By Updated February 28, 2017 at 8:42 PM
Prosecutors spent twice as long cross-examining Ammon Bundy when he returned to a Portland courtroom Tuesday compared to last fall during his own trial that ended with his acquittal on conspiracy and weapons charges.
This time, Bundy was the first witness for the defense of four men who say they were inspired by his videos and calls to take a “hard stand in Burns” and now face trial themselves in the 41-day occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight began his cross-examination the same way he did last year, asking Bundy if he was the leader of the occupation. But Knight covered more ground and pointed out inconsistencies in Bundy’s testimony this time versus the first trial.
Knight’s 35 minutes of questioning stood in stark contrast to his less than 15 minute cross-examination in October.
Bundy’s direct testimony on behalf of the four defendants also was noticeably shorter: nearly three hours compared to three days last fall.
Bundy for the first time confirmed the account that occupier Blaine Cooper gave jurors a day earlier, saying that he shared his proposal to take over the refuge with a group of men at a Dec. 29, 2015, meeting at a home in Burns.
Bundy said he asked those attending to keep their cellphones and laptops in a separate room because he didn’t want to be interrupted and didn’t want what he shared to be “broadcast.”
He told them about his “journey of discovery” about the injustices he felt Harney County ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and son Steve Hammond faced in their federal prosecution for setting fires to public land, he said. He talked about how his efforts to urge local, state and federal officials to intervene or investigate the case were met with “zero response” and that he felt “more needed to be done.”
At the meeting, “I proposed going into the refuge,” he said.
“So I felt we should go into the refuge and occupy the refuge, and that would wake them up,” Bundy added.
He said Cooper, Jon Ritzheimer, Ryan Payne and B.J. Soper were at the meeting and several others. He said he didn’t remember if defendant Jason Patrick was there as well, as Cooper had testified Monday. He said he didn’t really know Patrick before the occupation.
Bundy said some in the group were opposed to his idea and no concrete plan was reached. “There was no plan to do anything. It wasn’t decided,” he said. “We left it open.”
Bundy also said he had shared his takeover plan with the Committee of Safety in Harney County that he helped form in the fall of 2015 and with a group of ranchers at another meeting and other individuals.
Yet in testimony later Tuesday, former Harney County and Burns Fire Chief Chris Briels directly contradicted Bundy’s testimony that Bundy had told the committee about the plan. Briels had been one of the people nominated to sit on the Committee of Safety.
“Did Ammon ever meet with the Committee of Safety and share his plan to take over the Malheur refuge?” Assistant U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Barrow asked Briels.
“No,” Briels answered.
The group opposed the refuge occupation, he said, and had wanted to address on its own some of the issues Bundy raised, such as federal management of public land and the Hammonds’ prosecution.
Knight also sparred with Bundy about inconsistencies Knight pointed out in his testimony last fall in which he said he first shared the refuge seizure idea at a morning meeting in the back rooms of the Ye Olde Castle restaurant in Burns with about 30 people before a planned Jan. 2, 2016, march to support the Hammonds.
Knight asked Bundy if he recalled testifying that the only time he discussed the occupation was at the Burns cafe.
“You need to keep reading in the transcript,” Bundy said.
Knight asked again.
“No, you’re not being honest,” Bundy said.
“So the answer is no?” Knight asked.
“The answer is no,” Bundy replied.
Defense lawyer Andrew Kohlmetz took Bundy back to the fall of 2015.
At that time, Bundy said he was living in Emmett, Idaho, with his wife and six children. Spurred by concerns raised by his father, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, Ammon Bundy said he began to research the plight of the father-and-son ranchers.
“I felt a drive — an urge to find out all I can,” Bundy said. He retold to this jury how he wrote a letter to “concerned citizens and government officials” in November 2015 and then drove to Burns to meet the Hammonds.
What the Hammonds were facing was “very similar to what was happening to my family,” Bundy said.
“I felt what was happening to the Hammonds was a gross abuse of government, and I felt it needed to be exposed,” he testified as jurors listened raptly, some taking notes.
He said he also met with Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward in November 2015 “to see if he would bring light and stand for the Hammonds.” Bundy testified about how he believed the sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer in the county and his job is “to make sure the people are protected.”
