Cliven and Carol Bundy
Po box 7175
Bunkerville NV 89007

Dave and Marylynn Bundy
Po box 814
Delta UT 84624

Ryan and Angie Bundy
Po box 7557
Bunkerville NV 89007

Ammon and Lisa Bundy

Mel and Briana Bundy

VISIT OUR BUNDYRANCHshop and purchase yourself some Bundy Ranch Items. ALL processed will be used for the mens Legal Fees.

Sunday, August 20, 2017

Judge Navarro vs. the Jury – Bunkerville Retrial

Judge Navarro vs. the Jury

by Shari Dovale

Judge Gloria Navarro has had a difficult time getting the defendants and spectators to understand that Jury Nullification is, well… a bad thing. She has made her rulings. She has given her orders. She has specifically forbidden nullification from being used in the case of US v. Bundy et. al. She has not, however, said that jury nullification is illegal.

In fact, Nullification is legal. As much as Gloria Navarro would like the jurors to believe otherwise, and that they can be punished for not returning a verdict she approves of, the standard has been in place for nearly 350 years.

1670 English ruling in a case against William Penn and William Mead, the jury refused to convict Penn and Mead. This infuriated the panel of judges, who locked up the jury without food or water until they arrived at a “correct” verdict. The jury refused to change their verdict, resulting in Penn and Mead’s acquittal. 

The justices were not satisfied. They fined the jurors and sent them to prison until the fine was paid. Edward Bushell was one of the jurors who refused to pay the fine, and remained in prison as a result. He appealed his case, where a higher court overruled his punishment. 

The judge’s ruling established the enduring principle that jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts.

Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty” despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation for which they have been charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is wrongly applied to the defendant. 

There have been several noteworthy cases over the years of jury nullification. The most famous case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels (the only issue the court said the jury was free to decide, as the court deemed the truth or falsity of the statements to be irrelevant), the jury nonetheless returned a verdict of “Not Guilty.” 

In 1920, The Constitution was amended to prohibit the sale of alcohol because a majority who did not drink wished to impose their morals on the minority of citizens who did. Juries however nullified alcohol control lawsabout 60 percent of the time.

The fact that most juries would not convict on alcohol control laws made the use of alcohol widespread throughout Prohibition. Ultimately jury nullification led to the adoption of the 21st amendment repealing Prohibition. If juries had obeyed the judge’s instructions that “the law is the law,” alcohol might still be illegal today.

In 1971, 28 anti-Vietnam war activists were arrested for breaking into and stealing records from a draft office in Camden, NJ. These activists later became known as the “Camden 28”. Though all 28 defendants were initially offered a deal which would ultimately allow them to walk away with minimal penalties or jail time, each of the 28 refused the deal.

Every defendant openly acknowledged their actions before the jury. From the beginning, nullification was seen as the primary defense.

On 20 May 1973 the jury declared each and every one of the defendants Not Guilty on every count against them. This jury exercised its right of nullification to vacate more than 100 charges en masse in this single trial.

Navarro declared a mistrial in the first go around this past spring when the jury could not reach a unanimous decision on most of the charges. The jury later came out to say they did not believe the government had proven their case. However, Judge Navarro and AUSA Myhre have seemed to nearly panic at the thought the jurors may have actually been practicing nullification.

In light of the jury having been deadlocked, Judge Navarro changed the rules of the game in the government’s second bite at the apple. She has made it much easier for the prosecution, in that she has ruled nearly 100% in their favor on all major motions presented. She sustains their objections and allows them to present any evidence they feel is necessary.

In contrast, this same evidence cannot, necessarily, be refuted by the defense, as ruled again by Judge Navarro. The defense is limited to a short 40 minute window within their case, though they have been charged with acts as far out as two years later. The defense cannot bring in evidence and witnesses to prove their defense, as Judge Navarro has ruled against this, as well. 

In fact, the judge has only allowed the defense to present what is called the “mere presence” defense, in which the defendant basically claims they just happened upon the scene of the crime. This, of course, is no defense in the case of the Bunkerville standoff.

