IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMMON BUNDY, RYAN BUNDY, 

SHAWNA COX, DAVID LEE FRY, 

JEFF WAYNE BANTA, KENNETH 

MEDENBACH, and NEIL WAMPLER, 

Defendants. 

BROWN, Judge . 

3:16-cr-00051-BR 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 

AMMON BUNDY'S MOTION 

(#1203) TO DISMISS FOR 

IMPERMISSIBLE DELAY 

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Arrunon 

Bundy's Motion (#1203) to Dismiss for Impermissible Delay. 

Defendant Arrunon Bundy moves to dismiss the Superseding Indictment 

(#282) on the basis that the Court erred when it found 

excludable delay under the Speedy Trial Act (STA), 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161 (h) (7) (B), through September 7, 2016, based on the Court's 

1 - ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY'S MOTION (#1203) TO 

DISMISS FOR IMPERMISSIBLE DELAY 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1291 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11
finding that this case is complex. The government filed a 

Response (#1227) to Ammon Bundy's Motion on September 8, 2016. 

Ammon Bundy filed a Reply Memorandum (#1255) on September 13, 

2016. The Court finds the record sufficiently developed to take 

the Motion under advisement without oral argument. 

BACKGROUND 

On February 22, 2016, the government filed a Motion (#185) 

to Declare Case Complex, Vacate Dates, Set Status Hearing, and 

Exclude Time Under the Speedy Trial Act in which the government 

requested this Court find excludable delay under the Speedy Trial 

Act through a trial date to be set in the future. 

On February 24, 2016, the Court held an Arraignment on 

Indictment and Scheduling Conference with those parties who had 

been named in the original Indictment (#58) including Ammon 

Bundy. At that hearing Defendants collectively asserted their 

rights under the STA and requested the Court set a firm trial 

date within the 70-day period provided in the Act. At the same 

hearing the Court advised the parties that it would address the 

government's Motion (#185) to Declare Case Complex on March 9, 

2016, which was the first of a series of regular, monthly status 

hearings the Court conducted with all parties in this matter. 

The Court also directed the parties to confer and to file a joint 

status report before that March 9, 2016, hearing in which the 

2 - ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY'S MOTION (#1203) TO 

DISMISS FOR IMPERMISSIBLE DELAY 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1291 Filed 09/16/16 Page 2 of 11
parties were to provide their calculations regarding the thenexisting outside trial date under the STA for each Defendant and 

to provide their proposals for a firm, realistic trial date. 

In response to the Court's Order, the parties filed in 

advance of the March 9, 2016, hearing their Joint Status Report 

(#244) in which they set out their calculations of the 

Defendants' respective outside trial dates under the STA and also 

proposed trial dates as follows: (1) Defendants Ammon Bundy, 

Shawna Cox, Peter Santilli, Duane Leo Ehmer, Dylan Anderson, Sean 

Anderson, David Lee Fry, Sandra Lynn Anderson, Blaine Cooper, 

Wesley Kjar, Corey Lequieu, Jason Charles Blomgren, Darryl 

William Thorn, and Geoffrey Stanek indicated they were not yet 

able to propose a trial date, but, nonetheless, these Defendants 

reasserted their previous reservation of their rights under the 

STA; (2) Defendants Jon Ritzheimer, Joseph O'Shaughnessy, Ryan 

Payne, Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier, Jason Patrick, and Jeff Wayne 

Banta also re-asserted their STA rights but, nonetheless, 

proposed a trial date to begin October 18, 2016; and (3) the 

government agreed generally with the litigation schedule set out 

that resulted in a trial setting of October 18, 2016. 

At the monthly status hearing on March 9, 2016, over 

Defendant Ammon Bundy's objection, the Court declared this case 

complex and, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 316l(h) (7) (B) (ii) and 

316l(h) (7) (B) (iii), provisionally found excludable delay through 

3 - ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY'S MOTION (#1203) TO 

DISMISS FOR IMPERMISSIBLE DELAY 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1291 Filed 09/16/16 Page 3 of 11
April 6, 2016, with the express intention to determine on 

April 6, 2016, any additional period of necessary, excludable 

delay based on the parties' respective case-management 

recommendations up to that point. The Court emphasized its 

intention to set a firm trial date on April 6, 2016, within that 

period of excludable delay. 

