Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

Post Reply
NMgirl
Posts: 2055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#1

Post by NMgirl » Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:43 am

The Defendants:

Cliven Bundy, NV. Attorney: Bret Whipple

Ammon Bundy, ID. Attorney: Daniel Hill (cja), Philpoot Philpot (phv)

cRyan Bundy, NV. Attorney: Pro se, with standby attorney Angela Dows Maysoun Fletcher

Pete Santilli, OH. Attorney: Chris Rasmussen (cja)

Ryan Payne, MT. Attorney(s): Federal Public Defenders, lead FPD Brenda Weksler

ThIs trial will probably start in October. These defendants are Tier 1.



NMgirl
Posts: 2055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#2

Post by NMgirl » Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:46 am

Friday Night Document Dump

06/27/2017-- 2093-- MOTION for Joinder to 2066 Emergency Motion to Release Defendants on Due Process Grounds, filed by Ryan C. Bundy. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice of Under Seal Filing of Exhibits A through C)(Dows, Angela) (Entered: 06/27/2017)

06/30/2017-- 2105-- NOTICE Defedant Ryan C. Bundy's Notice to the Court of Emergency Motion Being Filed by Ryan C. Bundy. (Dows, Angela) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

06/30/2017-- 2107-- RESPONSE to 2066 Motion, 2093 Motion for Joinder ; filed by USA as to Cliven D. Bundy, Ryan C. Bundy, Ammon E. Bundy, Ryan W. Payne, Peter T. Santilli, Jr, Melvin D. Bundy, David H. Bundy, Brian D. Cavalier, Joseph D. O'Shaughnessy, Jason D. Woods. Government Response in Opposition to Motion to Release Defendants on Due Process Grounds Replies due by 7/7/2017. (Myhre, Steven) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

07/03/2017-- 2117-- RESPONSE to 2069 Motion to Reopen Detention Hearing, 2102 Motion for Joinder ; filed by USA as to Ryan C. Bundy, Micah L. McGuire. Government Response in Opposition to Motion to ReOpen Detention Hearing Replies due by 7/10/2017. (Myhre, Steven) (Entered: 07/03/2017)

07/04/2017-- 2122-- Emergency MOTION to Continue District Judge Hearing and Other Accommodations [Emergency Motion] (Docket No. 2085) by Ryan C. Bundy. (Dows, Angela) (Entered: 07/04/2017)

07/05/2017-- 2125-- MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro, as to Ryan C. Bundy on 7/5/2017. By Deputy Clerk: Aaron Blazevich.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Ryan Bundy's ("Defendant's") 2122 Emergency Motion to Continue and Motion to Appear Telephonically. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's 2122 Motion is DENIED in part, GRANTED in part. The Motion to Continue is DENIED. The hearing shall remain as scheduled for tomorrow, July 6, 2017, at 1:30pm. The Motion to Appear Telephonically is GRANTED. The Court will arrange the details of the call with the prison in order to easily facilitate the phone call and ensure the Defendant's availability.
(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB) (Entered: 07/05/2017)



User avatar
poplove
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2016 5:43 pm
Occupation: Retired DoD civilian
Contact:

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#3

Post by poplove » Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:21 am

A post from gavslime. I can only hope this is true.

Image


If you're afraid of the answer, then don't ask the question.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8720
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#4

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Jul 07, 2017 4:27 am

My. My.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 2648
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#5

Post by pipistrelle » Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:41 am

I hope not in front of a jury. He'll look like a sympathetic character.



User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 4017
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#6

Post by Maybenaut » Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:53 am

poplove wrote:A post from gavslime. I can only hope this is true.

Image
Seems unlikely that the Court would just come up with this on her own without some pleadings at the least. Until we see more, color me skeptical.



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5773
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#7

Post by Northland10 » Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:21 am

It is a legit court order, though it seems in response to a hearing he was to have this week.
07/06/2017 2128 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro, as to Ryan C. Bundy on 7/6/2017. By Deputy Clerk: Aaron Blazevich.
Court finds there is a danger of escape. IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall be restrained by leg restraints during court proceedings.

(no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
Here are some of the filings leading up to the order which may explain some context.
gov.uscourts.nvd.113338.2058.0.pdf
http://ia801602.us.archive.org/0/items/ ... 2105.0.pdf

http://ia601602.us.archive.org/0/items/ ... 2122.0.pdf
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 2648
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#8

Post by pipistrelle » Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:28 am

I'm not sure I see anything in there as to why he's an especial escape risk, though, to the point of being bound (yes, am aware of his cowboy sheet braiding days in Oregon).