Prosecution Links Bunkerville Defendants to Timothy McVeighThe defense has attempted to impeach the government’s witnesses, and again, Judge Navarro does not allow this. She practically stamped her foot and threw a tantrum at the thought of defendant Eric Parker telling his version of events on the witness stand, and ultimately had him removed with his testimony stricken from the record.

Navarro has interpreted the law in such a way that the government cannot be wrong in any of their actions and the average citizen is never allowed to defend themselves against any government agent. Additionally, the average citizen cannot avail themselves of the Constitutional rights, such as the Second Amendment, without risk of prosecution by the Federal government, as clearly stated by Judge Gloria Navarro.

We must assume that Judge Navarro is of average, if not above average, intelligence. She must see that her rulings have been perceived as dictatorial. She has told the jury they cannot use the US Constitution and cannot even use their own understanding of the law.

She has allowed the jury to ask questions of all the prosecution witnesses, yet she has disallowed most of the questions to the only defense witness she allowed to take the stand, Scott Drexler. 

She continues to poke this bear by telling the jury not to ask some of the questions they have, such as asking about the Bill of Rights, or asking about BLM behavior. They have even been told they do not need to know why the FBI was even involved in this case.

The jury is not allowed to judge the law itself, according to Navarro, only the defendants violation of the law, as she explains it to them. She has gone out of her way to instruct the jury, or make them believe, they have no choice but find these defendants guilty.

But, I would bet that the jury has been paying attention. They have seen the defense get shut down. They have seen the prosecution given favored treatment. They have witnessed the wrath of Judge Navarro. There have been a few jury questions that indicate the jury is not happy.

If it is true that the jury has noticed what a sham this trial has turned into, then Yes, Judge Navarro is correct to be concerned about the verdict.

patriots defending the Constitution
Bunkerville, Nevada 2014

Thursday, August 17, 2017


If the jury could see these picture the truth would be known. They would know who was really being abused.

These are just a few of the picture that tell the truth!
These are some of the pictures the government doesn't want the jury to see!


This is Eric Parker, this letter is from a year ago and this is why he went. These are words that the jury will never hear! 

*edited to add more recent statements from Steven Stewart, Rick Lovelien and Scott Drexler, the other 3 defendants* Please read for yourself their reasons for going to Bunkerville and you will understand why Navarro will not allow this in her court. 


Andrea Olson-Parker

Political Prisoner Eric Ej Parker discusses what happened on 10 Aug 2017 when his testimony was abruptly halted and subsequently ended (he will not be able to finish testifying on his own behalf).

The federal judge presiding over the Bundy Ranch retrial in Las Vegas refuses to allow any testimony or evidence alluding to the massive, military-style raid by federal agents at Bunkerville. Please share these images, repost them with your comments, and keep them in the public mind. Judge Navarro cannot dam up the truth about what really happened in April of 2014, and why so many patriots stepped up to peacefully defend a rancher's property rights.


by Thomas Mitchell The judge in the trial of four defendants in the 2014 Bunkerville standoff with BLM agents attempting to confiscate rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle has made it clear she will not allow a defense based on First or Second Amendment rights or claims that BLM misbehavior provoked the protest. On Thursday she cut short the testimony of defendant Eric Parker after he tried to mention in his defense testimony a “First Amendment area” the BLM had set up to isolate protesters — an area that Gov. [  301 more words ]

Judge Navarro Takes Witnesses In Bundy Trial By Jury, WITHOUT THE JURY

With the jury box empty, defense attorneys called four witnesses Wednesday in the retrial of four Bunkerville standoff defendants.

U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro allowed three men and one woman, each of whom attended the April 2014 protest, to give proffer statements, or a preview of what they might tell a jury. But the judge ruled that jurors should not hear their testimony because none of them offered evidence of self-defense the men on trial hoped to claim.

The right thing: District Court Judge Navarro denies defense ability to mention first, second amendment

Live, Right now, let's talk about the legality and importance of the Militias, with Ryan Bundy and Jared Green. The government's lead prosecutor stated in court last week, "Militias are illegal in many states."

