Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 844 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 12

DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney
STEVEN W. MYHRE
NICHOLAS D. DICKINSON
Assistant United States Attorneys
NADIA J. AHMED
ERIN M. CREEGAN
Special Assistant United States Attorneys
501 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
(702) 388-6336
steven.myhre@usdoj.gov
nicholas.dickinson@usdoj.gov
nadia.ahmed@usdoj.gov
erin.creegan@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

v.
PETER T. SANTILLI,
Defendant.

2:16-CR-00046-GMN-PAL
GOVERNMENTS RESPONSE IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
SANTILLIS MOTION TO REOPEN
DETENTION HEARING (ECF No.
688)

Certification. The government certifies that this Response is timely filed.

17

The United States, by and through the undersigned, respectfully submits its

18

Response in Opposition to defendant Peter T. Santillis (Santillis) Motion to

19

Reopen Detention Hearing (Motion) (ECF No. 688).

20
21
22
23
24

As demonstrated more fully below, the Court should deny the Motion
because Santilli offers nothing new or material in support of reopening the
detention hearing.

His dismissal from the Oregon case is irrelevant to the

Detention Order in this case.

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 844 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 12

BACKGROUND

1
2

On February 17, 2016, Santilli was charged by Indictment in the District of

Nevada with numerous crimes of violence in connection with his alleged

participation in a conspiracy to use force, violence and firearms to assault and extort

federal officers on April 12, 2014, near Bunkerville, Nevada. ECF No. 5 (hereinafter

the Nevada case). The charges included assault with a deadly weapon on a federal

law enforcement officer, threatening a federal law enforcement officer, obstruction

of justice, extortion of federal officers, and use and brandish a firearm in relation to

a crime of violence, aiding and abetting and conspiracy to commit same, all in

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 111(a)(1) and (b), 115, 924(c),
1503, 1951, 2, and 371, respectively. A warrant for Santillis arrest issued from the
Indictment.
Before the return of the Nevada Indictment, which joined Santilli and four
(4) other co-defendants, Santilli had been charged by Indictment in the District of
Oregon, for felony violations arising from his alleged involvement in an armed
takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon, in and

18

around January 2016. United States v. Ammon Bundy, et al.; Case No. 3:16-cr-

19

00051-BR (District of Oregon) (hereinafter the Oregon case). Arrested on January

20

27, 2016, Santilli had been detained in Oregon pending trial on those charges at the

21

time of the Nevada Indictment.

22

On February 29, 2016, the presiding Judge in the Oregon case considered the

23

Oregon detention order and released Santilli on terms and conditions which

24
2

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 844 Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 12

included GPS monitoring and release to a community corrections center when space

became available. In so ordering, the Oregon Court stated that it did not take into

account the facts and circumstances surrounding the Nevada Indictment.

Following the Oregon Courts ruling, Santilli was held in custody in Oregon

on the Nevada Indictment and arrest warrant. His initial appearance and detention

hearing on the Nevada Indictment was scheduled in Oregon for March 1, 2016.

That hearing was continued to March 7. In the interim, and on March 3, 2016, a

Superseding Indictment was returned in the District of Nevada, joining Santilli

with 14 additional defendants in the Nevada case, bringing the total number of

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

joined defendants to 19. ECF No. 27.

Santillis initial detention hearing on the Nevada Superseding Indictment
was held in Oregon before United States Magistrate Judge Paul Papak on March
11, 2016. Following that hearing, Judge Papak ordered Santilli detained, finding
that no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the safety of
the community or assure the appearance of the defendant at future proceedings.
Judge Papak later entered a Transfer and Commitment Order, transferring Santilli
to Nevada to stand trial on the Nevada Superseding Indictment.

19

However, before Santilli was transported to Nevada and on March 22, 2016,

20

the Oregon Court held a hearing to determine whether to transfer five (5) of

21

Santillis co-defendants to Nevada pursuant to writs of habeas corpus ad

22

prosequendum that issued from the Nevada Superseding Indictment, those 5 having

23

been charged together with Santilli in Oregon (for the Malheur takeover) and

24
3

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 844 Filed 10/11/16 Page 4 of 12

Nevada (for the assault and extortion), all of them being detained in Oregon.

Following the hearing, Judge Brown entered an order transferring Santillis five co-

defendants to Nevada on the writs. The Oregon Courts Order further directed the

U.S. Marshals Service to return Santilli and six other co-defendants from Nevada

to the District of Oregon on or before April 25, 2016, in order that they might

prepare for and stand trial in Oregon on the Oregon Indictment.

