IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMMON BUNDY, JON RITZHEIMER,

JOSEPH O’SHAUGHNESSY, RYAN

PAYNE, RYAN BUNDY, BRIAN

CAVALIER, SHAWNA COX, PETER

SANTILLI, JASON PATRICK,

DUANE LEO EHMER, DYLAN 

ANDERSON, SEAN ANDERSON,

DAVID LEE FRY, JEFF WAYNE

BANTA, SANDRA LYNN ANDERSON,

KENNETH MEDENBACH, BLAINE

COOPER, WESLEY KJAR, COREY

LEQUIEU, NEIL WAMPLER, JASON

CHARLES BLOMGREN, DARRYL

WILLIAM THORN, GEOFFREY

STANEK, TRAVIS COX, and ERIC

LEE FLORES,

Defendants.

3:16-cr-00051-BR

 

ORDER 

1 - ORDER

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 334 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 7
BROWN, Judge.

On March 22, 2016, the Court conducted a hearing on

Defendant Ryan Payne’s Unopposed1 Emergency Motion (#312) for

Court Order Prohibiting United States Marshals from Removing Ryan

Payne and Listed Defendants from the District of Oregon and on

the Court’s Interim Order (#313) in which the Court directed the

United States Marshal not to execute certain Writs of Habeas

Corpus ad Prosequendum requiring the United States Marshal to

transport such Defendants to the District of Nevada. In addition

to Defendant Ryan Payne, the “Listed Defendants” are Defendants

Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier, and Blaine Cooper. 

Defendants Peter Santilli and Joseph O’Shaughnessy are also

affected by this Order as noted below. 

The Honorable Peggy Leen, United States Magistrate Judge for

the District of Nevada, participated in the hearing by video

conference on behalf of the District of Nevada District Court. 

Oregon Assistant United States Attorneys Craig Gabriel and

Charles Gorder appeared personally for the government and were

assisted by Nevada Assistant United States Attorney Steve Myhre,

who appeared by video conference. Defendant Ryan Bundy appeared

personally pro se and with his Oregon stand-by counsel of record,

and each of the other moving Defendants and Defendant Peter

1 As the record reflects, however, the government filed a

Response (#331) on March 21, 2016, indicating its opposition to

the merits of the Motion.

2 - ORDER

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 334 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 7
Santilli appeared personally and with Oregon counsel of record.2

In addition, the Court notes the presence either by telephone or

by videoconference of Defendant Ammon Bundy’s Nevada counsel, Dan

Hill; Defendant Ryan Payne’s Nevada counsel, Assistant Public

Defenders Shari Kaufman, William Carrico, and Ryan Norwood;

Defendant Joseph O’Shaughnessy’s Oregon counsel, Amy Baggio, and

his Nevada counsel, Andrea Luem; and other Nevada defense

counsel, Mace Yampolski, Daniel Hill, Matt Lay, and Angela Dows. 

After a careful review of the parties’ written and oral

arguments and for the reasons stated on the record at the

conclusion of the proceedings, the Court makes the following

findings and rulings:

1. On the request of the government in an ex parte

proceeding, the United States District Court for the District of

Nevada authorized the Writs of Habeas Corpus ad Prosequendum at

issue. Although the moving Defendants assert the Nevada District

Court did not have the power to issue such Writs for Defendants

in the custody of the United States Marshal in Oregon pursuant to

this Court’s orders of detention in the Oregon case, the Court is

not aware of any precedent declaring that co-equal United States

District Courts do not have the power to cooperate in the

2

 With the consent of Defendant Blaine Cooper, Federal

Public Defender Lisa Hay, who represents Defendant Ryan Payne,

assisted Cooper in the absence of his regular defense counsel,

Krista Shipsey, who was out of the District at the time of this

hearing scheduled on short notice.

3 - ORDER

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 334 Filed 03/22/16 Page 3 of 7
administration of their respective criminal proceedings. Thus,

to the extent that the moving Defendants object to execution of

the Writs on the basis that the Nevada District Court lacked the

authority to authorize the government’s request to issue them,

the Court overrules that objection.