Restrictions placed by a federal judge on what defendants can say about being at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in April 2014 are leading to tense moments in the Las Vegas retrial of four men accused of wielding assault-style weapons to stop federal agents from rounding up cattle belonging to the anti-government figure.

Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro refused Monday to order a mistrial sought by the defense attorney for Eric Parker, a defendant who Navarro ordered off the witness stand last week before telling the jury to disregard his testimony.

Such a dramatic step involving a defendant in the presence of a jury is unusual and might draw scrutiny from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, said Robert Draskovich, a Las Vegas lawyer who said he had never heard of such a move in more than two decades practicing in federal courts. Draskovich is not involved in the Bundy case.

Outside the presence of the jury on Monday, Navarro said she hadn’t wanted to order Parker to step down.

She told prosecutors, defense attorneys and a crowded court gallery that she thought Parker was trying to invite jury nullification of charges, and deliberately “continuing to make a mockery” of court rulings she handed down before the retrial that limited the scope of defense presentations to what the men saw and did, not what they felt or why they acted.

A jury in April found two co-defendants guilty of some charges, but it failed to reach verdicts for Parker, Scott Drexler, Steven Stewart and Richard Lovelien.

Bundy, his sons Ammon and Ryan, and two other defendants are due for trial later this year. Six others, including two other Bundy sons, are slated for trial next year.

Navarro ruled that defendants can’t argue this time that they were acting in self-defense or in the defense of other protesters.

They can’t say they were motivated to drive to southern Nevada from Idaho and Montana after hearing about scuffles involving unarmed Bundy family members and Bureau of Land Management agents using dogs and stun guns.

They can’t refer to Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval and other elected officials criticizing federal agents for creating what the Republican governor called an “atmosphere of intimidation” in the days before the standoff.

They can’t point to so-called “First Amendment zone” corrals set up for protesters well away from the Bundy ranch; they can’t cite claims of infringement on free-speech and Second Amendment rights; and they can’t refer to the decades in prison they might face if they’re convicted.

“Just because law enforcement is pointing a gun doesn’t mean you get to point one back,” Navarro said Monday.

Parker was famously photographed during the April 2014 standoff flat on his stomach on the pavement of an Interstate 15 overpass, looking down an AK-47-style rifle toward heavily armed federal agents in a dry river bed below.

Drexler is seen in a similar photo, and images show Steven Stewart carrying an assault-style rifle, but not aiming it.

Richard Lovelien also had a rifle, but his lawyer, Shawn Perez, said there is no photograph in evidence showing him pointing it at anyone.

Defense attorneys say their clients are being unfairly and unconstitutionally denied a chance to explain for jurors what they saw and heard and why they went to the Bundy ranch, where they are accused of conspiracy, weapon, assault on a federal agent and other charges.

“We need to be able to defend ourselves, to rebut, to impeach against accusations,” Parker’s attorney, Jess Marchese, protested during morning-long arguments held outside the presence of the jury now in a fourth week of testimony. “That’s why we’re here.”

Drexler was expected to take the stand in his defense, but Stewart and Lovelien said they won’t do so.

Scott Drexler Testifies in Bunkerville Retrial

by Shari Dovale

Last week showed mayhem in the Judge Gloria Navarro’s courtroom in Las Vegas. The defense attempted to call defendant Eric Parker to the witness stand to testify in his own defense.

The prosecution showed their paranoia when they began their objections nearly immediately. Judge Navarro had laid out guidelines for Parker’s testimony that focused on not allowing the Federal agents to be placed in a bad light. She has insisted that there is no self-defense allowed when the ‘victim’ is a federal agent or law enforcement officer. She claims there is no evidence that these agents used excessive force on April 12, 2014.

However, though she has allowed these agents to cry on the witness stand to emphasize their fear of the protesters, she has put her iron fist down about the defendants doing the same. Navarro allowed the prosecution to object to Parker using the words “snipers” and the “First Amendment Zone”.

Jesse Marchese, Parker’s attorney, asked him a question which went directly to refuting the testimony of Ranger Alexandra Burke. She had claimed that she saw Parker point his weapon directly at her, however, she had said that she was to his left, up near the generator near the command post.

