don’t you.” (I can explain these and other related incidents later.)
.
The investigation also indicated that on multiple occasions, former BLM Special Agent-
in-Charge (SAC) Love specifically and purposely ignored U.S. Attorney’s Office and
BLM civilian management direction and intent as well as Nevada State Official
recommendations in order to command the most intrusive, oppressive, large.scale, and
militaristic trespass cattle impound possible. Additionally, this investigation also
indicated excessive use of force, civil rights and policy violations. The investigation
indicated that there was little doubt there was an improper cover-up in virtually every
matter that a particular BLM’ SAC participated in, or oversaw and that the BLM SAC was
immune from. discipline and the conequences of his actions. (I can further explain these
issues later. These instances are widely documented.)
As the investigation went on, it became clear to me that my supervisor wasn’t keeping the
U.S.. Attoi-ney’s Office up to date on substantive and exculpatory case findings and
5
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 38 of 73
unacceptable bias indications. Therefore, I personally informed Acting United States
Attorney Steven Mybre and Assistant United States AttQrney (AU$A) Nadia Ahmed, as
well as Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) Special Agent Joel Willis by telephone of
these issues. When I did, my supervisor in my opinion deceptively acted ignorant and
surpthed. As the case continued, it becameclear to me that once again, my supervisor
failed to inform the UbS. Attomeys Office Prosecution Team about exculpatory key
witness statements. Note; During this investigation, my supervisor would also
deceptively indicate to the Prosecution Team that no one else was in the room when he
was on speakeiphone Thereby, allowingpotential trial witnesses and his friends to
inappropriately hear the contents ofthe discussion.
My supervisor even took photographs in the secure command post area of the Las Vegas
FBI Headquarters and even after he was told that no photographs were allowed, be
recklessly emailed out photographs of the “Arrest Tracking Wall” in width Eri Parker
and Cliven Buudy had “X’s” through their face and body (indicating prejudice and
bias). Thereby, making this electronic communication subject to Federal Records
Protections, the Litigation Hold, Discovery, and the FOIA.
On February 16,2017,1 personall.y informed then AUSA (First Assistant and Lead
Prosecutor) Steven Myhre of those specific comments (which 1 had previously disclosed
to, and discussed with my supervisor) and reminded Special Assistant United States
Attorney (SAUSA) Erin Crecgar about an cmail chain by a particularBLM SAC in
reference to the Arrest of David Bundy on April 6, 2014, in which prior to Dave Bundy’s
arrest, the BLM SAC and others were told not to make any arrests When I asked Mr.
.Myh±e ifthefonnerBLM SAC’s statements like “Go out there and kick Cllven.Bundy in
the mouth (or teeth) and take his cattle” and “I need you to get the troops fired up to go
get those cows and nt taice any crap from anyone” would be exculpatory or if we would
have to inform the defense counsel, he said something like “we do now,” or “it is now.”
Subpoena by former Congressman Jason Cliaffetz and the February 14,2017, letter that
Congressman Jason Chaffetz and Congressman Blake Farenthold sent the US.
Department of Interior’s Deputy 1nspetor General, Ms. Mary L. Kendall regarding Dan
Love allegedly directing the deletion of official documents). Also after this, I believe. I
overheard part of a conversation man open office space where my supervisor was
speaking to a BLM SAC as they iiscussed getting access to my government email
account. Note: The personal notes that I was. directed to turn in and the items seized
from my office and safe wasn ‘tfor discovery, because I was transferring to another
agency, because I was the subject ofan investigation, or because my supen’zsor simply
needed to reference afite. These, items were taken because they contained signflcant
evidence ofmisconduct anditems that wouldpotentially embarrass BLMLaw
Erforcement Supervision. Additional Note: The BLMASAC a/SQ ordered me not to
contact the U.S. Attorney Office, even, on my own time and with my personal
phone. Later, when I repeatedly asked to speak with the BLM OLE$ Director, my
requests went unanswered until April 26.207. The BLMASAC simply told me it is clear
no one wants to speak with me and that no one is going to apologize to me. Further
Note: In this same secured individual office space and safe, I kept copies ofmy
importantpersonal documents such as’ medicqi records, miltaryrecords, familypersonal
papers, computer passwords, personal property serial numbers etc., as aprecaution in
casefor some reason my house is destroyed andpersonal papers are lost/destroyed It
was clear to me the BLMASAC didn’t know what he seized and when I told him about my
personalpapers the BLMASACjust told me “no one is interested in your medical
records’It is unknown what unrelated case materials, no1es andpersonal documents
were actually taken and it is impossiblefor me, any misconduct investigator, or any
attorney to prove to a court or COngress what case information was taken. I still haven ‘r
heard back what (fany) personal items were in the seized materials andi don’t know
where the seized materials are being stored It should be noted that lam missing
personal medical physical results that Ipreviously has stored in my office. Additionall
I believe f the BLMASACfound my accidentty seized medical records instead ofgiving
them back to me, he would shred them just like I have seen him shred other items from an
agent that he didn’t ljke. (I can elaborate on this.)