This:
Bundy requests that the Court consider accommodations and relieve him from the strip/cavity searches so he may appear before the Court, physically.
No reason given, other than that presumptively he's special.



User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 4017
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#9

Post by Maybenaut » Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:07 am

pipistrelle wrote:I'm not sure I see anything in there as to why he's an especial escape risk, though, to the point of being bound (yes, am aware of his cowboy sheet braiding days in Oregon).

This:
Bundy requests that the Court consider accommodations and relieve him from the strip/cavity searches so he may appear before the Court, physically.
No reason given, other than that presumptively he's special.
I admit, I was skeptical, but it looks like there was a hearing. I wonder what he said to the judge. Maybe it's his refusal to submit to searches that makes him an escape risk. I see he's trotting out the old "exercise one constitutional right at the expense of another," saying he has to give up his right to be free from bodily intrusion in exchange for his right to be present. :roll:



User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 2648
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#10

Post by pipistrelle » Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:19 am

Maybenaut wrote:I admit, I was skeptical, but it looks like there was a hearing. I wonder what he said to the judge. Maybe it's his refusal to submit to searches that makes him an escape risk. I see he's trotting out the old "exercise one constitutional right at the expense of another," saying he has to give up his right to be free from bodily intrusion in exchange for his right to be present. :roll:
The people in the court have a right to life, but other people's rights don't seem to mean much to the Bundy Bunch.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 22201
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#11

Post by bob » Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:44 am

pipistrelle wrote:I hope not in front of a jury. He'll look like a sympathetic character.
There are methods to minimize shackles' visibility. (A common claim, however, is that they were nonetheless visible, or that smart/perceptive jurors could have inferred the shackles' existence.)

There are also alternative methods (e.g., more deputies, stun belt) available for when jurors are present; it may be later decided to use those instead. (A common claim, however, is that those weren't really needed, either.)

Of course, any post-conviction claim will argue that the shackles prejudiced the defendant by creating the appearance of guilt.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

NMgirl
Posts: 2055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#12

Post by NMgirl » Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:54 am

bob wrote:
pipistrelle wrote:I hope not in front of a jury. He'll look like a sympathetic character.
There are methods to minimize shackles' visibility. (A common claim, however, is that they were nonetheless visible, or that smart/perceptive jurors could have inferred the shackles' existence.)

There are also alternative methods (e.g., more deputies, stun belt) available for when jurors are present; it may be later decided to use those instead. (A common claim, however, is that those weren't really needed, either.)

Of course, any post-conviction claim will argue that the shackles prejudiced the defendant by creating the appearance of guilt.
I'm pretty sure that those shackles were just for a hearing, not anything in front of the jury. "Court proceedings" is mentioned, although I won't be downloading any documents until tonight, because I expect a flurry of docs from yesterday and today.



Dan1100
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#13

Post by Dan1100 » Fri Jul 07, 2017 3:18 pm

bob wrote:
pipistrelle wrote:I hope not in front of a jury. He'll look like a sympathetic character.
There are methods to minimize shackles' visibility. (A common claim, however, is that they were nonetheless visible, or that smart/perceptive jurors could have inferred the shackles' existence.)

There are also alternative methods (e.g., more deputies, stun belt) available for when jurors are present; it may be later decided to use those instead. (A common claim, however, is that those weren't really needed, either.)

Of course, any post-conviction claim will argue that the shackles prejudiced the defendant by creating the appearance of guilt.
I can't imagine that they don't have a standard way to restrain them that the jury cannot see. I know one local court has a stun device that goes on the defendant's ankle that they have used in a county near here.


"Let's say you're on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, 'I forgot armed robbery was illegal.' "

-Steve Martin

NMgirl
Posts: 2055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#14

Post by NMgirl » Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:09 am

Friday Night Document Dump

All the Ryans for the past couple of days:

07/04/2017-- 2122-- Emergency MOTION to Continue District Judge Hearing and Other Accommodations [Emergency Motion] (Docket No. 2085) by Ryan C. Bundy. (Dows, Angela) (Entered: 07/04/2017)
Strip searches are a pain...
cRyan's Emergency Motion.pdf
Nevertheless, Bundy remains at odds with the oppressive strip/cavity search policy but desires to participate in the hearing to be helpful; therefore, Bundy requests that the Court consider accommodations and relieve him from the strip/cavity searches so he may appear before the Court, physically.