On March 9, 2016, the Court made the finding of complexity 

because: 

This matter currently involves 26 Defendants, many of 

whom remain in custody, and that status necessarily 

slows and complicates preparation for pretrial motions 

and trial. Moreover, the expected volume of discovery, 

litigating discovery disputes, and screening admissible 

evidence necessitates additional time for the parties 

and the Court to prepare for trial. The procedural 

steps of preparing for trial, including the summonsing 

of a large jury pool and coordination of the schedules 

of witnesses, counsel, and the Court, create an 

overwhelming need for additional time to prepare for 

and to be ready for trial at a firm trial date. 

Moreover, the nature of the charges, the duration of 

the crimes alleged in this matter (which span more than 

40 days), and the distant location of the crime scene 

all require the parties to have additional time to 

gather and to analyze the evidence and to prepare for 

trial. Finally, the Court notes the government's two 

initial volumes of discovery consist of approximately 

3,500 pages of materials including only investigative 

reports, affidavits, and warrant materials, and the 

government expects to provide a substantial amount of 

additional discovery as it becomes available. The 

Court concludes each of these factors individually and 

in combination, therefore, warrants a finding that this 

matter is complex and justifies a finding of excludable 

delay under the Speedy Trial Act. 

Order (#289) Designating Case as Complex at 4-5 (issued Mar. 9, 

2016) . 

4 - ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY'S MOTION (#1203) TO 

DISMISS FOR IMPERMISSIBLE DELAY 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1291 Filed 09/16/16 Page 4 of 11
Before the status hearing on April 6, 2016, the parties 

submitted two Joint Status Reports (#336, #359) in which they 

provided their updated proposals regarding the trial date to be 

set and their proposed schedules for pretrial proceedings. In 

particular, Defendants split into four groups regarding their 

recommendations for a firm trial date: 

Group A - Trial in September 2016 - Def. #1, Ammon 

Bundy (Arnold & Casey); Def. #3, Joseph O'Shaughnessy 

(Baggio); Def. #4, Ryan Payne (Hay & Federico); Def. 

#5, Ryan Bundy (Self-Represented, Ludwig as Stand-By); 

Def. #6, Brian Cavalier (Bofferding); Def. #8, Peter 

Santilli (Coan); Def. #9, Jason Patrick (Kohlmetz); 

Def. #11, Dylan Anderson (Kauffman); Def. #12, Sean 

Anderson (McHenry); Def. #16, Kenneth Mendenbach 

(Self-Represented, Schindler as Stand-By); Def. #17, 

Blaine Cooper (Shipsey); Def. #18, Wesley Kjar 

(Halley); Def. #20, Neil Wampler (Maxfield); Def. #22, 

Darryl Thorn (Shertz); and Def. #23, Geoffrey Stanek 

(Andersen) . 

Group B - Trial in January 2017: Def. #19, Cory Lequieu 

(Pagan) . 

Group C - Trial in April 2017: Def. #2, Jon Ritzheimer 

(Wood); Def. #7, Shawna Cox (Harris); Def. #10, Duane 

Ehmer (Audet); Def. #13, David Fry (Olson); Def. #14, 

Jeff Banta (Salisbury); Def. #15, Sandra Anderson 

(Baaker); Def.#21, Jason Blomgren (Rainwater); and Def. 

#25, Eric Flores (Warren). 

Group D - Trial TBD: Def. #24, Travis Cox (Hood) and 

Def. #26, Jake Ryan (Merrithew), neither of whom has 

been arrested or arraigned. 

Joint Status Report (#336) on Timing and Sequencing of Motions, 

at 2-3 (emphasis in original, footnotes omitted) . Although the 

government stated it did not object to the schedule proposed for 

the Defendants in "Group A," the government requested all 

5 - ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY'S MOTION (#1203) TO 

DISMISS FOR IMPERMISSIBLE DELAY 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1291 Filed 09/16/16 Page 5 of 11
Defendants to be set for trial together beginning September 6, 

2016. 

