Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

BLM Whistleblower Believes BLM Was In Violation Of Law Regarding Its Law Enforcement Authority at Bundy Ranch

Written by:

Published on: December 19, 2017

Washington State Representative Matt Shea spoke about the sealed hearings going on in Nevada concerning the Bundy Ranch trials last week, including a kill list, and he’s back with an update in which a Bureau of Land Management agent is attempting to provide propaganda in an attempt to discredit former FLM agent Larry Wooten, who blew the whistle on the corruption, unprofessionalism and quite possibly, criminal activities of agents within the BLM.  However, in revealing that information, it was also revealed that Agent Wooten believed the BLM “was in violation of the law regarding its law enforcement authority.”

In the latest documents, BLM Agent Kent Klemen, who is a government witness in this case, makes an attempt to discredit Mr. Wooten’s claims.  Keep that in mind, as Klemen’s first words are that the BLM was requested to remove Mr. Wooten from the Bundy Ranch investigation at the request of… prosecutor Steven Myhre.

And why did Myhre want Wooten removed?  According to Klemen, “Wooten had made recent statements that Wooten believes the BLM lacks law enforcement authority.”

Looks like someone was waking up in the Matrix.

The request by Myhre came on February 17 of this year, and it was implemented on the 18th, just one day later, according to Klemen.

Take a look as Rep. Shea explains what is extremely important information in the Bundy Ranch case.

Shari Dovale, who conducted the earlier interview with Rep. Shea, writes that Klemen, “was asked by Acting US Attorney Steven Myhre to investigate the shredding of the documents found at the Incident Command Post (ICP) after the BLM and FBI left the area. Not only did Myhre want Klemen to lead the investigation but Myhre also defined the parameters of this same investigation.”

She went on to point out:

It is interesting that this trained investigator never ask anyone involved “Why” they were shredding documents or “Who” directed them to shred the documents.

Now, we have AUSA Myhre asking his favorite investigator to handle this whistle-blower report, as well. The Klemen report begins:

On February 17,2017, BLM Special Agent (SA) Larry “Clint” Wooten was removed from the Bundy investigative team at the request of lead prosecutor First Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Myhre. Myhre stated that Wooten had made recent statements that Wooten believes that the BLM lacks law enforcement authority. Additionally, Wooten recently stated to Bundy case prosecutors that in Wooten’s opinion the government withheld exculpatory evidence involving Special Agent-in-Charge (SAC) Dan Love.

He then explains how he got onto this investigation:

Myhre requested that I collect and review Wooten’s case materials to identify any previously undisclosed information. Myhre specifically requested that I review Wooten’s “rumor log” that Wooten implied to the prosecutors contained this withheld exculpatory information. Myhre also requested that I review any material related to Wooten’s claim that Dan Love ordered BLM officers to “rough up” Bundy family members or to “kick Cliven Bundy in the teeth” that Wooten said BLM SA Rand Stover knew about.

You can see, by their own wording, that they thought the Wooten disclosures were detrimental to their case. Calling it a “rumor log” shows they want the report discredited.

And discrediting is what Myhre has been all about in the trials regarding the Bundy Ranch. Anyone can see that in the limitations he sought to impose upon the defense.

Wooten turned over all his documents in the investigation on February 21, 2017 and understood that he was not to divulge information regarding the investigation to anyone.

However, the things mentioned by Dovale that more than likely most concerned Klemen and Myhre were the following notes from Wooten’s calendar, which contained a page written in preparation for a conference call with prosecutors on October 14, 2016.

The heading of those notes was “Potential Issues/Critical Vulnerabilities.”

Those notes were bulletpointed in Klemen’s letter.

1. BLM was heavy handed even cruel in the enforcement of the court order.
2. BLM lacked law enforcement authority in their case.
3. BLM is a poor manager of the resources such as grazing.
4. DL (Dan Love) had a personal agenda and is immoral (jury appeal)

Klemen then went on to write:

“I found similar material that Wooten hand-wrote in preparation for a February 3, 2017, conversation Wooten had with me and SAC Good about how Wooten believes that the BLM is in violation of the law regarding its law enforcement authority.”

“There is a specific section in those notes with the heading ‘BLM didn’t turn over required exculpatory material/destroyed evidence.’    The supporting notes below that heading state that the government didn’t turn in exculpatory information, but the topics listed under that heading (shredding documents at dispatch, texts, and emails that make officers look unprofessional, gaps in the dispatch audio recordings, etc.) were all made known to the prosecution and the defense.  This ‘exculpatory evidence’ section in his notes didn’t contain any previously undisclosed information.”

Klemen went on to state that Wooten did say that all of the investigative findings and materials were turned in during the discovery process, but we know that Myhre wanted some things suppressed in his petition to Judge Gloria Navarro, specifically he targeted the constitutionality of the BLM and didn’t want to hear anything about that, even though that is a major part of the root of the issue here, not Cliven Bundy and his cattle.

Klemen declares there was no exculpatory evidence, even though other agents admit that things that Wooten had written down sounded like things that Dan Love would say, such as “We’re going to kick Cliven Bundy in the teeth.”

One agent said that is how he described Love’s “pep talk” with the agents about the impound and that they were not going to do it quietly and such, but right in Cliven Bundy’s face “to let him know they were serious about it.”

So, the very attitude was one of authoritarianism, and not simply following a court order to impound the cattle.

Dan Love is clearly a power-hungry tripping fanatic.

The interesting thing in all of this is that Myhre had all this information in October 2016, but waited 5 months to request Wooten be removed from the investigation.

Now, why is that?  That’s what inquiring minds want to know.

Sign-up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media

Don't forget to like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google+, & Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of SonsOfLibertyMedia.com.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

One Response to BLM Whistleblower Believes BLM Was In Violation Of Law Regarding Its Law Enforcement Authority at Bundy Ranch

  1. Praise God!

    However, not to be overlooked: The ironic tragedy in this is that this entire affair is thanks to the Constitution (Amendment 5 in particular) to which the Bundy’s and company are appealing:

    “…’Moreover the prince shall not take of the people’s inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession … that my people be not scattered every man from his possession.’ (Ezekiel 46:18)

    “Governments tend to be more ingenious than the average citizen in the diverse ways they steal….

    “The Fifth Amendment’s provision for property confiscation is applied in eminent domain, which is nothing more than a form of organized theft:

    ‘Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance….’ (Deuteronomy 19:14)

    “Eminent domain – the Constitutional Republic’s alleged right to seize property for the “betterment” of the people – is one way the government moves boundary markers and steals from its citizens….

    “The creation of public lands is another method employed by the Constitutional Republic to move boundary markers. Identifying these lands as “public” is part of the ruse to conceal the theft. Except that the public is permitted limited access, they are not public at all. These lands, which are often stolen by legislation (such as the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the Clean Water Act of 1977) from private property owners, are owned by the government, not the public….

    “Public lands are just the tip of the iceberg. All of America is owned by federal and state governments via their claim to property taxes and eminent domain….

    “That government can and does exercise eminent domain anytime and anywhere it chooses proves it has stolen title to all the land in America. The only difference between King Ahab’s theft of Naboth’s vineyard in 1 Kings 21:1-16 and the Constitutional Republic’s theft under the guise of taxation and eminent domain is that today’s government is more sophisticated and all-inclusive in its methods….”

    For more, see Chapter 14 “Amendment 5: Constitutional vs. Biblical Judicial Protection” of free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 14.

    Then find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Send this to a friend