Under questioning by Kohlmetz, Bundy spoke of how he seized the refuge in an effort to stake claim to the property through a principle of adverse possession. In two occasions, Knight popped out of his seat to object and ask the judge to advise jurors that Bundy wasn’t stating the law.
Brown turned to jurors each time and cautioned that it’s not the role of a witness to tell jurors what the law is or isn’t.
In cross-examination, Knight suggested that Bundy didn’t believe the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service or U.S. Bureau of Land Management had authority to own land.
“They do have authority to control land but it’s limited,” Bundy replied.
Drawing on testimony last fall when Bundy called the refuge seizure a “win, win, win” situation, Knight asked if he thought it was a “win, win, win” for the 16 employees who couldn’t go to work because of his actions.
“It very well could be,” Bundy said.
Drawing from Bundy’s own testimony that the refuge occupation was “really neat,” Knight asked if Bundy thought it was really neat thing for the employees to not go to work?
“I do not know that,” Bundy said.
But it was for you?
“And a lot of people,” Bundy responded.
Knight played a video of occupiers firing guns near the refuge boat launch.
“So that’s an expression of a peaceful assembly?” Knight asked.
“That’s correct,” Bundy answered.
Knight pointed out that Bundy had testified that having “all these guns” at the refuge prolonged the occupiers’ ability to remain at the refuge. “Yes,” Bundy said.
Bundy claimed occupier Brian Cavalier, who earlier pleaded guilty to conspiracy, wasn’t his bodyguard when asked.
“That’s a little extreme words, but I had people with me,” he said.
“He was protecting you?” Knight asked.
“There was a lot going on. He was concerned for me,” Bundy said.
Asked if there were armed guards at the refuge during the takeover, Bundy again called that “a little extreme terminology.”
When asked if Ryan Payne was leading the gun training near the boat launch in late January 2016, Bundy retorted, “Actually I think it was your FBI undercover guy.” He said Payne wasn’t the one who encouraged occupiers to shoot in the launch area, but an FBI informant, referring to Fabio Minoggio.
Knight showed Bundy photos that depicted him seated in refuge offices. Knight pointed out Bundy in the office of refuge fish biologist Linda Beck. “I learned that yes in trial,” Bundy said, the only time he referenced his prior trial.
“And you look pretty comfortable don’t you?” Knight asked.
“My feet were cold. It was a pretty cold day,” Bundy said. The photo showed him with his boots off, wearing socks.
“While you’re in there,” Knight said, people who work at the refuge can’t be in there?
“It’s inconvenient, sometimes yes, to petition your government for redress of grievance,” Bundy said.
Knight showed a photo of Bundy standing in front of a large group of occupiers gathered in the fire house at the refuge and asked if employees could have worked there during the occupation.
“They could have come if they wanted to,” Bundy said.
“It’s your testimony the employees were welcome to come in if they wanted to?” Knight asked.
“Absolutely,” Bundy said.
“Thank you,” Knight responded.
Bundy’s statement now opens the door for the prosecution to directly ask refuge employees if they felt welcome or feared returning to the refuge while occupiers remained – something prosecutors felt restricted from asking during the first trial.
Bundy was transferred on Saturday to Oregon from Nevada, where he awaits trial on federal conspiracy, extortion and assault charges stemming from the 2014 standoff with federal land agents near the Bundy Ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada.
The judge warned spectators and parties in the case not to laugh out loud during trial after some testimony from Bundy and defense witnesses elicited chuckles Tuesday.
At the end of the day, Burns resident and former fire chief Chris Briels drew laughter, for example, when he testified that he wanted to “chew on Ammon’s butt,” because he was angry he was caught by surprise by the refuge takeover.
“The next person who laughs out loud is out of this courtroom for the rest of the trial,” the judge cautioned.
When a deputy U.S. marshal first led Bundy into the federal courtroom, supporters and family stood in the courtroom gallery.
“Please you need to be seated,” U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown admonished. “Sit down or leave.”
— Maxine Bernstein
[email protected]
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian
And he stated he was at the meeting ? So he committed perjury ? Will he be charged ? And his wife stated he was not involved recently. Lies seem to be “abundynt” with this family