Please Note: This seized case related material (to include the hard drives) contains
evidence that directly relates to a BIM SAC’s heavy, handedness during the 2014 Gold
Butte Nevada Trespass Cattle Impound, the BLM SAC ignoring US Attorney’s Office
and higher level BLM direction, documentation ofthe BLM SAC’s alleged gross
supervisory rnisconduc4 potentIal misconduct and violation ofrights issues during the
2014 Gold ButteNevada Trespass Cattle Impounc, as well aspotential emails that were
possibly identified and captured before they could have been deleted (as identified as an
issue in the Office oflnspector General Report andpossibly concerning a Congressional
subpoena). I believe thLs infirmation would likely be considered substantive
exculpatory/jencks’material in reference to the cliven Bundy Nevada Series of Trials and
would be greatly discrediting and embarrassing, as well as possibly indicate liability on
the BLM and the RIM SAC
I am convinced that. I was removed to prevent the ethical and proper further disclosure of
the severe miseonduct failure’ to correct ‘and report, and cover-ups’ by BLM ‘OLE$
7
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 40 of 73
supervision. My supervisor toldme that AUSA Steven Mybre “furiously demanded” that
1 be removedfrom the caseand mentioned something ahoutus (the BLM, specifically my
supervisor) not turning over (or disclosing) discovery related material (which is true),
issues I had with the BLM not following its own enabling statute (which is true, I can
elaborate on that later), and a personal issue they thought I had with former BLM SAC
Dan Love. Note: Prior to taking the aswignment as Bundy/Gold Butte Investigation Case
Agent/Lead Investigatorfor the BLM/DOL I didn t know and had never spoken toformer
BLM SAC Dan Love. I was new to the agency andlwas also specflcaliy directed to lead
an unbiased professional, and independent investigation, which I tried to do, despite
supervisoiy misconduct. Time after time, I was told offormer BLMSAC Love
misconduct. 1 was told byBLM Law Enforcement Supervisors that he had a Kilt Book”
as a avphy and in essence bragged about getting three individuals in Utah to commit
suicide (see Operation Cerbents Action out ofBlanding, Utah and the death ofDr.
1?edd), the “Failure Roc1c” Directing Subordinates to Erase Official Government Files
In order to impede the efforts of rival civilian 3Lli employees in preparationfor the
“BurningMan” Special Event, unlawfully removing evidence, bragging about the
number of OIG ndinternal investigations on him and indicating that he is untouchable,
encouraging subordinates not to. cooperate with internal and OIG investigations, his
harassment ofafemale Native American subordinate employee where M Love allegedly
had a doll that he referred to by the employees nam? and called her his drunk little
Indian, etc.. etc., etc. (7 canfurther explain these many issues.)
In time, I also became convinced (based on my supervisor and Mr. Myhre’s statements)
that although the U.S. Attorney’s Office was generally aware of former ELM SAC Dan
Love’s misconduct and likely civil rights and excessive force issues, the lead prosecutor
(currently the Acting Nevada United States Attorney) Steven Myhre adopted an attitude
of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” in reference to BLM Law Enforcement Supervisory Misconduct
that was of a substantive, excuipatory and incredible biased nature. Not only did Mr.
Myhre in my opinion not want to’ know or seek out evidence favorable to the accused, he
and my supervisor discouraged the reporting of such issues and even likely covered up
the misconduct. Furthermore, when I did report the misconduct, ethical, professional,
and ]egal issues, I also became a victim of whisUeblower retaliation.
Additionally, AUSA Steven Mybre adopted a few troubling policies in reference to this
case When we became aware that Dave Bundy’s seized i?ad likely contained remarks
from ELM Law Enforcement Officers that is potentially evidence of civil tights
violations and excessive use of force, Mr. I\4yhre and my supervisor not only apparently
failed initiate the appropriate follow-on actions, Mr. Myhre apparently failed to notify the
8
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 41 of 73
Defense Counsel and also decided not to return the Wad back to Dave Bundy, even
though the Wad wasn’t going to be searched pursuant to a search warrant or used as
evidence in trial and Dave Bundy claimed he needed the iPad for his business. Mr.