Pursuant to Oregon Order, Santilli was transferred to the District of Nevada

on April 13, 2016, where, on April 15, 2016, he was arraigned and entered pleas of

not guilty before United States Magistrate Judge Nancy Koppe. Thereafter, Santilli

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

sought, and received, a modified order of transport from the Oregon Court, allowing
Santilli to remain in custody in Nevada until no later than May 19, 2016, while he
sought to challenge his detention order before Chief United States District Judge
Navarro, the district judge presiding over the Nevada Superseding Indictment.
On April 27, 2016, Santilli filed a motion with the District Court in Nevada
to revoke Magistrate Judge Papaks Order. ECF No. 324. On May 2, 2016, and
following a full de novo hearing on the motion, Chief Judge Navarro denied Santillis

18

motion to revoke and entered a Detention Order Pending Trial, finding that Santilli

19

failed to rebut the presumption that he should be detained and that he presented

20

both a risk of nonappearance and danger to the safety of another person or the

21

community. ECF No. 406 (hereinafter Detention Order).

22
23

As to the risk of non-appearance, the Court found, among other things, as

follows:

24
4

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 844 Filed 10/11/16 Page 5 of 12

The defendant has specifically shown that he does not believe in obeying
federal court orders. The defendant traveled to Nevada to support the
efforts to thwart the BLM officers enforcement of multiple legitimate
federal court orders on April 12, 2014. The defendants own reporting
claims that the justification for this confrontation is a corrupt court
system . . . .

1
2
3
4
5

ECF No. 406 at 2.

As to danger to the community, the Court found as follows:

The defendant is charged with crimes of violence involving the use of

weapons for which the law creates a rebuttable presumption that he
should be detained . . . . [t]he defendant did not provide sufficient
evidence to rebut the presumption of detention. Because pretrial
release, even with strict conditions, depends on the defendants goodfaith compliance with a federal court order, there are no conditions or
set of condition that reasonably assure the defendants appearance and
the safety of the community.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Id.
Following his de novo detention hearing, Santilli was returned to Oregon to
stand trial on the charges pending against him in the Oregon case. Meanwhile, he
appealed from the Nevada Detention Order to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, which subsequently affirmed the Order. ECF No. 598, 601.
On September 16, 2016, the District Court in Oregon dismissed the charges

18

against Santilli in the Oregon case on the governments motion, the motion stating

19

that because of evidentiary rulings that excluded evidence against Santilli, the ends

20

of justice no longer supported the pursuit of those charges against him. Oregon

21

Case, No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR, ECF No. 1199.

22

Oregon case, Santilli was transferred to the District of Nevada where he awaits trial

23

on the Superseding Indictment, trial being set for February 6, 2017.

24
5

Following his dismissal from the

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 844 Filed 10/11/16 Page 6 of 12

Santilli filed this Motion to re-open his detention hearing on September 28,

2016, claiming that his dismissal from the Oregon case warrants reopening of the

detention hearing and release him on conditions. As explained more fully below,

the Motion should be denied. Santillis dismissal from the Oregon case is not new

and material in fact, it is wholly irrelevant.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Bail Reform Act provides as follows:

The [detention] hearing may be reopened, before or after a

determination by the judicial officer, at any time before trial if the
judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the
movant at the time of hearing and that has a material bearing on the
issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure
the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other
person and the community.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

18 U.S.C. 3142(f)(2).
Courts strictly interpret this provision. United States v. Turino, No. 2:09
cr132JADGWF, 2014 WL 5261292, at *1 (D. NV Oct. 15, 2014) (if evidence was
available at the original hearing, no rehearing is granted); United States v. Flores,
856 F.Supp. 1400, 1405 (E.D. Cal. 1995) (There are very few proceedings in federal

18

practice which encourage a party to be less than diligent in bringing forth all

19

material evidence the first time a hearing is held . . . A rule that would not

20

discourage a party for failing to acquire readily available evidence for presentation

21

the first time is a rule that encourages piecemeal presentations. Judicial efficiency

22

is not served by such a practice.) (citations omitted).

23
24
6

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 844 Filed 10/11/16 Page 7 of 12

ARGUMENT

1
2

Santilli has been charged by a federal grand jury in Nevada with being a co-

conspirator in a massive armed assault on, and violent extortion of, federal law

enforcement officers while the officers were executing their lawful duties. The 63-

page Superseding Indictment sets out Santillis role in the conspiracy and details

the unfolding of the plan to extort and assault the officers.

In issuing the Detention Order, the Court correctly found that the

presumption of detention applied under Section 3142(e)(3)(B), Santilli having been

charged with a four counts of brandishing a firearm in relation to crimes of violence

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(c). After considering the
Superseding Indictment, the arguments and proffers of counsel, the Court found
that Santilli failed to rebut the presumption of detention arising from the charges
in this case, and that he presented both a risk of nonappearance and danger to the
safety of the community.
There is nothing about Santillis dismissal from the Oregon case that rebuts
the presumption found in the Nevada case. And Santilli presents nothing in his

18

Motion to show otherwise, making, instead, the very same specious claim that has

19

failed him three times before: that he was engaged in First Amendment protected

20

speech and the government would like nothing more than to silence the media.

21

Motion at 4.