2. To the extent that the moving Defendants object to

execution of the Writs on the basis that such execution will

interfere with the proceedings in this Court and with Defendants’

attendant rights to a speedy trial, to due process, and to

effective assistance of counsel, the Court overrules that

objection as premature on the following two premises: First,

this Court extends equal respect and comity to the District Court

of Nevada in the conduct of its proceedings as this Court expects

to receive in return. Second, this Court concludes allowing

these Writs to be executed on this single occasion3 for the

purpose of first appearances in the District of Nevada and for a

prompt return to Oregon within approximately ten (10) days would 

3

 The Court notes this Order applies to the current Writs

for the explicit purpose of accomplishing Defendants’ first

appearances in the District of Nevada and that these rulings are

over the objection of each affected Defendant who reserves the

right to challenge their return to the District of Oregon after

he has appeared in the District of Nevada. Nevertheless, the

Court relies upon Judge Sheen’s forecast that there is not any

legal impediment to Defendants’ return to the District of Oregon,

and the Court does not make any finding whatsoever as to whether

any future writs would be treated in a similar fashion.

4 - ORDER

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 334 Filed 03/22/16 Page 4 of 7
not interfere with this Court's proceedings or with Defendants’

rights in this forum provided that Defendants’ transport-andreturn occurs as directed herein.

3. To the extent that the moving Defendants object on

the basis that execution of the Writs will interfere with their

rights to a speedy trial, to due process, and to effective

assistance of counsel in the District of Nevada proceedings, that

objection must be addressed to the Nevada District Court, which

has jurisdiction over the Nevada proceedings and how those

proceedings are conducted. 

4. Finally, to the extent that Defendants object on

the basis that execution of the Writs violates the Consent Decree

cited in Defendants' Motion, the Court concludes the single,

short-term absence of Defendants at the request of the District

of Nevada on these specific Writs does not violate that Decree.

The Court, therefore, VACATES its Interim Order (#313) and

replaces it with the following specific Order:

1. The government must provide to this Court and to

the United States Marshal in the District of Oregon the current

Writs of Habeas Corpos ad Prosequendum as to Defendants Ryan

Payne, Ammom Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier, and Blaine

Cooper. In addition, although Defendant Peter Santilli has been 

5 - ORDER

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 334 Filed 03/22/16 Page 5 of 7
released from pretrial detention as to these Oregon proceedings,

he, nevertheless, remains in custody in Oregon pursuant to an

Order of Detention as to the Nevada proceedings. The government,

therefore, must also provide to the Court and to the United

States Marshal a similar Writ or other order so that the United

States Marshal may transport Defendant Santilli to and return him

from the District of Nevada together with the moving Defendants

as directed herein. 

2. The United States Marshal must make the necessary

arrangements pursuant to this Order to transport the moving

Defendants and Defendant Santilli on April 13, 2016, from

Portland, Oregon, to Las Vegas, Nevada, for the purpose of their

first appearances in the District of Nevada proceeding as soon

thereafter as is practicable. No later than April 12, 2016,

Oregon counsel (including stand-by counsel) for these Defendants

must arrange to safeguard Defendants’ papers during their absence

from the District of Oregon.

3. No later than Monday, April 25, 2016,4

 the United

States Marshal must return to the District of Oregon each of

these Defendants and Defendant O’Shaughnessy (if he remains 

4

 After the hearing on March 22, 2016, the Court learned the

flight to return Defendants to the District of Oregon could only

be scheduled at the earliest on April 25, 2016, a date this Court

approves even though Defendants will be away for 12 rather than

10 days.

6 - ORDER

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 334 Filed 03/22/16 Page 6 of 7
detained in the District of Nevada as of the date of the return

transport). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2016.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

7 - ORDER

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 334 Filed 03/22/16 Page 7 of 7