Mybre also adopted a policy of not giving a jury the option or ability to convict on lesser
offenses and instead relied on a hard to prove, complicated prosecution theory in order to
achieve maximum punishments (which has generally failed to this point). Also, the
government relied on factually incorrect talking points and on (or about) February 15,
2017, misrepresented the case facts about government snipers during trial (it is unhown
if this misrepresentation was on purpose. or accidental, I can explain this in
detail). Note: The investigation indicated that there was at least one school trained
Federal &ziper equipped with a scoped/magnfled optic bolt action precision rzfle,
another Federal Officer equipped with a scoped/magnfled optic largeframe (308
caliber) AR style rifle, and many officers that utilized magnfled optics with long range
• graduated reticles (out to 1,000 meters-approximately 500 meters on issued rifles
depending on environmental conditions) on standard law enforcement issued AR (223
caliberl5.56mm) and that often officers were in “over watch “positions. Additionally,
the investigation also indicated the possibility that the FBI and the Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department had law enforcement snipers/designated marksmen on
handforpossible deployment.
The reporting of these severe issues and associated cover-ups are a last resort. I tried
continually to respectfully and discretely influence my chain of command to do the right
thingand I made every effort to make sure the Prosecution Team had the information
they needed and were accurate in their talldng points. I just wanted the misconduct to
stop, the necessary and required actions be taken and I wanted to be sure these issues
wouldn’t create a fatal error in the case and further undermine our agency’s mission. I
also needed to be convinced that I was correct. If I was wrong, or errors were simply
mistakes or simple errors in professional judgement or discretion, I didn’t want to create
more problems or embarrass anyone. However, my personal experience and
investigation indicated that not only did my management fail to correct and report the
misconduct, they made every effort to cover it up, dismiss the concerns, discourage its
reporting and retaliate against the reporting party. I also tried to make sure that despite
my supervisor’s failings, the Prosecution Team had the most accurate information in
terms of case facts, Discovery, and witness liability.
The Whistleblower Retaliation and agency wrongdoing is being investigated by the U.S.
Office of Special Counsel and is also being looked at by the House Committee om Natural
Resources (Subcommittee on Oèrsight & Investigations) and the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee (Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and the
Environment). Additionally, a formal complaint has been filed with my agency in
reference to the religious, sexually vulgar, and the other workplace
harassment. Furthermore, there have been several investigations by the DOl Office of
Inspector General (OIG) that at least in part contributed to the recent firing of ELM
Special Agent-in-Charge Dan Love (which I wasn’t a part of).
I ask that your office ensure that Acting United States Attorney Steven Mybre and the
rest of the Cliven Bundy/Gold Butte Nevada Prosecutionand Investigative Team is
9
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 42 of 73
conducting the prosecution in an. ethical, appropriate, and professional matter. I also
specifically ask that your office provide oversight to Mr. Mybre and his team regarding
the affirmative responsibility to seek out evidencefavorable to the accuse4 not to
discourage the reporting of case issues and suspected misconduct, to report/act on
suspected civil rights violations and not toretaliate against an agent that does his required
duty. I also ask that your office ensure that the Prosecution Team is free ofbias and has
ethically and correctly tutned ‘over exculpatory evidence to the Defense. T ask that as
appropriate, prosecution têambias (by Mr. Myhre and possibly by AUSA Daniel Schiess)
and factually incorrect talking points (by AUSANadia Ahmed and Mr. Myhre) be
disclosed and corrected. Note: Mr Myhre previously referred to the deftndants as a cult
and Mr Schiess said let get these ‘hatt we say Deplorables.”Iwas also asked
“You!re not a Mormon are you.” (7 can explain these and similar issues in detaiL)
I don’t makethis complaint lightly. I do this with a heavy heart and I hope that at least in
some ways I am mistaken. However, I know that is extremely unlikely. When we speak
I can identify subjects, witnesses, and the location of evidence and corroborating
information.
I believe this case closely mirror the circumstances of former Alaska Senator Ted
Stevens trial. As you may notice from the. trials and several defense cross-examinations,
very little of the impeachment and excuipatory issues were brought up by the defense. I
believe this is. most 1ikel because the defense counsel was unethically not made aware of
them and the severe issues were covered up. Additionally, I believe I can easily show
that both my supervision and possibly Mr. Myhre entered into an unethical agreement to
remove me from being the lead investigator and case agent for the BLMJDOI due: to my
objection to, and disclosure of outrageous misconduct, the belief that my testimony under
oath would embarrass supervisory law enforcement officials in our agency and negatively
affect the prosecution, my insistence that my supervisor stop his individual utisconduct,
correct the misconduct of other employees and report the misconduct as appropriate (for
counseling, correction, discipline and the possible required internal investigations) and
my belief that my agency is violating the letter and intent of the law.
