Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 688 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5

CHRIS T. RASMUSSEN, ESQ.

Nevada Bar. No. 7149
RASMUSSEN & KANG, LLC.
330 South Third Street, Suite 1010
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
(702) 464-6007
(702) 464-6009 (Fax)
chris@rasmussenkang.com
Attorney for Peter Santilli

6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

***

10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

PETER SANTILLI,

14

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cr-0046-GMN-PAL

MOTION TO REOPEN DETENTION
HEARING

15
16
17

Defendant, Peter Santilli, by and through counsel undersigned, Chris T.

Rasmussen, Esq., submits the following Motion to Reopen Detention Hearing

18
19
20
21

This Motion is based upon Title 18, United States Code, Sec. 3142(f)(2)(B), as there
is information that was unknown at the time of Santillis prior detention hearing.
Dated this 28th day of September, 2016

22
/s/ Chris T. Rasmussen
23
24
25
26
27
28

_______________________________
CHRIS T. RASMUSSEN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar. No. 7149
RASMUSSEN & KANG, LLC.
330 South Third Street, Suite 1010
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
(702) 464-6007
(702) 464-6009 (Fax)
Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 688 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 5

1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
3
Santilli made his first appearance in the State of Oregon after being arrested for
4
charges relating to his presence at a wildlife preserve on January 27, 2016. He was
5
detained until a detention hearing could be held on January 29, 2016. On February 1,
6
2016, an Oregon Judge ordered him detained.
7
On May 12, 2016, this Court issued an Order of Detention. Dk. 406. Since the
8
prior review of detention conducted by this Court, Santillis Oregon case was dismissed
9
upon Motion by the Government. (Exhibit A & B). Santilli has been transported back to
10
the District of Nevada to stand trial in the instant case.
11
1.

New Information

12
Santilli was indicted in the District of Oregon for charges stemming from a protest
13
that took place at a bird refuge in the Burns, Oregon area. The prosecutions case in
14
Oregon mirrors the conduct alleged against Santilli in Nevada. (Oregon Prosecution
15
Summary of Facts, Ex. C). The government in the District of Oregon, after consulting
16
with the Department of Justice in Washington D.C., motioned the court that they were
17
requesting that the judge dismiss the case. It was obvious from the evidence on the
18
eve of jury selection that Santillis role as a journalism and his advocacy speech did not
19
violate federal law. In Oregon, Santilli was accused of the same type of speech that
20
took place Nevada. His calls for open carry protests on the internet were protected
21
speech in the eyes of the government in Oregon and should receive the same
22
evaluation and result in Nevada.
23
24
A.

The Oregon Speech and Conduct that the Government Dismissed is

25
Identical to Santillis Alleged Conduct in Nevada
26
The indictment in this case covers a time span which includes the Oregon
27
indictment conduct. In Oregon, the allegations are identical according to the factual
28
-2-

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 688 Filed 09/28/16 Page 3 of 5

summary produced by the government:

defendant called for 100,000 men to come to the refuge;

defendant threatened to crush the FBI and called f or reinforcements;

defendants says not to bring a butter knife to a gun fight;

defendant broadcasts all you good patriots, its time to staff up;

defendant is seen filming an FBI checkpoint and than leaving with militia
members;

7
8

defendant filmed the theft of FBI cameras and is seen handling them;

defendant was seen threatening counter protestors;

10

defendant was overheard buying hotel rooms in Burns, Oregon for people
to come;

11
12

defendant posted 682 pages of stolen government property.

13

The prosecutors in Nevada allege similar speech related conduct. The

14

indictment in the instant case alleges that Santilli called people who could legally carry

15

to come to Nevada to protest and stand up to the BLM. T hese statements were made

16

from a studio in California and are protected forms of speech.

17

In a prior hearings the government prosecutors in Nevada sought to detain

18

Santilli because his behavior was anti-government, and orders from the court would be

19

ignored. However, as these same allegations were made in Oregon, just the opposite

20

took place. As the government became more familiar with Santilli as an advocacy

21

journalist it became obvious to prosecutors that his role was to present the side of those

22

opposed to government control of public lands and not a violent insurrection.

23

Although the government would like nothing more than to silence the media who

24

has covered the dispute between the Bundy family and them that is opposite to their

25

narrative. The First Amendment protects Santillis speech and passion to cover the

26

ordeal, regardless as to whether the government dislikes the content of his reporting.

27
28

The language in the governments indictment regarding Santillis speech is

protected under Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969). The language that is
-3-

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 688 Filed 09/28/16 Page 4 of 5

quoted in the indictment comports with lawful activity. Santillis request for people to

assemble and protest the BLMs conduct at Bundy Ranch, if they are legally allowed to

carry in Nevada to bring your weapon to demonstrate. (Indictment, Paragraph 62).

Open carry protests are lawful and conducted throughout the United States as a

protected form of First Amendment political speech.

2.

There are conditions that can assure the court that Santilli is not a threat or a

flight risk. The following conditions would alleviate the concern the government has

regarding Santilli:

10

1.

Proposed Conditions of Pretrial Release

Home Confinement in the District of Nevada within Clark County with GPS
monitoring;

11
12

2.

Surrender any passports if they exist;

13

3.

No access to computers or the internet;

14

4.

Any other combination of conditions the Court or Pretrial Services

15
16

recommends.
Our Pretrial Services office has a long history of protecting the community from

17

defendants on pretrial supervision. In the case of United States v. Charles Acosta, this

18

Court allowed members of the Hells Angels to remain free on personal recognizance

19

bonds in a case that alleged they murdered four people in a casino in Laughlin,

20

Nevada. Pretrial Services in that case had no memorable issues with any of the Hells

21

Angels members and were able to insure they made their court appearance and were

22

not involved in criminal activity during the long pretrial stage of that case.

23
24

It is unreasonable to believe that the a Pretrial Services officer could not keep
Santilli on home detention with gps monitoring.

25

As this Court is aware, Santilli has no criminal history and no weapons during the

26

protests at Bundy Ranch. There are serious legal issues related to the 924c charged in

27

the indictment with the recent developments in case law surrounding what a crime of

28

violence actually means for purposes of this enhancement. These issues will be
-4-

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 688 Filed 09/28/16 Page 5 of 5

aggressively litigated.
CONCLUSION

2
3

Santilli requests that based on the dismissal of charges in Oregon that mirror the

First Amendment protected speech in this case, an order to release Santilli w ith

conditions be issued forthwith.

DATED this 28th day of September, 2016.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

/s/ Chris T. Rasmussen

_______________________________
CHRIS T. RASMUSSEN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar. No. 7149
RASMUSSEN & KANG, LLC.
330 South Third Street, Suite 1010
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
(702) 464-6007
(702) 464-6009 (Fax)
Attorney for Peter Santilli

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-