Undercover Agent Purposefully Raised Threat Of Impending Attack During Bundy Ranch Cattle Impoundment



During the first trial in Las Vegas, Nevada against Bundy Ranch protestors caught up in a surprising show of force by Federal Law Enforcement, the FBI admitted on the stand that 1,000 FBI and other Federal officers were assigned to surveil the Bundy family and their closest followers on social media.  One of those agents was Robyn Kirkham, a Bureau of Land Management Agent who under the direction of former BLM (SAC) Daniel P. Love, began her surveillance sometime in January of 2014.  Dan Love was recently fired from his position of Special Law Enforcement with the Bureau Of Land Management for misconduct and various other criminal acts, including directing evidence custodians to procure him choice ancient artifacts collected during raids on collectors so he could give them to friends, which included agents in the FBI.

BLM Agent Robyn Kirkham, known as “Alex Branson on FaceBook”, contacted Bailey Bundy Logue in March of 2014 on Facebook. Bailey, who is the daughter of Cliven Bundy, says that in those messages Agent Kirkham tells her she is involved in a group of “like minded” people in Cedar City, Utah, and would like to help the Bundy family with protests they may be planning against the Bureau of Land Management’s upcoming cattle impoundment.  She then ask if there are any plans coming up to protest —

Bailey Bundy with her father Cliven Bundy on her wedding day

The messages take on a more ominous feel after Kirkham tells Bailey Bundy that she is good friends with someone inside the Las Vegas Metro Police Department who is sympathetic to the Bundy cause.  She routinely alerts Cliven’s daughter that intel from inside Metro PD says, “lots of cops” are coming down there and the BLM is starting to get “VERY” busy.  At one point Kirkham tells her that the inside person is now advising her that the BLM had an MRAP delivered to the compound, and drops the definition of what MRAP means;

Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP/ˈɛmræp/ EM-rap) is a term for United States militaryvehicles produced as part of the MRAP program that are designed specifically to withstand improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and ambushes.


Bailey Bundy says that she had no reason to suspect Alex Branson was not legitimate because many locals were keeping an eye on the situation for them, giving them promises of support, and information. “Looking at those messages now makes me angry to think Alex Branson was setting us up from the beginning to believe we were in danger just so she could see how we would react and find out what we would do next” says Bailey . She goes on to say;

I wasn’t afraid because I didn’t know I should be afraid at the time if that makes any sense, I just thought she was trying to help; but it did make me sick to re-read these messages knowing now what she was trying to do.  To purposefully make us think we needed protection caused so many problems that never needed to happen.

The Bureau of Land Management’s impound operation was so terribly handled it has many people asking; When will a complete investigation on Daniel P. Love’s actions at Bundy Ranch be investigated?

In the meanwhile, be careful who you’re talking to on FaceBook  —- You just never know.

Messages Between Robyn Kirkham & Bailey Bundy in no particular order


  • Gary Hunt

    Where is the Miranda warning?

    • Warren Price

      You obviously do not know what the Miranda warnings are. The Miranda warnings are that the police have to advise of your right to remain silent and that you have a right to an attorney. The Miranda rights kick in when you are under arrest. You can be under arrest in 2 ways. First, the police can say you are under arrest. Second, the police can do things so you can not leave. The penalty for violating the Miranda rights is that anything you say can not be used in the state’s case in chief. However, if you chose to testify, what you said can be used in cross examination. A number of years ago, I heard on the radio that it is the policy of the Los Angeles police department not to give them. For example, if you are just standing on the street, and the police come up to you and start asking you questions, and you are not under arrest, your answers can be used against you. The media like movies and TV hyped the potential of Miranda rights way out of proportion. They made it appear that if the officer mispronounces one word, the case is dismissed. The only way it would be dismissed is if only the confession was necessary for a conviction.