Parker was asked which direction he was focusing on while he was on the bridge. He responded that he was looking forward at the people in the wash, and then up and to the right. He did not say that he was looking at the snipers that were up on the mesa, but objections rang through the courtroom at the possibility that he might.

This gave Navarro the excuse she needed to remove Parker from the witness stand and strike his entire testimony from the official record. This all took place last Thursday.


Monday morning brought several motions, including a request for sanctions from the prosecution. The defense also filed a motion for mistrial, which Navarro promptly denied.

The government claimed that the attorneys for Parker, Drexler and Stewart have violated the court’s orders to not include evidence for jury nullification repeatedly, including the closing arguments Mr. Leventhal presented in the previous trial.

The prosecution is stretching the limits with this motion for sanctions and have demanded they be allowed to preview, verbatim, each of the three closing arguments before they are presented.

Todd Leventhal, attorney for Scott Drexler, rose to the challenge and argued that before sanctions can take place, there must be a contempt charge, which will absolutely require these proceedings to be halted while the three attorneys hire attorneys for themselves.

This seemed to alarm Judge Navarro and she clearly stated that she would not impose sanctions on anyone at that time. However, during the morning’s arguments, Navarro had to tell the defense that she thought they were ‘showboating’ with their attempts to mislead the jury into nullification, and she was finding it very offensive.

Her ideas of misleading the jury focus on the defense wanting to actually defend themselves. She has denied them every available defense including self-defense, defense of others, and provocation by the government. She has said that the first and second amendments are not valid defenses.

The only defense she is allowing them is “mere presence” which means that someone who just happens to be at a crime scene isn’t guilty of the crime. This, of course, does not apply to the defendants, therefore, she is setting them up for a guaranteed conviction.

AUSA Myhre did ask for defendant Scott Drexler to proffer his testimony without the jury present, and this created a new round of arguments. Navarro eventually ruled that Drexler would not have to preview his testimony. Drexler chose to testify in front of the jury today.


Drexler took the witness stand after lunch.

He did very well during his testimony, which means that he did not give Navarro a reason to remove him and strike it from the record.

Drexler is from Challis, Idaho, town of about a thousand people. He did not know any of the protesters from Bunkerville before April 12, 2014, except for Eric Parker. They decided to go down to protest, though Drexler was not allowed to say how he learned of the protest or whyhe wanted to go.

He was asked about Sugar Pine Mine in Oregon during his testimony, but the prosecution immediately objected questioning the relevance of this information. Remember, the prosecution brought this evidence into the trial, now they are questioning it’s relevance.

When Drexler mentioned the helicopters at Bunkerville, the same relevance objections came from the them. Again, all evidence has been entered by the prosecution. This is the same prosecution team that thought it relevant to link the defendants to Timothy McVeigh.

Drexler was able to say that he was afraid that the government was going to kill him. This was said twice in front of the jury. Of course, it was objected to, but Drexler was not removed from the witness stand. This was more information than Parker was allowed to say before he was removed from the witness box.

This tells me that Navarro was not on her game, seemingly due to the large numbers of people in the gallery and on the courthouse steps, or she is really gunning for Parker.

The jury questions were interesting. There were about a dozen jurors that submitted questions, however, Navarro would not allow most of their questions to be asked, whether because she felt they were not relevant or because she felt it was information that had already been discussed.

This was never the standard for the government’s witnesses. The jury was allowed to ask any question they wanted. It ended up being about 4 questions that she allowed to be presented to Drexler.

Judge Navarro seems afraid to the point of paranoiaconcerning the possibility of Jury Nullification. She continuously states it in court, on the record, that the defense is going for that possibility. She does not want the jury to know about it, or to consider it.

A rally was held outside the courthouse on Monday that included a couple of hundred people that had traveled from various parts of the country. The ‘mere presence’ of these protesters seem to get under the skin of the Chief Judge.

At one point, Navarro accused the defense attorneys of taking part in a ‘charade’ of inciting the community to believe that the prosecution is conspiring against the defendants.