All in all, it is my assessment and the investigation showçd that the 2014 Gold Butte
Trespass Cattle Impound was in part a punitive and ego driven expedition by a Senior
BLM LawEnforcement Supervisor (fonrterBLM Special Agent-in-Charge Dan Love)
that was only in part focused onthe intent of the associated Federal Court Orders and the
mission of our agency (to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of America’s
public lands for the multiple use and enjoent of present and future generations). My
10
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 43 of 73
investigation also indicated that the involved officers and protestors were themselves
pawns in what was almost a. great American tragedy on April. 12, 2014, in which law
enforcement officers (Federal, State, and Local), protestors, and the motoring public were
caught in the. danger area. This investigation also indicated, the primary reasons for the
escalation was due to the recklessness, lack of oversight, and arrogance of a BLM Special
Agent-in-Charge and the recklessness, failure to adhere. to Federal. Court Orders and lack
of recognition of the Federal Government in matters related to. land management within
Nevada, by Rancher Cliven Bundy.
The investigation further indicated that the BLM SAC’s peers didn’t likely attempt to
properly influence or counsel the BLM SAC into more appropriate courses of action and
conduct or were unsuccessful in their attempts. The: investigation indicated that it was
likely that the BLM SAC’s peers fa..iled to report the BLM SAC’s
unethical/unprofessional actions, misconduct, and potential crimes up. the. chain of
command and/or to. the appropriate authorities, or that the chain o• command simply
ignored and dismissed these.reports. The investigation further indicated when individuals
did report issues with the BLM SAC, the reports were likely ignored or marginalized by
higher BLM OLES officials. The investigation also iudicated.that former BLM OLES
Director Salvatore Lauro likely gave the former BLM SAC complete autonomy and
discretion without oversight or supervision. The investigation further indicated that it
was imlikely that the BLM OLE$ Director wasn’t aware of the BLM SAC’s
unethicalJunprofessional actions, poor decisions, misconduct, and potential crimes. My
investigation and. personal observations in the investigation further revealed a likely
unethical/unlawful “cover-up” of this BLM SAC’s.actions, by very senior law
enforcement management within BLM OLES. This investigation indicated that on
numerous occasions, senior BLM OLES management broke their own policies and
overlooked ethical, professional, and conduct violations and likely prbvided cover and
protection for the BLM. SAC and any activity or operation this BLM SAC was associated
with. My investigation further indicated that the BLM’s. civilian leadership didn’t
condone and/or.was likely unaware of the BLM SAC’s actions and the associated cover-
ups, at least until it was too late.
During the investigation, I also came to believe that the case prosecution team at. United
States Attorney’s Office out of Las Vegas in the District of Nevada wasn’t being kept up
to. date ii important investigative findings about the ELM SAC’s likely. alleged
misconduct. I also. came to believe that discovery related and possibly relevant and
substantive trial, impeachment, and biased related and/or exculpatory information wasn’t
likely turned over to, or properly disclosed to the prosecution team by my supervisor.
I also came to believe there were such serious case findings that an outside investigation
was warranted on several issues to include misconduct, ethics/code of conduct issues, use
of force issues (to include civil, rights violations), non-adherence to law, and the
loss/destruction of, or purposeful.non-recoding of key evidentia±y items (Unknown
Items I & 2, Video/Audio, April 6,2014, April 9, 2014, April 12, 20l4-the most
important and critical times in the operation). I believe these issues would shock the
conscious of the public and greatly embarrass our agency if they were disclosed.
11.
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 44 of 73
Ultimately, I believe I was removed from my position as Case AgentlLead Investigator
for the Cliven Bundy/Gold Butte, Nevada Investigation because my management and
possibly the prosecution team believed I would properly disclose these embarrassing and
substantive issues on the stand and under oath at trial (if I was asked), because my
supervision believed I had contacted others about this misconduct (Congress, possibly the
defense and press) and possibly audio recorded them, because I had uncovered, reported,
and objected to suspected violations of law, ethics directives, policy, and the code of
conduct, and because! wascritical of the misconduct of a particular BLM SAC. This is
despite having already testified In Federal Grand Jury and being on the trial witness list.