      • Gary Hunt

        Is not an agent of he government, infiltrating, even though by proxy,
        required to advise someone that what they say may be s=used against
        them? If the person came to the other person, d=face to face, and had a
        badge, and then began questioning, would hey not be required to Mirandize
        the other person?
        I have been Mirandized when the FBI came to question me about something. There was no suggestion that I would be arrested, only that what I might say would possibly subject me to criminal charges.
        Now, in Miranda, as in all cases that go before the Supreme Court, any ruling on constitutionality will be “as narrow as possible (Ashwnder v.TVA). If what you say to the officer might incriminate you, the officer can testify as to the content of the conversation, and that is admissible.
        Unfortunately, that very thin line between confession and information was not within the narrow scope of Miranda,
        What is omitted is that spies used to be used against foreign nations and enemies.Not against the citizens. There were many exceptions, such as Stasi and KGB. And, many dictatorships and communist countries still practice spying on their own people. However, nothing in the Constitution grants that authority to the government.
        It is true that the fine line has not been addressed.However, it should be, or we will find that political dissent has become criminal, as John Adams attempted with the Sedition Acts of the early 19th Century.
        Is that the way we want to go?

        • Shari Dovale

          There was no miranda in the Longbow interviews, yet they are still evidence against the defendants.

          • Warren Price

            You only have to give the Miranda warnings when the people are under arrest. They were not under arrest.

          • Shari Dovale

            Thank you, Warren, that was my point. Though it should have been given, as they knew it was planned as evidence in a court of law, they did not because the current law apparently does not require it.

        • Warren Price

          The FBI can Mirandaize you. It may be better practice. However, it is not necessary. Are you saying everyone who trying to work undercover has to read the people they are investigating their Miranda rights? If you look at the prosecution of crime, it is mostly done at the state level. The feds only go after the baddest of the bad. With the way federal sentencing structures are most cases result in a plea deal. Looking at the Hammonds. They were convicted of the crime. They were given 5 years in prison for causing about $100 of damage. The state refused to prosecute them. Had the state prosecuted them they would have probably gotten a fine and probation. Greg Burleson got 68 years for being a dope with a gun.

          • Gary Hunt

            Yes, it is both ethical and American to advise, though the narrow scope of Miranda doesn’t go there.
            Perhaps a distinction that you are omitting from consideration the difference between real crimes and political dissent. Cliven Bundy’s protest was against encroachment, by political means, of a right that was, as implied inSR2477, and has always (until recently) considered a grandfathered right. He was not dealing drugs nor was he planning on robbing bank.
            Now, you will want to say that the courts ruled against him.Wll, the courts have become legislative bodies, where my Constitution gives that exclusive authority to the Congress. We have, as did the colonists, lost our rights to the mandates of the courts/. Heck, even the President can be overruled,at least for a time, by some peon district judge. The District Courts have attained an authority that used to be reserved for the Supreme Court.
            Yes, Greg did get more than a rapist or a murderer. His dissent was political, not one of harm to another person.
            Te Hammonds were given sentences, they served their time,then the government came back and got the court to impose the 5 years on them, so they went back to prison. Now, think about being sentenced twice for the same crime. Is that not double jeopardy?
            It is not the “sentencing structure” that results in plea deals. It is an overwhelming, well funded, vindictive, bureaucratic, and abusive agency (DOJ) that has gone beyond simply proving guilt to punishing as much as they possibly can, those they choose to.
            Justice is no longer a part of the equation.
            However, unlike you, there are many that are willing to take the risk to force the government back to a servant of the people, rather than the master of.
            You call them criminals.I call them patriots, in the model of the Founders. Despotic government was the cause then, and, it is the cause now.
            If you’re not quite sure of what I am saying, I suggest you read the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. You will find that there is a “duty” imposed therein.

          • Warren Price

            In your first paragraph, you now admit that in fact my original comment was correct.

            From 1954 to 1993, either Cliven Bundy’s father or Cliven Bundy paid grazing fees on that land. The grazing contracts renewed every 10 years. When it was time to renew the contract, the contract had terms in it that would likely put Cliven Bundy out of business. He refused to sign the contract, and continued to graze the cattle on the federal land. There were a number of court decisions about his cattle. The last one resulted in an order that required Cliven Bundy to remove his cattle. In the event he did not remove the cattle, the federal government was given the authority to remove the cattle. They were doing that, and Cliven Bundy and others interfered with that. That is what the subject of their criminal case is about. Somehow they claim that the land in question belongs to Clark County Nevada. The key issue of the depute is who owns the land. The federal government, the state of Nevada, and Clark County, Nevada all claim it belongs to the federal government. Cliven Bundy, and a very small portion of the populace believe it does not belong to the federal government.

            At best the Bundys have proven that the land does not belong to the federal government. Does the land belong to the state of Nevada? Does it belong to all the states? Does it belong to the people of Clark County, Nevada? Does it belong to the people of Nevada individually? Does it belong to all the people of the US individually?