At the conclusion of its regular status hearing on April 6, 

2016, the Court observed as follows: 

Although Defendants were previously unanimous in their 

request that this matter be set for trial as soon as 

practicable and even as early as April 2016, some 

Defendants indicated at this hearing that they did not 

believe they would be prepared to begin trial in 

September 2016 while others continued to request trial 

in early September. 

Order (#389) at 2 (issued Apr. 11, 2016). In considering a firm 

trial date among the parties' competing proposals, the Court 

weighed "the invocation of speedy-trial rights by multiple 

Defendants (many of whom remain in custody), the potential undue 

burden that multiple trials would likely impose on citizen jurors 

generally and witnesses in particular, and the increased 

system-wide costs that multiple trials would implicate." Id. 

The Court also relied heavily on the representations of all trial 

counsel as to the nature and extent of the work needed to prepare 

and expected their promised diligence. For these reasons and 

based on the findings in the Court's March 9, 2016, Order (#289) 

Designating Case as Complex, the Court set a single trial for all 

Defendants to begin with jury selection on September 7, 2016. 

The Court also found excludable delay under the STA through that 

date. Order (#389) at 2. 

On May 6, 2016, following the regular, monthly status 

6 - ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY'S MOTION (#1203) TO 

DISMISS FOR IMPERMISSIBLE DELAY 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1291 Filed 09/16/16 Page 6 of 11
hearing held May 4, 2016, at which some Defendants noted their 

intention to waive their STA rights, the Court entered Order 

(#523) in which the Court stated: 

The Court will now consider appropriate motions by 

out-of-custody Defendants who wish to go to trial after 

the current September 7, 2016, trial setting to the 

extent that those motions are predicated on the 

Defendant's waiver of speedy-trial rights and/or an 

irreconcilable scheduling conflict of counsel. 

Order (#523) at 5. 

On June 30, 2016, Defendant Ammon Bundy filed a Motion 

(#815) to Continue September 7, 2016, Trial Date in which Bundy 

requested the following: 

Mr. Bundy is asking the Court to vacate the current 

trial date, and agrees to a short sixty day (60) period 

of time to litigate his release and to further prepare 

(with his new legal counsel) before his [sic] can be 

prepared to asked for a specific trial date or inform 

the court when he and his legal counsel can reasonably 

be prepared to proceed to trial. 

Mot. (#815) to Continue at 6. At that time Ammon Bundy contended 

an additional sixty-day period should be excluded from 

calculation of the period in which to begin trial under the 

Speedy Trial Act in order to permit Ammon Bundy to further 

prepare for trial. By Motion (#818) Ryan Bundy joined Ammon 

Bundy's Motion. 

By Order (#850) Denying Motions to Continue Trial Date 

Filed by Ammon Bundy and Ryan Bundy issued July 7, 2016, the 

Court denied Ammon and Ryan Bundy's Motions on the bases that 

7 - ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY'S MOTION (#1203) TO 

DISMISS FOR IMPERMISSIBLE DELAY 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1291 Filed 09/16/16 Page 7 of 11
there was not any evidence in the record from which the Court 

could conclude Defendants had exercised diligence in preparing 

for trial or, in any event, that they could not prepare for trial 

sufficiently in the two months that remained before trial. The 

Court also concluded the grant of a continuance "would cause 

severe prejudice to court proceedings in two districts and to the 

many witnesses that the parties are expected to call in this 

matter and would necessitate at least two additional trials after 

the September [trial] proceedings because the Bundys' requested 

continuance would preclude them from participating in the trial 

that will begin on September 7, 2016." Order (#850) at 7. 

In due course and after many pretrial proceedings, the Court 

began trial with voir dire on September 7, 2016. 

DISCUSSION 

Ammon Bundy now contends the Court erred when it originally 

found excludable delay under the Speedy Trial Act on the basis 

that this is a complex case that required more than 70 days for 

the parties to prepare. In addition, Ammon Bundy contends the 

Court erred when it instructed Defendants seeking a continuance 

of the September 7, 2016, trial date to file a waiver of their 

rights under the Speedy Trial Act. 

