Dave Bundy To Remain In Jail Pending 2017 Trial Over Nevada Standoff With Federal Agents

Bundy Ranch
The Cliven Bundy Ranch outside Bunkerville, Nevada. Photo: Gephardt Daily/Patrick Benedict

LAS VEGAS, Nev., May 16, 2016 (Gephardt Daily) — Dave Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, will remain behind bars while awaiting trial on charges stemming from the 2014 standoff with armed federal agents in a long-simmering dispute over BLM grazing fees.

A motion by defense lawyers to allow Bundy to be freed pending his February 2017 trial was denied during a detention hearing Monday in a federal courtroom in Las Vegas.

“I was hoping that the justice system would actually do what it’s supposed to do,” said MaryLynn Bundy, Dave Bundy’s wife and mother to their six children, age 1 through 14.

Bundy family members MaryLynn Bundy (Dave Bundy's wife), Arden Bundy, (Cliven Bundy's son) and Clancy Cox (Cliven's son-in-law), talk about family hardships in the wake of their loved ones' arrests. Photo: Gephardt Daily
Bundy family members MaryLynn Bundy (Dave Bundy’s wife), Arden Bundy, (Cliven Bundy’s son) and Clancy Cox (Cliven’s son-in-law), talk about family hardships in the wake of their loved ones’ arrests. Photo: Gephardt Daily

“We were in for an hour and a half,” she told Gephardt Daily. “Our lawyer got up and said what he was going to say, and the prosecutor got up and said a lot of lies. Then the judge (Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach) read his statement from a statement already typed. I think that means you made up your mind way ahead of time, if you have it typed.”

Dave Bundy, 39, was an active participant in the standoff outside the Bundy Ranch near Bunkerville, Nevada back in 2014.

Photo: Gephardt Daily
Photo: Gephardt Daily

Family, friends and other witnesses claim Bundy acted as a peacemaker during the confrontation, while Federal authorities say he was a ringleader who rallied and directed armed resistance against federal agents who had come to the aid of the BLM.

Bundy was taken into custody March 4, 2016 while working on a new family home in Millard County just south of Delta, Utah.

MaryLynn Bundy said the prosecution’s argument Monday hinged on a letter her husband posted to the Bundy Ranch Facebook page three or four months ago.

“Because he wrote that letter, the judge said he is against the Federal government,” she said. “That’s not what it was about. It was about just the BLM, and did not say the whole Federal government. They could not get past that letter.

“Your freedom of speech clearly isn’t freedom of speech. You clearly have to be careful about what you say.”

MaryLynn Bundy said the letter the judge letter read in court Monday seemed pretty much identical to decisions read at her husband’s appearances in other courtrooms.

“How are judges even being fair and listening, especially when they have it (a typed decision) ready,” she said. “You would think he would be able to read his own words and make a decision out of his own mouth. I didn’t think that’s what happened in America. How did they know he (Dave Bundy) would be a danger to the people who checked on him?”

Prosecutors maintain Bundy would pose a threat to authorities who would have to monitor him should he be released prior to trial.

“I just can’t get away from the underlying fact that he directed supporters to take up the high ground,” Ferenbach said. “He’s a danger to the community. Specifically, to BLM employees.”

“It’s one thing to take a position. It’s another thing to take up arms,” he said.

MaryLynn said at 6 p.m. Monday that she had not yet informed her children of the court decision that will keep their father from coming home.

“I’m going to have to tell them,” she said. “I don’t know how they can understand. It will be difficult. But somehow, they will be able to get through it, day by day.”

MaryLynn said she and attorney Cal J. Potter are not giving up.

“We can appeal this judge’s decision, and it will go through Judge Navarro, then it will go through the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco.”

Eleven other men, including Dave’s brother, Melvin Bundy, were taken into federal custody the same day of his arrest.

Each man was charged with conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, conspiracy to injure federal officers, assault of a federal officer, obstruction of justice, threatening federal officers, weapons use and possession, and interfering with commerce and interstate travel by way of extortion.

They face a potential 80 year mandatory-minimum prison term if convicted.



  1. If he didn’t want his kids to wonder when he was coming home, maybe he shouldn’t have been directing an armed milita in how to intimidate and threaten the lives of Federal officers. A little late now to call himself a peacemaker. It’s not a matter of being careful of what you say, it’s a matter of if you make your beliefs obvious through your speech, don’t expect that knowledge of your beliefs to be forgotten just because you had the right to express them.

  2. The Feds do not look kindly on lawbreaking and semi-automatic weapons. From tough-talking cowboy to poor, innocent, misunderstood victim in 2 seconds flat!

  3. The judge did exactly what the law abiding citizens of this country wanted, upheld the law by not allowing Dave Bundy to simply go free. He is a loud mouth coward, a bully and a thug who would simply have returned to the Bundy compound, rallied a bunch of armed terrorist thugs to his cause and refused to appear in a court whose authority he does not recognize.

    Our nation is one of laws, you don’t get to disobey them without consequence.

  4. This was no armed take over! Read the second amendment! What does it say? So many ignorant people that would allow the feds to run rough shod over them and their lives! When will you people wake up and realize this could be you? Educate yourselves on the lawlessness of the BLM!

    • It never ceases to baffle me that every so called conservative in this country is somehow a constitutional scholar who understands two hundred plus years of jurisprudence by claiming they know the original intent. Well-Regulated Militia. Hence, a state-sponsored militia. After the inception of the US we did not have a standing army as we due today. The well-regulated militia was intended to be a citizen army of non-soldiers who would take up arms against the enemies of the state. Nowhere in the constitution does it says a militia unsupported by the US government has the right to take up arms against said government. Normal individuals don’t need guns to protest. To be honest its probably not your fault you are confused. The people you trust are also not constitutional scholars. The people you trust and whose opinions you are parroting are in absolutely no way in concurrence with the US Constitution. George Washington himself to up arms against an uprising of militia men who wanted to get out of paying taxes (Whisky Rebellion) much like the saga of Cliven Bundy. Thanks to PC America, our soldiers were not able to deal with them as the Father of our country would have, you know squash it militarily. Please stop acting as though you have an advanced law degree when you don’t. The ant-BLM movement has been orchestrated by incredibly rich people wanting to profit off of public land. Much like the so called “Grass Roots Conservatism”. The tea-party movement was heavily funded by billionaires who confuse their base with patently false statements so often while simultaneously violently attacking every belief that is not their own allows for people like you to make such wildly inaccurate statements without about topics which you have no idea. Your on the side that attacks facts, please pause and think about that. Nothing no matter how true will sway conservatives away from their beliefs. Sorry your being lied to. Conservatives have no actual opinions other than what they are told to believe. Every time a conservative strays away from their agenda in any form or fashion they are attacked relentlessly. Your own politicians cannot voice common sense opinions in fear of alienating themselves from the mainstream lunacy of the republican party.

  5. The wife apparently believes that freedom of speech includes freedom from consequences from that speech. I checked my pocket copy of the constitution and didn’t find any exemption from consequences.

  6. Sounds like very few of you even have a clue or the facts in this matter. Go back to your caves and obvious ignorance of the law, justice, and their long standing water rights. Shame on you!

Leave a Reply to Molly Pitcher Cancel reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here