            If you want to convince me of correctness of their position. please cite to me a section of the constitution that says that all federally owned land within a territory becomes state owned land when the territory becomes a state.

            Just as with the Miranda warnings, you do not seem to understand the double jeopardy. Double jeopardy means that you can not be put on trial more than once for the same case. The Hammons were not put on trial for the same case. They were sentenced, and the sentence they were given was incorrectly given. The appeals court corrected it. Given what the Hammons did, I actually tend to agree with the trial court that 5 years for what they did was excessive.

            If you really believe the correctness of the Bundy position, why don’t you and all your like minded patriots do the following. You go and find some constitutional attorneys. There are 2 that come to mind right away. They are KrisAnne Hall and Stewart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers. You then go into federal court and seek a declaratory judgment that the land does not belong to the federal government. This can be done under rule 57 of the federal rules of civil procedure.

            I would guess that you are really just a keyboard warrior and will not mobilize your fellow patriots to seek the declaratory judgment.

            I have had this conversation with many people who share your views. You will not answer the question about who according to the constitution owns the land.

          • Gary Hunt

            I have never said that the federal government cannot own land. In fact, I have taken the opposite position. However, when it comes to jurisdiction, another question arises. I
            have written on that subject (http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1652,
            I had discussions on that with Ammon before he went to Burns, but he did not want to hear it. In fact, I provided Ryan Payne the documentation that disputes the claim about a May 1866 Act of Congress, negating the argument Bundy has tried to set forth.

            In fact, I will give you a constitutional cite that says that the government can own land other than Art. I, § 8, clause 27. This is from Art IV, § 3, clause 2: : ” The Congress
            shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States…” Now, I know what property is, and it does not limit hat ownership to other than “real” property. Besides, the government owned land (first given by treaty in 1783) long before the Constitution. That is why they adopted the Northwest Ordinance and later readopted it under the Constitution. The only problem is, the implication that they were to “dispose” of that land has been ignored by the government, denying the states their 5% of the money received at disposal.

            As far as the government’s ability to change a contract, they are well known for taking an inch and then taking a mile. However, the contract required the government to put a percentage back into range improvements, but the failed (breached) the contract.

            With the Miranda warning, well, as the government expands its authority, new legal questions arise. Miranda was a narrow decision. The issue of spying on Americans over
            political dissent has not gone before the Court. Because it is a recent practice of the
            government, it has yet to be tested. That doesn’t mean that I have to accept it because the government says so. If so, the political dissent that leads to constraining the government would be removed and the despotism of the government would be absolute, the Constitution notwithstanding.

            The Hammonds were returned to court, on the same charge that they were tried, plead to with an agreement, and served their sentences. Then, the agreements was set aside, they returned to court on the same charges, and were sentenced contrary to the
            contract that all three sides had agreed to, previously. Like spying, that form of jeopardy has yet to be tested, as it is a rather new concept in the despotism of government.

            Now, you will suggest that they should take it to a higher court. By the time they got to
            the Supreme Court, they would easily cost at least $150,000. That after having been incarcerated for 5 year, leaving the care of the ranch to the women of the family, probably at great financial loss, and having had certain of the existing permits denied out of spite.

            Many years ago, I recognized what I refer to as badgering. That is where the government, with their resources, can make justice very expensive. The financial badger the citizen with mountains of legal paperwork, requiring great expenditures, requiring that
            justice may come at the cost of insolvency.

            By the same token, many criminal trials result in Plea Agreements. With cost, lack of competent legal (court appointed) counsel, and threats of more severe penalties for going to trial, the victim of government often takes the best he can get, even if he
            had no criminal intent in what he did.

            So, I would suggest that you stop your “guessing”, and if you want to know what I have to say, maybe read some of it. From 1993 to 2009, http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com . From 2009 to present, http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog

            Finally, let me ask you, if the government does it, do you assume that the must have the authority to do it? “It”, of course, meaning anything that they want – like using casual statements on Facebook to refute sworn testimony in court.