22
23

The Detention Order squarely addressed Santillis conduct at issue here,

and it has nothing to do with the First Amendment:

24
7

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 844 Filed 10/11/16 Page 8 of 12

[T]he weight of the evidence is very strong, including photographs,

videos, audio recordings, social media postings, the defendants own
admissions, and witness testimony. The Government proffered credible
evidence that the defendant recruited gunmen, led an assault,
threatened violence upon law enforcement, and ambushed a BLM
convoy. The defendant conducted reconnaissance at the hotel where the
BLM employees were staying, including asking the hotel receptionist for
information about the BLM employees. [ ] There is no evidence that the
defendants involvement was mere puffery as a sensationalist media
outlet or that the defendant exaggerated anything to increase
viewership by creating some sense of excitement or drama.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

ECF No. 406 at 2.

Santillis dismissal from the Oregon case does not change, or in any way affect, those

findings, or any other findings made by the District Court.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Santilli claims the Oregon and Nevada case are identical. Mot. at 2. In fact,
the opposite is true: the two cases involve different charges, different facts, and
different times. The Oregon case did not charge Santilli with four counts of use and
carry of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence; it did not charge him with
extortion by force and violence and assault on a federal law enforcement officer; and
it did not charge him with conspiracy and aiding and abetting to commit same, all
arising from the events of April 9 and 12, 2014. Santillis spin to the contrary, the

18

similarity between the two cases begins and ends with the fact that Santilli was

19

charged in both cases. Beyond that, the Oregon case has no relevance to the Nevada

20

case.

21

Further, while the Detention Order mentions the Oregon case, it is only in

22

the context of Santillis demonstrated refusal to follow federal court orders, the

23

Court noting that after attempting to thwart the BLMs execution of court orders in

24
8

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 844 Filed 10/11/16 Page 9 of 12

Nevada, threatening the BLM SAC, and claiming that the court system is corrupt,

Santilli travelled to Oregon to help convince two convicted criminal defendants not

to self-surrender to the prison to begin serving their sentences. ECF No. 406 at 2.

The Court noted, in this regard, that Santilli faced criminal charges in the District

of Oregon for his involvement in that event, but went on to state that Santilli was

indicted on 16 counts in the Nevada case, each of which presented the possibility of

a substantial term of prison if found guilty, creating a strong incentive to flee.

ECF No. 406 at 2.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Nothing about the dismissal of the Oregon case changes the fact that Santilli
will continue to disregard federal law, that he believes and claims that the federal
courts are corrupt, that he threatened that the and others would assault the BLM
SAC again if he ever again attempted to enforce the Court Orders against Cliven
Bundy, that he traveled to Oregon to encourage others to disregard court orders, or
that he still has a strong incentive to flee based on the severity of the sentence he
faces if found guilty in the Nevada case.
Incredibly, Santilli offers a list of potential conditions of release but offers

18

nothing to demonstrate that he would follow any one of them, completely ignoring

19

his well-established record for disregarding federal courts. His assault on the law

20

enforcement officers on April 9 and 12, 2014, and his subsequent threats to do it

21

again, show his utter disdain for this Court, for this Courts Orders, and for those

22

who try to enforce them. There is nothing about Santillis dismissal in the Oregon

23

case that has magically transformed him into a law abiding citizen. And Santilli

24
9

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 844 Filed 10/11/16 Page 10 of 12

has provided nothing in his Motion to show why the Court should not believe him

when he says he will do the exact same thing again.

Santilli further likens himself to members of the Hells Angels, proclaiming

that Pretrial Services can protect the community from him. Mot. at 4. But he does

not explain how this fanciful claim overcomes the unrebutted presumption of the

danger he presents to the community, or how and why he would treat Pretrial

Services any differently than he treated BLM when attempting to enforce this

Courts Orders.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

In sum, Santillis dismissal from the Oregon case is irrelevant to his

detention in this case and thus offers nothing new and material. There is nothing
about his dismissal there that undercuts the findings here that he is unlikely to
follow any orders to appear that issue from this Court and, moreover, that he
presents a significant risk of danger to the safety of the community based on the
serious crimes of violence with which he is charged. The Motion should, therefore,
be denied.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
10

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 844 Filed 10/11/16 Page 11 of 12

CONCLUSION

1
2

WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully

requests that the Court enter an Order denying Santillis Motion to Reopen the

Detention Hearing.

DATED this 11th day of October, 2016.

6
7
8
9

Respectfully,
DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney

13

//s//
______________________________
STEVEN W. MYHRE
NICHOLAS D. DICKINSON
Assistant United States Attorneys
NADIA J. AHMED
ERIN M. CREEGAN
Special Assistant United States Attorneys

14

Attorneys for the United States

10
11
12

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
11

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 844 Filed 10/11/16 Page 12 of 12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I am an employee of the United States Attorneys Office. A copy

of the foregoing GOVERNMENTS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANT SANTILLIS MOTION TO REOPEN DETENTION HEARING

was served upon counsel of record, via Electronic Case Filing (ECF).

DATED this 11th day of October, 2016.

7
8
9
10

/s/ Steven W. Myhre

______________________________
STEVEN W. MYHRE
Assistant United State Attorney

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
12