We have reported on the Inspector General’s report on Bureau of Land Management Agent Daniel P. Love since the end of January when political prisoner Pete Santilli referenced the misconduct by Love and the BLM at the 2014 Bundy Ranch siege. Now, defendants in the case of US v. Cliven Bundy are concerned that the prosecution withheld this report because Love is the government’s star witness in the case.
At the same time we reported on the misconduct report, the government’s prosecution team filed motions to suppress any kind of scrutiny against the BLM.
Among the things they sought to suppress in testimony were:
- References to the occupation of the Malheur national Wildlife Refuge, the subsequent trial, United States v. Ammon Bundy et al., or the result of the trial.
- References to supposed mistreatment of cattle during the impoundment operation or agency, or officer, misconduct in this or other impoundment operations or investigations.
- Arguments or opinions that the federal government, its officers and agents or its agencies are improperly and excessively armed, use military tactics, act outside their authority or have engaged in the use of excessive force in other venues or at other times.
- Hearsay statements or opinions regarding the BLM, the impoundment operation, or the events of April 12, including opinions and statements of elected or appointed government officials (such as Nevada Governor Sandoval, U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch, Harry Reid, U.S. Congressman-Elect Ruben Kikuen, Nevada Assemblywoman Michelle Fiore.).
- Legal arguments or opinions that the federal government does not, or should not, own public lands, that the federal government does not, or should now own the Gold Butte range, or that the Gold Butte Range has now been designated a National Monument by the President of the United States.
- Legal arguments or opinions that law enforcement officers within the Department of Interior are not constitutional, that “natural law” or other authority permits the use of force against law enforcement officers in defense of property or individual rights, or that the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada is illegitimate.
In other words, they were basically attempting to whitewash this illegal operation of the BLM, regardless of whether they had a court order or not, by silencing any testimony that would expose their evil and corrupt organization and deeds.
Judge Gloria Navarro ruled against the motion to suppress testimony, but also denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case based on the report from the IG regarding Daniel P. Love, the agent in charge of the operation at Bundy Ranch in 2014. That report calls into question everything about Mr. Love, including his integrity and lawfulness.
However, attorneys Steven Myhre and Daniel Bogden want to know if the prosecution purposefully withheld the IG report from their clients.
Guerilla Media Network reports:
After this weeks release of the “I.G.” report concluding Special Agent Daniel P. Love was guilty of misconduct – including bullying a female co-worker, some feel it would not be out of line to at least question how much fore-knowledge of the investigation Daniel Bogden, (Nevada US Attorney) and Steven Myhre, (Nevada US Prosecutor) had prior to the release of the report.
It is alleged that evidence will prove Daniel P. Love was in direct contact with the U.S. Attorney’s Office during the 2014 protest and that it was U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden who instructed Love to entrap protestors for future Prosecution by his office. Bogden reportedly told Love to not pull the pin on the gate himself – that he must allow protestors to do it if they had any hope of prosecuting later [statement paraphrased]
In 2006 Daniel Bogden was fired from the position of State Attorney during a nationwide purge of what the then Bush Administration called corrupt Government Attorneys. While there has never been any clear answer as to why Bogden was targeted – it is clear that he was given his job back after Bush left office and Senator Harry Reid asked President Barack Obama to reinstate him, which he promptly did.
Having questions about possible prosecutorial misconduct, GMN called the Inspector General’s Office and ask if anyone had informed Steven Myhre or Daniel Bogden of their investigation of Daniel P. Love or the findings prior to results being released to the public; The IGO refused to comment.
The actions of the BLM, under the supervision of Daniel P. Love, drew hundreds of people from across the country to stand against their tyranny of the Bundy family. One of those was political prisoner Todd Engel, whose opening testimony brought jurors to tears as he told them that he went to Bundy Ranch for that purpose and because of the treatment of the Bundys by the BLM.
Political prisoner and reporter Pete Santilli calls his arrest and indictment “nothing more than selective prosecution of a journalist for shining a light on the misconduct of Dan Love and his operation.”
Santilli went on to say:
“He is a bully with a badge whose ego almost got a bunch of people killed.
Dan love doesn’t have to like me and he certainly doesn’t have to like what I say about him — but to arrest me and call me a dangerous criminal for telling the truth about what I observed him doing at Bundy Ranch is the epitome of what outrageous government conduct means.
After reading the the ‘IG’ report on this guy, I was relieved that no-one else will have to suffer at his hands – but it is bitter-sweet; Where is the ‘IG’ investigation on his misconduct at Bundy? Maybe it’s because misconduct doesn’t even come close to describing what happened there. Maybe the government should ask themselves if Dan Love is really the good guy they want everyone to believe he is …”
If you think Love understands the Constitution and the law, you would do well to listen to this audio between him and Santilli at Bundy Ranch. Love sounds more like a Nazi “I’m just doing my legal job” guy, than a person that actually knows the Constitution he claims he upholds and defends.
Also, let you think that the government would not engage in the misconduct of hiding the IG report, GMN adds:
A comprehensive study done by the Center for Public Integrity in 2003 found there are many opportunities for prosecutors to engage in misconduct that are nearly impossible to discover because most all prosecutorial practices that occur behind closed doors, such as charging and plea bargaining decisions and grand jury practices, are never revealed to the public.
In 28 cases, involving 32 separate defendants that were studied, misconduct by prosecutors led to the conviction of innocent individuals who were later exonerated. Innocent men and women were convicted of serious charges, including murder, rape, and kidnapping and assault.
If you are able and would like to help these men win their case against the tyranny of the central government or would like to write them, please click here. If you would like to support a house in Nevada that is caring for wives and children of these men as they attend the trials, please click here.