          • farmrdave

            Warren you seem to have hit all the talking points made by the keyboard warriors who have verbally attacked and discredited anything that was done by Cliven Bundy his family or supporters. Even though the points raised may have some merit. None of it justifies the forcible destruction of private property, killing of cattle when there is a valid doubt as to who owns this land. The use of military force (called by any name) against civilians. No mention was made by you of the likelihood these people would be remembered as we remember those who were killed at Ruby Ridge Idaho in 1992 and Waco Texas in 1993 if fellow American had not intervened. No mention of any remotely legal reason to jail these ranchers for more than a year and a half without trial. No mention made of all the persons tried in court with all charges dropped because no illegal activity was discovered. No mention made of the congressional investigation of the actions of the court and BLM in this matter. No mentioned made of the Hammonds who are serving a second term in prison for the same alleged crime as terrorists because they tried to fight a wild fire by setting a back fire. You then seem to lack the intelligence to read the constitution yourself and learn why it is not legal for our federal government to own grazing land in Nevada. If you cannot bring forth information that may get these America loving fathers, grandfathers and sons out of jail and back to raising their families many of us would not miss you if you stopped commenting.

          • Warren Price

            I will agree that holding the Bundys without bail for over year and three fourths has stretched the meaning of speedy trial beyond recognition. It is you who should read the actual constitution.

            The land was acquired by the federal government in 1848. It was acquired by a treaty with Mexico. Treaties are allowed for by Article II sec. 2 of the constitution. Article VI makes treaties the supreme law of the land.

            Article III sec. 2 makes the supreme court the court in which issues of the constitution are decided. Read Kleppe v. Mew Mexico. Also as far back as 1846, the supreme court had no trouble with the federal government owning land within states. That case is Pollard’s lessee v. Hagan.

            With regards to the Hammons, the elements of the offense are that the person set a fire maliciously, and the fire caused damage to federal property. terrorism had nothing to do with the offense. I actually agree with the district judge that sentencing them to 5 years for what they did violates the 8th amendment. 5 years for doing about a hundred dollars of damage is pretty steep.

            Why don’t you answer the question that seems to silence all the Bundy keyboard warriors. Where in the constitution does it say that federally owned land within a territory becomes state owned land when the territory becomes a state? At best, the Bundys have shown that the land does not belong to the federal government. The question then becomes, who owns the land? Do all the states own the land? Does the state that the land is in own all the land? Do the people who live in the state own the land individually? Do all the people of the US own the land individually?

            The BLM was opersting under a court order. Cliven Bundy had his day in court. The court ruled that he had 45 days to remove his cattle from federal land. If he did not remove the cattle, the federal government was given the authority to remove the cattle. Cliven Bundy and others chose to interfere with that removal. That is why they are being tried.

            If you want to have false beliefs about the law and the constitution, taht is your right. If you choose to act on them, you will likely be incarcerated like the Bundys. Bernie Madoff is a grandfather. Do you believe that should excuse him from what he did?

        • Warren Price

          You are just creating straw men. What is your point other than you have trouble grappling with what the law is?

          • Gary Hunt

            I trust you understand the difference between lawful and legal. If you don’t, not much we can talk about.

          • Warren Price

            As with all Bundy supporters, you can not answer a very simple question about the constitution. Where does it say in the Us constitution that federal land within a territory becomes state owned land when the territory becomes a state. They then go off in a huff claiming to have superior knowledge.

            I imagine you and you fellow keyboard warriors are not going to go into court and assert your unfounded claims about what land the federal government can and can not own.

          • Gary Hunt

            And, you have failed to read my replies. I have never said that the government could not own land. I have argued that they have every right, and that predates the Constitution.
            Since you, apparently, want to attack, without knowing what my position is, the, well, I think I’ll make better use of my time and take a shit.
            If you want to “refresh” your memory as to what I said, early on,

  • Warren Price

    You would have had to be real stupid to believe that. Similarly with the drone strikes that Richard Mack got from his “sources.” The BLM was there to remove the cattle pursuant to a court order. If they really wanted to disperse the crowd, all they would have had to do is get a few armored personnel vehicles and a few helicopters and they would disperse.

    • farmrdave

      When that happens we will be a direct dictatorship.

  • farmrdave

    Telling that our government is about to move in or attack with military grade weapons. Is that in fact terrorism?

    • Gary Hunt

      Terrorism, yes.
      In fact, it is the “standing army” that was addressed in the Declaration of Independence.

  • Pingback: Pie N Politics » Bundy 2014: BLM Escalated Threat Level During Cattle Impoundment()