07/05/2017-- 2125-- MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro, as to Ryan C. Bundy on 7/5/2017. By Deputy Clerk: Aaron Blazevich.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Ryan Bundy's ("Defendant's") 2122 Emergency Motion to Continue and Motion to Appear Telephonically. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's 2122 Motion is DENIED in part, GRANTED in part. The Motion to Continue is DENIED. The hearing shall remain as scheduled for tomorrow, July 6, 2017, at 1:30pm. The Motion to Appear Telephonically is GRANTED. The Court will arrange the details of the call with the prison in order to easily facilitate the phone call and ensure the Defendant's availability. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB) (Entered: 07/05/2017)

07/06/2017-- 2128-- MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro, as to Ryan C. Bundy on 7/6/2017. By Deputy Clerk: Aaron Blazevich.
Court finds there is a danger of escape. IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall be restrained by leg restraints during court proceedings (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB) (Entered: 07/06/2017)

07/07/2017-- 2134-- REPLY to Response to 2066 Motion, filed by Ryan W. Payne. (Norwood, Ryan) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
Ryan Payne does not like jail, and would prefer to be released.
Ryan Payne Wants Out of Jail --2134.pdf
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



Hercule Parrot
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:58 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#15

Post by Hercule Parrot » Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:22 am

NMgirl wrote:Friday Night Document Dump

07/07/2017-- 2134-- REPLY to Response to 2066 Motion, filed by Ryan W. Payne. (Norwood, Ryan) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
Ryan Payne does not like jail, and would prefer to be released.
Ryan Payne Wants Out of Jail --2134.pdf
A well-argued motion, to my limited perception at least. If we resist presumption of guilt, the long period in custody would be a concern. I would not want to lose two years of my life in that degrading and soul-destroying environment.

I think cRyan is guilty and deserves it all, but that cannot be a basis to approve of the situation generally.



User avatar
Mary Quite Contrary
Posts: 494
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#16

Post by Mary Quite Contrary » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:59 pm

Is Payne one of the Poots that plead in Oregon but tried to get out of that?

So many Ryans to keep straight


"My greatest hope is for inclusion and love for all humanity in 2017 and beyond." -Pharrell Williams

NMgirl
Posts: 2055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#17

Post by NMgirl » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:08 pm

Mary Quite Contrary wrote:Is Payne one of the Poots that plead in Oregon but tried to get out of that?

So many Ryans to keep straight
Yes. Ryan Payne tried to get out of his Oregon plea deal after the acquittals in the first Oregon trial. Even Judge Brown drew the line on that one. No backsies for you, Payne. He was in the process of negotiating a deal for Nevada as well, but since that was never finalized, off to court he'll go.



User avatar
Mary Quite Contrary
Posts: 494
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#18

Post by Mary Quite Contrary » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:29 pm

Score one for Mary!!

Thanks for separating all the trials NM. Well and just everything!


"My greatest hope is for inclusion and love for all humanity in 2017 and beyond." -Pharrell Williams

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 4017
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#19

Post by Maybenaut » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:33 pm

Hercule Parrot wrote:
NMgirl wrote:Friday Night Document Dump

07/07/2017-- 2134-- REPLY to Response to 2066 Motion, filed by Ryan W. Payne. (Norwood, Ryan) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
Ryan Payne does not like jail, and would prefer to be released.
Ryan Payne Wants Out of Jail --2134.pdf
A well-argued motion, to my limited perception at least. If we resist presumption of guilt, the long period in custody would be a concern. I would not want to lose two years of my life in that degrading and soul-destroying environment.

I think cRyan is guilty and deserves it all, but that cannot be a basis to approve of the situation generally.
Yeah, I think the federal defenders did a good job. I've said this before -- if I were representing an incarcerated client whose trial was delayed because the government failed to meet its burden and get a conviction in a different (albeit related) case, I'd be screaming from the rooftops. I wouldn't think my client's speedy trial right should have to give way to (a) the government's trial strategy, and (b) the government's failures. It is the government's fault that the first trial resulted in a hung jury. As a defense attorney and a believer in due process, I don't like this one bit.