The purpose of this narrative is not to take up for or defend the actions of the subjects of
this investigation. To get an idea of the relevant historical facts, conduct of the subjects
of the investigation and contributing factors, you may consider familiarizing yourself
with the 2014 Gold Butte Timeline (which I authored) and the uncovered facts of this
investigation. The investigation revealed that many of the subjects likely knowingly and
willingly ignored, obstructed, and/or attempted to unlawfully thwart the associated
Federal Court Orders through their specific actions and veiled threats, and that many of
the subjects also likely violated several laws. This investigation also showed that subjects
of the investigation in part adopted an aggressive and bully type strategy that ultimately
led to the shutdown of 1-15, where mary armed followers of Cliven Bundy brandished
and pointed weapons at Federal Officers and Agents in the Toquop Wash near
Bimkerville, Nevada, on April 12, 2014, in a dangerous, high risk, high profile national
incident. This investigation further indicated that instead of Cliven Bundy properly using
the court system or other avenues to properly address his grievances, h chose an illegal,
uncivilized, and dangerous strategy in which a tragedy was narrowly and thankfully
avoided.
During the course of the investigation, I determined that any disagreement with the BLM
SAC, Or any reporting of his many likely embarnssing, unethical/unprofessional actions
and misconduct was thought to be career destroying. Time and time again, I came to
believethat the BLM SAC’s subordinates and peers were afraid to correct him or
properly report his misconduct(despitea duty to act) out of fear for their own jobs and
reputation..
Sometimes, I felt these issues (described in depth below) were reported to me by senior
BLM OLB$ management and line Rangers/Agents/employees because they personally
didn’t like a particular BLM SAC (although, some of these same people seemed to flatter,
buddy up to, openly like, and protect the BLM SAC). Sometimes, I thought BLM OLES
management wanted to talk about these actions because they thought These blatant
12
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 45 of 73
inappropriate acts by a BLM SAC and others were funny. Sometimes, I thought the
reporting parties. wanted the misconduct corrected and the truth to. come to light, but they
were afraid/unwilling to report and correct ‘the miscondtct themselves. Sometimes, I
thought the reporting parties’just wanted to get the issues off their chest. Sometimes, I
thought supervisors wanted to report the misconduct.tome, so they could later say they
did report it (since .1 was the Case Agent/Lead Investigator). Therefore, in their mind
limit their liability to correct and report the misconduct and issues. However, it was
confusing that at the same time, I thought some of thcse reporting parties (particularly in
management) sought deniability and didn’t want to go “on the record.” These same
reporting/witnessing parties in most cases apparently refused to correct the misconduct
and further report It to higher level supervision, the Office of Inspector General, and the
U.S. Attorney’s Office (as required/necessary) and even discouraged me from further
reporting and.correcting the issues. When I did try to correct and further report the issues
as I believed appropriate and necessary, these samesupervisors (who’were
reporting/witnessing parties) ‘acted confused and unaware. Ultimately.. I beame. an
outcast and was retaliated against
I alsofeel there are likely a great many other issues that even I am not aware of, that were
likely disclosed or known to my supervisor, at least two other BLM ‘SACs the former
BLM SAC’s subordinates, and the former BLM OLES Direçtot In addition to the
witnesses I identify, I would also recommend intewiews withthe BLM: OLES Chief of
the Office. of Professional Responsibilitytluternal Affairs and I would recommend.
reviews of my chain of command’s emails. and text messages.
Unfortunately, I also believe that the U.S. Attorney’s Office Prosecution Team may have
adopted an inappropriate under the table/unofficial policy of “preferred ignorance” in
regard to the likely gross misconduct on the part ofsenior management from the BLM
Office of Law Enforcement and Security and Discovery/Exculpatory related thai issues.
What indicated to me there was likely deception and a failure’ to act on the part of my
supervisIon was the actions, comments, and ‘questions, of senior BLM Law Enforcement
Officials, comments by the BLM’s Chief of the Office of Professional Responsibility
(Internal Affairs), and the pretrial GigliofHenhom Review.