All this during a trial in which the defendants are on trial for conspiracy.

The defense has no other witnesses they are allowed to present. Closing arguments will begin Tuesday.

Eric's few point

Defense attorneys withold closing arguments in Bunkerville retrial

By David Ferrara Las Vegas Review-Journal August 15, 2017 –

Defense attorneys sat silently Tuesday, rather than give closing arguments for the four men facing a retrial in the Bundy Ranch standoff.

Hamstrung throughout the trial by a judge’s decision to limit the witnesses they could call, the questions they could ask and the testimony their clients could give, the lawyers made the final decision, a statement of sorts, after discussing the option with the defendants — Eric Parker, Scott Drexler, Steven Stewart and Ricky Lovelien — during a lunch break.

“It was a strategic decision,” said lawyer Jess Marchese, who represents Parker. “We thought we gained more by not giving a closing argument than the government giving a rebuttal.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Nadia Ahmed spent more than two hours in the late morning and early afternoon laying out the case against each of the four men, charged with driving from other states to Bunkerville in April 2014 to support rancher Cliven Bundy, who prosecutors allege conspired to thwart the federal government’s roundup of roughly 1,000 cows from public land.

Earlier this year, another jury declared that they were deadlocked on all counts against them.

On Tuesday, the prosecutor pointed to social media posts in which the men discussed the activities in the rural southeastern Nevada town, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas. She played video of Bundy speaking to a crowd outside his ranch, encouraging his followers to “do what you need to do” to retrieve his cattle from the Bureau of Land Management.

At one point, Ahmed flashed a Facebook post from Lovelien written in all capital letters: “All oathkeepers and militia in proximity need to move into defcon 1 mode.”

The prosecutor repeatedly showed photos of Stewart and Parker, prone on Interstate 15 with long guns pointed toward federal agents.

“We pushed forward and they had to back off,” Stewart wrote on Facebook.

Parker was captured on video being asked whether the standoff could have turned violent. “Absolutely,” he replied.

Ahmed said the defendants’ “words, their attire, their positions and their decisions” proved their guilt. “The intention of these co-defendants is clear. They intended to threaten officers. Officers feared for their safety.”

A day earlier, attorney Todd Leventhal called his client, Drexler, to testify and say that he did not intend to threaten anyone in Bunkerville. But Drexler admitted to pointing his gun at federal agents.

“We were going to get drowned out anyway,” Leventhal said of the decision not to offer a closing argument. “And there wasn’t much more we could add.”

U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro barred the defense from referencing constitutional rights to freely assemble and to bear arms. She also prohibited mention of alleged misconduct or excessive force by law enforcement.

Stewart’s lawyer, Rich Tanasi, agreed with Leventhal.

“It was the best decision available to us at the time,” he said.

The lack of a final statement from the defense left acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre without a rebuttal, a common feature of jury trials. Prosecutors have the right to argue last because they are charged with the burden of proof.

 Shawn Perez, who represents Lovelien, added defense closing statements could have backfired.

“We were going to get hammered on rebuttal,” he said. “We would have been slammed one way or another.”

As the six men and six women on the jury began to deliberate, about 30 supporters of the defendants gathered in a circle on the seventh floor, just down the hallway from the entrance to Navarro’s courtroom.

The group held hands, knelt and prayed for “divine protection” for the “political prisoners” who have been locked up through both trials.

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Bundy Family Letter to Supporters

