Did Prosecutors Hide Daniel P. Love Investigation From Defense In Cliven Bundy Case?

 

 

 

culture-of-corruption      GUERILLA MEDIA NETWORK REPORTS –  PROVEN – STRONG – ADVOCACY – JOURNALISM

Today Defendants in the case of US vs Cliven Bundy are expressing concern over just how much Nevada Prosecutors and State Attorney Daniel Bogden knew about the Inspector General’s Office investigation of misconduct against their star witness, Special Agent Daniel P. Love, who also orchestrated a military-style assault on the Bundy family and protestors at the Bundy Ranch in 2014.
Just last week the Nevada Prosecutor’s office filed a motion with the court begging Judge Gloria Navarro to suppress any testimony that may cause the jury to be sympathetic to the defendants in the case.  They wanted that suppression to include evidence which might point to BLM agents  present at Bundy ranch who are expected  to testify during the trial.  Judge Gloria Navarro has since ruled against the Prosecution’s motion to suppress testimony, but also refused a motion filed by the defense to dismiss the case based on  the findings in the IG report which obviously calls into question the integrity of SAC Daniel P. Love.  It is now up to Prosecutors as to whether or not they move forward with the case, and that is exactly why the defense is interested in knowing if  Steven Myhre and Daniel Bogden purposefully withheld the findings of the report from their clients.
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]
web1_HUMANTRAFFICKING_052516js_-04In 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.
CLICK HERE TO SUPPORT PETE SANTILLI
Most defendants agree that while Cliven Bundy’s land rights and jurisdiction of the BLM is an important factor in this trial,  the heart of  The Bundy Ranch Protest happened over serious civil rights violations by a over militarized arm of the government under the command of BLM agent Daniel P. Love.
Defendant Todd Engel, who is defending himself in the trial said today in his opening statement to the Jury, his coming to Bunkerville had everything to do with how BLM Officers were treating the Bundy family.  Court Observers say he brought several Jurors to tears as they sat transfixed on his testimony.
Pete Santilli, who focused his attention on the story of government over-reach while he was at the protest, says that his arrest and subsequent indictment is nothing more than selective prosecution of a journalist for shining a light on the misconduct of Dan Love and his operation.  Santilli says they didn’t want anyone to know the truth about Dan Love, “He is a bully with a badge whose ego almost got a bunch of people killed,” he said
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 …
So how far would the government go to protect Mr. Love whom they depended on to get a guilty verdict?  It is hard to say, but to pretend it couldn’t happen and not investigate the possibility would be a serious travesty of justice, according to the families of those facing life in prison because of Dan Loves statements to the Grand Jury.
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.