Additionally, actions, comments, and questions by the U.S.. Attorney’s Office Lead
Prosecutor, the strategy to deny the DaveBundy iPad evidence from coming to light, the
direction by a BLM ASAC for me not to speak with any member of the’ Prosecution
Team, and factually.deceptivetinçorrect talking points (snipers, Bundy property, Bundy
cattle overall health, etc.), indicated to me the ProsecutionTeam wanted to possibly and
purposefully remain ignorant of some of the case facts and possibly use unethical legal
tricks to prevent the appropriate release of substantive/exculpatory and. bias/impeachment
material. I believe that it is more likely than not, that there was not only a lack of due
diligence by the Prosecution Team in identifying and locating exculpatory material, but
there was also a desire to purposely stay ignorant (which my chain of command was
happy to go along with) of some of the. issues and likely an inappropriate strategy to not
disclose aubstantive material to the Defense Counsel and initiate any necessary civil
rights relatedor internal investigations. Furthermore, I was surprised about the lack of
13
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 46 of 73
Defense Counsel questions about critical vulnerabilities in the case that should have been
disclosed to the Defense in a timely manner. It is my belief that the Defense Counsel was
simply ignorant of these issues.
Also, please keep in mind that I am not an “Internal Affairs,” cchlspecfor General,” or
“Office of Professional Responsibility Investigator.” Therefore, I couldn’t, and can’t
independently conduct investigations into government law enforcement
personnel. Additionally, I haven’t been formally trained on internal
investigations. Therefore, my perception, the opinions I offer, and the fact pattern that I
found relevant was gained from my experience as a regular line investigator and former
uniformed patrol and Field Training Officer (FTO).
Each, and every time I came across any potential criminal, ethical, or policy related issue,
in the course of my duties as the DOIIBLM Case Agent/Lead Investigator for the Gold
Butte/Cliven Bundy Nevada Investigation, I reported the issues up my chain of command
with the intent to run an independent and unbiased, professional investigation, as I was
instructed. Later, I determined my chain of command was likely already
aware of many
of these issues and were likely not reporting those issues to the prosecution
team and
higher headquarters. Later, I also was informed by the BLM Office of Professional
Responsibility (OPR) Chief that any issues that had anything to do with a particular
favored BLM SAC, the BLM OLE$ Director looked at himself
instead of OPR. The OPR
Chief told me he was shut out of those types of inquiries.
I noted in the pre-ffial
Giglio/Henthorn Review that this appeared to be accurate. I also noted that these types of
issues I discovered apparently weren’t properly investigated as required. The bad joke I
heard around the office was that the BLM SAC knew where the BLM OLE$ Director had
buried the prOstitutes body and that is why the BLM OLES Director protects him.
I know good people make mistakes, are sometimes immature and use bad judgement. I
do it all the time. I am not addressing simple issues here. However, some simple issues
are included to indicate a wide spread pattern, openly condoned
prohibited/unprofessional conduct and an inappropriate familiar and carnival
atmosphere. Additionally, the refusal to correct’these simple issues and conduct
discrepancies, harassment, and ultimately cover-ups and retaliation are indicated and
explained throughout this document.
Since I wasn’t a supervisor and since I was one of the most junior criminal investigators
in our agency, I tried to positively influence those above me by my example and discrete
one on one mentoring and urging. I simply wanted the offensive and case/agency
destructive conduct to stop, to correct the record where appropriate, and inform those
who we had a duty to inform of the potential wrong-doing. I attempted to positively
influence my management in the most respectful and least visible way possible. In
order
to accomplish this, I adopted a praise in public and counsel in private approach.
When
• that failed to work for the long term, I had to become more “matter of fact” (but always
respectful), when that failed to work I resorted to documenting the instances and
discussions. Later, I resorted to official government email to make a permanent record
of
the issues. When this failed to deter the offensive conduct or instigate appropriate action
by my supervision, I had to notify others and identify witnesses. I respected and stayed
14
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 47 of 73
within my chain of command until ‘I was expressly forbidden from contacting the U.S.
Attorney’s Office and my requests to speak with the BLM OLE$ Director went
unanswered.
Simply put, as a law enforcement officer, I can’t allow injustices and cover-ups to go
unreported or half-truths and skewed narratives go unopposed. I have learned that when
conduct of this sort isn’t corrected, then by default it is ‘condoned, and it becomes
unofficial policy. When I determined there were severe issues that hurt more than just
me, and I determined that my supervision apparently lacked the character to correct the
situation, I knew that duty fell to me. I still felt I could accomplish this duty without
embarrassing ‘my supervision, bringing shame on our agency, or creating a fatal flaw in
our investigation.