Friends and Fellow Patriots, 
It’s time we have a conversation about not hurting the Bundys when we are trying to help. My family loves and appreciates everyone who has helped bring attention to our cause. You are proud Americans who stand by our Constitution, and for that we will always love you. The calls, letters, videos, and rallies have paid off in ways we probably don’t even know yet. I want my Dad and brothers home, and I have faith they will return to us soon. 
I am concerned that sometimes we patriots hurt our own cause by being too hard on people who want to understand but aren’t exactly like us. I am afraid that some supporters who really want to help us are too quick to turn on other supporters. We need to stand together. If we are going to fix what is wrong with our great country, we will need to bring together a whole lot of people who have a wide variety of opinions. We can’t afford to scare away good-hearted people who want to help.
I have a few suggestions for being more effective in spreading the message:
1. First, and most importantly, nobody but my family speaks for my family. Nobody. Please be honest when you are talking to people and say that you speak for yourself. 
2. Don’t attack anyone who wants to understand more. Explain, educate, and always be a good friend. Never push supporters away over differences of opinion. Having the right to form our own opinions and express them freely is part of what makes America great. 
3. Give credit where it is due. We have had politicians listen to our message. Maybe they don’t act as swiftly or as decisively as we would wish, but we need to encourage them to keep listening and learning. Treating them with anger and contempt will get us nowhere. I don’t respond well when people are rude to me and neither does anyone else. Yes, they work for us, so let’s be the kind of bosses they want to go the extra mile for. 
4. Make sure you give the facts and the facts only. The truth about our situation is bad enough. Tell that. When you start exaggerating or spreading rumors, it destroys our credibility and turns people off to listening to the true injustices and the core values of our cause. It’s tempting to believe and repeat stories, but stick to verifiable facts. 
5. Make some noise, but don’t overwhelm the audience. We certainly want the whole world to hear about the Bundys, the Hammonds, and the brave souls who stood for both. What we don’t want is for everyone to tune us out because they get an onslaught of phone calls, e mails, and letters that they can’t keep up with. Be polite and friendly while you’re being a squeaky wheel but not a nuisance.
We have to be careful that we don’t treat our friends like enemies. When someone is willing to listen and ask questions, they are friends. When someone takes a phone call or responds to a letter, they are a friend. They may be a friend who needs to be educated, but they certainly are not an enemy who needs to be yelled at or disrespected. As Benjamin Franklin said: “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” Shouting and bullying won’t win people over to our cause. Love and education will win people over to our cause. 
This cause is larger than any one of us. It is larger than my family. My family has chosen to make huge sacrifices to defend the cause of liberty and the Constitution, but this isn’t about us and it isn’t about you. It is about the future of America. Don’t let personal grievances matter more to you than justice. Invite everyone to join the fight for liberty, and help them along the path. Politicians, journalists, neighbors, and random strangers on the street all respond best to loving kindness and respect. We can give both of those things in the cause of freedom. 
Let’s make America great again together!
Bailey Bundy Logue

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

The abuse and Torture of Ammon Bundy

Old Article

This article is 3 years old from the John Birch Society's publication. Old as it may be, the article shows what happened and what we're fighting for.


by Thomas Mitchell
When you work with words, your words should work.
While it was gratifying to see the morning paper finally get around to writing about the difficulty federal prosecutors are having getting jurors to convict armed protesters in Oregon and Bunkerville of conspiracy — Now, where have I read that before? — this one description of cattle rancher Cliven Bundy caused a bit of whiplash: “notorious anti-federalist rancher Cliven Bundy …”
by Thomas Mitchell
When you work with words, your words should work.
While it was gratifying to see the morning paper finally get around to writing about the difficulty federal prosecutors are having getting jurors to convict armed protesters in Oregon and Bunkerville of conspiracy — Now, where have I read that before? — this one description of cattle rancher Cliven Bundy caused a bit of whiplash: “notorious anti-federalist rancher Cliven Bundy …”This is being said of a man who is invariably photographed with a copy of the U.S. Constitution prominently protruding from a breast pocket.
Strictly speaking — and you may accuse me of being a stickler — anti-Federalists were those who opposed the ratification of that Constitution in 1788. Bundy frequently cites the Constitution as the grounds for his contention that the state rather than the federal government is the proper custodian of public lands, and he and his supporters have on occasion cited the principles of Federalism.
Federalism is a system of governance in which federal powers are enumerated and limited, such as interstate commerce, while the state and local governments and citizens are free to exercise other powers, such as law enforcement and land use.
James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper No. 45: “The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
Yes, the anti-Federalists did, in fact, warn about the potential for the central federal government to grow too big and powerful until it usurps the rights and powers of the states and citizens — hence the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were added to assure ratification.
But Bundy and his ilk surely consider themselves strict constructionists rather than anti-Federalists.
Bundy talks about Federalism: (video)
By the way, isn’t a conspiracy charge just a cheap way for prosecutors to pile on and try to double the penalty for a conviction? It is one thing to accuse someone of a crime and assess a penalty upon conviction, but then to double the penalty simply because that person had the audacity to talk to someone about it?