Before addressing Ammon Bundy's objection to the Court's 

finding of complexity, the government points out that the 

8 - ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY'S MOTION (#1203) TO 

DISMISS FOR IMPERMISSIBLE DELAY 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1291 Filed 09/16/16 Page 8 of 11
September 7, 2016, trial began, nonetheless, within the standard 

70-day STA clock notwithstanding the Court's finding of 

complexity. In particular, the government asserts only six days 

have elapsed from that 70-day clock due to the clock being 

automatically tolled as a result of the filing of various Motions 

and interlocutory appeals to which Ammon Bundy was a party. The 

Court agrees. Even if the Court had not found excludable delay 

as a result of the complexity of the case, the time permitted in 

which to begin trial under the Speedy Trial Act would not have 

run by September 7, 2016, due to the automatic tolling of that 

time as a result of Defendants filing multiple Motions and 

interlocutory appeals. 

In response to the merits of Ammon Bundy's Motion, the 

government argues the Court's finding of excludable delay through 

September 7, 2016, was proper and supported by the record. The 

Court agrees. This is indisputably a complex case in every sense 

of that term. This 26-Defendant case has proceeded to trial 

against seven Defendants after nearly 1,300 docket entries to 

date, including dozens of motions filed and decided, regular 

status and evidentiary hearings, and multiple days of pretrial 

conference proceedings. Moreover, it also is undisputed that 

this case involves extraordinarily voluminous discovery. With 

the additional benefit of hindsight and the experience from 

presiding over all of these proceedings, the Court confidently 

9 - ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY'S MOTION (#1203) TO 

DISMISS FOR IMPERMISSIBLE DELAY 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1291 Filed 09/16/16 Page 9 of 11
reasserts this case could not have been brought to trial any 

sooner than September 7, 2016. Although the Court is satisfied 

that the parties and the Court have prepared sufficiently for 

trial, the Court notes if the case had proceeded on an even more 

compressed timeline as Ammon Bundy now contends, the 

opportunities for the parties to engage in meaningful (and, in 

this case, productive) motion practice, to review discovery, and 

to prepare for trial would have been significantly limited. 

Finally, to the extent that Ammon Bundy asserts the Court 

erred when it required Defendants seeking a continuance to file a 

"waiver" of their rights under the Speedy Trial Act, the Court 

notes any such error would be harmless as to Ammon Bundy because 

he did not file any such waiver, and, in fact, continued to 

assert conflicting arguments about his STA rights in the context 

of his continued detention. 1 

Accordingly, the Court adheres to its finding in its 

March 9, 2016, Order (#289) Designating Case as Complex and 

1 The Court notes although it referred to such a filing as a 

waiver, that term is more accurately characterized as a 

stipulation by each such Defendant that the Court could find 

excludable delay through the date of the particular Defendant's 

requested continuance. Even with a Defendant's consent to 

excludable delay, the STA still applies and governs those 

continued proceedings. In this context the Court, therefore, 

expressly found excludable delay under the STA through the trial 

date set for February 14, 2017, for Defendants who sought such 

continuances. See Order (#930) Setting Trial Date for Defendants 

Who Have Been Granted Continuances from the Trial Set to Begin 

September 7, 2016 (issued July 26, 2016). 

10 - ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY'S MOTION (#1203) TO 

DISMISS FOR IMPERMISSIBLE DELAY 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1291 Filed 09/16/16 Page 10 of 11
concludes it properly found excludable delay under the Speedy 

Trial Act through September 7, 2016, the day the Court began 

trial proceedings as to Ammon Bundy and others. Moreover, the 

Court concludes there is not any factual or legal basis in the 

record to find any "impermissible delay" in bringing Defendant 

Ammon Bundy to trial within the constitutional and statutory 

standards governing his right to a speedy trial. 

The Court, therefore, DENIES Defendant Ammon Bundy's Motion 

(#1203) to Dismiss for Impermissible Delay. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 16th day of September, 2016. 

ANNA J. BROWN 

United States District Judge 

11 - ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY'S MOTION (#1203) TO 

DISMISS FOR IMPERMISSIBLE DELAY 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1291 Filed 09/16/16 Page 11 of 11