Initially,! felt I could ‘simply mentor and properly influence my supervision to do the
right thing. Time and time again, I urged my supervision to correct actions and counsel
individuals who participate in conduct damaging to our agency and possibly destructive
to the integrity of our case or future investigations. I attempted to urge. my supervision to
report certain information to senior BLM management and the U.S. Attorney’s
Office. Note: Evidence ofsome ofthis offensive conduct is potentially available through
Freedom ofInformation Act (FOJA) requests and subject to a Litigation HokL may be
considered Exculpatory Material in trial discoveryprocess, and may be subject to federal
records protections. Additionally, in many instances, I can provide evidence, iden4i5’ the
location ofevidence and ident)5’ witnesses.
Note: This entire docz4ment was constructed without the aid ofmy original notes due to
their seizure by a ELMAssistant Special%gent-in-Charge outside ofmypresence and
without my knowledge orpermission. Additionally, Iwas aggressively questioned
regarding the bellefthat I may have audio recordedBLM OLES management regarding
their answers concerning this and other issues. Alt dates, times, and quotes are
approximate and made to the best ofmy ability and memory. I’m sure there are more
noteworthy items that lean’: recall at the time I constructed this document. Also
Note: The other likely report worthy items were scizedftom me on February 12 2OI7
and are believed to be in the possession ofa 3LMAS.4C. I recommend these items be
safeguarded and revtewecL
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 48 of 73
As the case agent/lead irrvestigator for the DOl in the Cliven Bundy investigation out of
the District of Nevada, I became aware of a great number ofit3stances when senior BLM
OLES leadersbipwere lilcelyinvolved in Gross Mismanagement and Abuse of
Authority (which may have posed a substantial and specific threat to employee and
public safety as well as wrongfully denied the public Constitutionally protected
rights). The BLM OLES leadership and others may have also violated Merit System
Principles (Fair/Equitable Treatment,, High Standards of Conduct, Failing to Manage
Employee Perfonnanceby Failing to Address Poor Performance and Unprofessional
Conduct, Potential Unjust Political Itfluence, and WhIstleblower Retaliation),
Prohibited Personnel Practices (Retaliation Against Whistleblowers, Retaliation
Against Employees that Exercise Their Rights, Violation of Rules that Support the Merit
System Principles, Enforcement of Policies (unwritten) that Don’t Allow
Whistleblo4wing), Ethics Rules (Putting Forth an Honest Effort in the Performance of
Duties, the Obligation to Disclose Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and Cornaption, Endeavoring to
Avoid Any Action that Creates the Appearance that there is a Violation of the Law, and
Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees), BLM OLES Code of Conduct (Faithfully
Striving to Abide by all Laws, Rules, Regu1afions and Customs Governing the
Peiformanceof Duties,. Potentially Violating. Laws and Regulations in a Unique. Position
of High ?ubió Trust and Integrity of Profession and Confidence of the Public, Peers,
Supervisors, and Society in General, Knowingly Committing Acts. in’ the Conduct of
Official Business and/or in Persc)nal Life that Subjects the Department of Interior to
Public Censure and/or Adverse Criticism, Conducting all Investigations and Law
Enforcement functions Impartially and Thoroughly and Reporting the Results Thereof
Fully, Objectively, and Accurately, and Potentially Using Greater Force than Necessary
in Accompliábing the Mission of the Department), BLM Values (To serve with honesty,
integrity, accountabulity, respect, courage and commitment to make a difference), BLM
Guiding Principles’ (to respect, value, and support our employees. To pursue excellence
in business practices,. improve accountability to our stake holders and deliver better
service to our customers), BLM OLES General Order 3$ (Internal Affairs
investigations), Departmental and Agency Policies (ELM Director Neil Koruze Policy
on Equal Opportunity and the Prevention of Harassment dated January 19,2016, DOl
Secretary Sally Jewell Policy on Promoting an Ethical Culture dated June 15, 2016, DOl
Secretary SaUy Jewel] Policy on Equal Opportunity in the Workplace dated September
14, 2016,001 Deputy ‘Secretary of Interior Michael Connor Policy on Workplace
Conduct dated October 4, 2016, DOl Secretary Ryan Zinke Policy on Strengthening the
Department’s Ethical Culture dated March 2, 2017, DOt Secretary Ryan Zinke Policy on
Harassment dated April 12, 2017 Memorandum dated December 12, 2013, from Acting
DOl Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Capital and Diversity Mary F. Pletcher titled
“The. Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 and Non-Disclosure Policies,
Forms, Agreements, and Acknowledgements, Email Guidance by Deputy Secretary of
Interior David Bernhardt titled “MOnth One Message,” dated August 1,2017, Email
Guidance by Deputy Secretary of Interior David Bemhardt titled “Month Two Message,”
dated September 22, 2017, ELM Acting Deputy Director of Operations Joim Ruhs
guidance contained in an Email titled “Thank You for Making a Difference,” dated
September 29, 201 7, which referenced BLM Values’ and Guiding’ Principles, BLM/DOI
Email and Computer Ethical Rules of Behavior, BLM “Zero Tolerance” Policy
Regarding Inappropriate Use of the Intemet 18 USC 1663 Protection of Public Records
16
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 49 of 73
Please also note the. potential Constitutional issues regarding “religious tests,” search and
seizure, and speech/assembly protectkns.