Cliven Turns 71 in Jail

Happy Birthday Cliven Bundy.
We will not stop educating on the truth until you are released and even then we have work to do as Americans. May God bless you, protect you, and keep you safe this birthday.  ~Sarah Redd-Buck

Dave Bundy

Dave Bundy is a husband, father and proud American. He protested an over reaching government in defense of his family in 2014 and now sits in an abusive For Profit CCA prison in Pahrump Nevada where he has been denied bail, denied his speedy trial rights and has waited 15 months for a trial that is still 6 months away.
Support Dave, Marylynn and their beautiful children if you can:

A Call for Justice

The rights of the people are being violated and until we start caring about our neighbor this will only get worse. Thank you Jared for saying what should never have to be said.
Here's an article about the prisoners unconstitutional treatment that prompted Jared to make this phone call:…/ryan-bundy-sues-federal-go…/

The Verdict for Tier 3

"No one's suffering was alleviated today. The courts, the Judge, the Attorneys, the Marshals will continue to financially benefit from our suffering." Ammon Bundy
Greg Burleson (previous government informant) guilty on 8 counts .. Todd Engel guilty of 2 counts .. hung jury on all else (10-2 on everyone but Parker who was 7-5, all favoring the defense)

Ammon in Solitary

Truth from Ammon in Solitary Confinement.
"This is wrong and no matter what the consequence is I will not comply. We have a courage problem in America!" Ammon Bundy
Those who will trade liberty for safety deserve neither.

Cliven Bundy’s right to speedy trial violated by federal judge, says lawyer
The DOJ asked to extend the trial date to 6/5 for the next tier of defendants (Cliven,Ammon, Ryan Bundy- Pete Santilli and Ryan Payne) but Judge Navarro, being as kind, speedy trial minded and constitutional as she is set the date of 6/26/ is Cliven's motion disputing the date of the 26th. (After spending 16 months in jail for defending your life and property, convicted of no crime and denied bail, what's another 3 weeks anyway?)

As the jury weighs Bundy ranch stand off, Carol Bundy awaits her husbands fate.

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

By: Micah McGuire

Help Bring Our Dad Home

Dave and I are blessed with great kids.  Our kids have had a really hard year but have tried their best to be strong during this trial.  Our eldest son has helped in so many different ways.  He amazes me constantly of how he is willing to take on more responsiblity.  He knows that we need to earn money in order to be able to keep the lawyer that we have.  So he asked me the other day if he could make some benches and sale them to help earn money for his dad's legal fees.  Our son is only fifteen years old but has a heart of gold.  He loves his dad and misses him dearly.  They have always been great buddies.  Dave has always taught our kids how to work hard and be productive.  Our son has not told his dad about his plan and wants to suprise him.

So he has decided to make these cute benches pictured below.  We are selling these benches for $65 for pick locals and $150 if you want them shipped.(they are 100% wood and very heavy.) They are very sturdy benches and will look great on your front porch or even in your home.  We have them available for pickup in Millard County, Utah or once we have a big enough order we can deliver them to Mesquite, Nevada, Saint George, Utah and Springville, Utah. We wish we could ship them all over America but we know the cost of shipping would be too expensive.  So for those that don't live close enough to buy a bench but would like to help this young man earn money for his dad then you can make a donation that will go towards purchasing the wood to make the benches. You can make donations through my paypal link and for those that want to purchase a bench please email me your name and contact information and we will get your bench made as soon as possible.  My email address is  Our paypal link is

This little girl does not come with the bench.

Please help this young man bring his dad home. 

We will also keep track of how many benches he has made and sold and give an update each week on this blog.  Thank you for all your support and prayers.