NMgirl
Posts: 2055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#20

Post by NMgirl » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:45 pm

Maybenaut wrote:
Hercule Parrot wrote:
NMgirl wrote:Friday Night Document Dump



A well-argued motion, to my limited perception at least. If we resist presumption of guilt, the long period in custody would be a concern. I would not want to lose two years of my life in that degrading and soul-destroying environment.

I think cRyan is guilty and deserves it all, but that cannot be a basis to approve of the situation generally.
Yeah, I think the federal defenders did a good job. I've said this before -- if I were representing an incarcerated client whose trial was delayed because the government failed to meet its burden and get a conviction in a different (albeit related) case, I'd be screaming from the rooftops. I wouldn't think my client's speedy trial right should have to give way to (a) the government's trial strategy, and (b) the government's failures. It is the government's fault that the first trial resulted in a hung jury. As a defense attorney and a believer in due process, I don't like this one bit.
Payne lucked out getting the Federal Public Defenders. I checked them out and they are all well-qualified. Weksler files excellent stuff on Payne's behalf. I agree with you about the "speedy trial" issue. It isn't just Payne whose life has been on hold (and we hope it will be on hold for many years in the prison system following the trial). The Tier 2 defendants won't be tried until at least December and perhaps not until 2018. By that time, they will have been in detention for almost two years.



NMgirl
Posts: 2055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#21

Post by NMgirl » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:12 pm

Friday Night Document Dump

07/07/2017-- 2134-- REPLY to Response to 2066 Motion, filed by Ryan W. Payne. (Norwood, Ryan) (Entered: 07/07/2017)

07/10/2017-- 2143-- REPLY to Response to 2069 Motion to Reopen Detention Hearing filed by Ryan C. Bundy. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Under Seal Notice, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Dows, Angela) (Entered: 07/10/2017)

07/12/2017-- 2159-- MOTION for Appointment of a Special Master to Oversee Discovery by Ryan W. Payne. Responses due by 7/26/2017. (Weksler, Brenda) (Entered: 07/12/2017)

07/14/2017-- 2162-- ERRATA to 2143 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Ryan C. Bundy. (Dows, Angela) (Entered: 07/14/2017)

07/17/2017-- 2166-- ORDER, as to Cliven D. Bundy (1), that 1971 Motion for Discovery is GRANTED to the limited extent that the government must inform the defendants, in writing, whether Burleson was offered, received or will receive any benefit or concession from the government for providing statement related to this case, and DENIED in all other respects. FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions for Joinder ( 1977 as to Melvin D. Bundy (6); 1987 as to Eric J. Parker (11), O. Scott Drexler (12), Steven A. Stewart (14); 1993 as to David H. Bundy (7); 1994 as to Ryan W. Payne (4); and 1995 as to Ammon E. Bundy (3)) are GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 7/14/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/17/2017-- 2167-- ORDER, as to Ryan C. Bundy (2), that 1861 Motion to Compel discovery is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 1907 Motion to Strike is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 7/14/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/19/2017-- 2182-- ORDER, as to Ryan C. Bundy, that 2069 Motion to Reopen Detention Hearing or Alternatively Grant Pretrial Release Based on Due Process Violations is denied, except as to Defendant Ryan Bundy's argument that further pretrial detention violates his right to due process of law. The latter issue will be considered and decided by the presiding magistrate judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 6/19/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM) (Entered: 07/19/2017)



User avatar
bob
Posts: 22201
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#22

Post by bob » Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:30 pm

Klayman's touting a petition:
ACT NOW: Petition Attorney General Jeff Sessions and President Donald Trump to Review the Cliven Bundy Case!
:roll:

P.S.: Send money.

I presume Klayman is just fishing for e-mails.

* * *

On his weekly show, Klayman (again) said that Cliven is "at the U.S. Supreme Court," which is -- surprise, surprise! -- not (presently) true.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 928
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#23

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:41 pm

bob wrote:Klayman's touting a petition:
ACT NOW: Petition Attorney General Jeff Sessions and President Donald Trump to Review the Cliven Bundy Case!
:roll:

P.S.: Send money.

I presume Klayman is just fishing for e-mails.
He has a massive :sarcasm: response, from 25 people, including Neil Wampler.



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 4270
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#24

Post by Kendra » Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:46 pm

I see Neil Wampler's name there, and isn't Margaret Dowd the infamous Aunt Margaret from standoff day?



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8720
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#25

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:49 pm

:point: :rotflmao:


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Post Reply

Return to “Bundy Ranch/Malheur NWR”