EXHIBIT 2
USCA Case #18-7024 Document #1718145 Filed: 02/15/2018 Page 51 of 73
2:16-cr-046-GMN-PAL — January 8, 2018
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:16-cr-046-GMN—PAL
6 vs.
Las Vegas, Nevada
7 CLIVEN D. BUNDY (1), ) Monday, January 8, 2018
RYAN C. BUNDY (2), ) Courtroom 7C, 9:28 a.m.
8 AMMON E. BUNDY (3),
RYAN W. PAYNE (4), ) MOTION TO DISMISS
9
Defendants.
10 ) CERTIFIED COPY
11
12 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE GLORIA M. NAVARRO
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT CHIEF JUDGE
14 APPEARANCES:
20
1 APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
11
For the Defendant Arnmon E. Bundy:
12
HILL FIRM
13 BY: DANIEL HILL
228 South Fourth Street, 3rd Floor
14 Las Vegas, NV 89101
(702) 848—5000
15
JM PHILPOT ATTORNEYS AT LAW
16 BY: JAY MORGAN PHILPOT
1063 East Alpine Drive
17 Alpine, UT 84004
(801) 891—4499
18
For the Defendant Ryan W. Payne:
19
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE
20 BY: RYAN NORWOOD
BRENDA WEKSLER
21 411 East Bonneville Avenue, Suite 250
Las Vegas, NV 89101
22 (702) 388—6577
23
24
25
1 APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
6 Also present:
10 Nicole Reitz, IT
Brian Glynn, IT
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2 --o0o-—
3 PROCEEDINGS
25 Ms. Fletcher.
2 Your Honor. Dan Hill along with Morgan Philpot here on behalf
3 of Arnmon Bundy.
5 Mr. Bundy.
13 Maggie McLetchie --
10 Your Honor.
15 mode, does not matter. If you have the device, they will be
22 public version is 3057. The Court has also reviewed Docket No.
23 2906. The public version of that is 3058. And the Court has
11 misconduct is appropriate.
13 argument.
23 States Supreme Court case decided in 1982. Here, the Court has
25 allegation.
10
9 should have been provided to the defense and the Court finds
11
6 disclose this evidence because the FBI did not provide the
12
6 decided ‘91.
13
4 the supervisory powers, the Court must find that there has been
14 their contents:
16 Burke 302 about Agent Egbert; the FBI 302 about BLM Agent
17 Delmolino authored by FBI Agent Willis; the FBI 302 about BLM
19 Post/Operation Post; the FBI 302 about BLM Racker and his
20 assignment to the LP/OP; the unredacted FBI TOC log; and the
14
7 camera.
19 The Ninth Circuit held that the Chapman court did not
23 conduct was more egregious than the facts before the Chapman
24 court. He argues that there were more than mere hints of the
15
2 November 8th and December 15th of 2017, all which should have
5 from the Chapman case because here the prosecution did not fail
21 or that they did not need to be -- or that they did not provide
22 evidence that snipers had been inserted or did not need to,
16
19 that the FBI 302 authored by Burke on April 8th of 2014 about
21 follow up on the camera feed because the 302 report said that
17
19 Compounding the Court’s concern is that the FBI had almost four
20 full years to prepare the trial and two years to disclose the
18
1 any other situation where the FBI has acted in disregard such
13 produced and what has not been produced. The Court also
19
5 the truth. These are arguments for closing argument and not a
7 noted by the defense in the brief and the Court does not
12 defense.
23 those questions that were read and not read to the witness; and
24 the new yet unexplored issues related to the Wooten e-mail, the
20
15 look beyond the FBI file that was provided and construes the
24 its conduct has caused the integrity of a future trial and any
21
22
3 Document 3082 and 3085, public version 3087 and 3088, are
4 hereby granted.
7 and exonerates the bonds of Ryan Payne, Ryan Bundy, and Ammon
18 It’s 9:56 now. So, about until 10:15 so that the proper
23 Off record.
25 ///
1 --000--
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25