Cliven Bundy v. USDC-NVL

Filing

FILED PER CURIAM OPINION (WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, RONALD M. GOULD and JAY S. BYBEE) (Judge RMG Dissenting) DENIED. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [10377743]

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 1 of 37

Investigative Report of
Ethical Violations and Misconduct
by
Bureau of Land Management Officials

-

o. 17

cited

ndy
in Bu

L, N
C-NV

ed

rchiv

0a
7070

pril
on A

D

v. US

Date Posted to Web: January 30, 2017

This is a version of the report prepared for public release.

17
4, 20

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 2 of 37

SYNOPSIS
We initiated an investigation in October 2015, after receiving two anonymous complaints
concerning a Supervisory Agent, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Office of Law
Enforcement and Security (OLES), Salt Lake City, UT.
The first complaint, received in September 2015, concerned the 2015 Burning Man event held
annually in northwestern Nevada. The complaint alleged that—
the Supervisory Agent used his official position to provide preferential treatment to his
family members while attending the event;
the Supervisory Agent directed five on-duty BLM law enforcement officers to escort his
family and provide security for them at the event;
the Supervisory Agent’s family received unauthorized access to the Incident Command
Post (ICP); and
the Supervisory Agent’s family received overnight lodging in BLM-leased facilities.
The second complaint, also received in September 2015, alleged that the Supervisory Agent
improperly intervened in the April 2015 hiring process for a BLM special agent position after he
learned that a friend did not make the initial list of candidates to be interviewed.

17
4, 20
April
During our investigation, we received an additional complaint indSeptember 2016, alleging that
n
e o
the Supervisory Agent drove around with his girlfriend0in archiBLM vehicle while working at the
his v
0
707
2015 Burning Man event. The employees whooprovided details of the misuse stated that they had
. 17,N
-NVL
not fully disclosed this in prior interviews because they feared reprisal from the Supervisory
SDC
v. U
Agent.
ndy
n Bu
i
cited

We substantiated all but one of the allegations associated with the 2015 Burning Man event.

We found that the Supervisory Agent violated Federal ethics rules when he used his influence
with Burning Man officials to obtain three sold-out tickets and special passes for his father,
girlfriend, and a family friend. In addition, we confirmed that he directed on-duty BLM law
enforcement employees to drive and escort his family during the event with BLM-procured, allterrain and utility type vehicles (ATVs/UTVs). Regarding the allegation of improper access to
ICP by the Supervisory Agent’s family, we found that was not against BLM policy. We
confirmed that the Supervisory Agent’s girlfriend stayed overnight with him in his BLM
assigned trailer, contrary to restrictions in the operations plan for the event. The Supervisory
Agent also violated Federal ethics regulations by having a subordinate employee make a hotel
reservation for his guests. On at least one occasion, he misused his BLM official vehicle when he
transported his girlfriend while at the event.
We interviewed BLM OLES Director Salvatore Lauro who stated that he took no action when he
saw the Supervisory Agent use ATVs and BLM personnel to transport his (the Supervisory
Agent’s) family. In addition, Lauro knew the Supervisory Agent allowed his girlfriend to share
his BLM overnight lodging accommodations during the event.

1

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 3 of 37

We also confirmed that the Supervisory Agent intervened in the hiring process by increasing the
number of candidates that would be interviewed. As a result, the Supervisory Agent’s friend,
who had worked with the Supervisory Agent as a Federal air marshal received an interview and
was ultimately hired as a BLM special agent.
During our investigation, the Supervisory Agent displayed a lack of candor when interviewed
and tried to influence an employee’s comments prior to an interview.
BACKGROUND
Burning Man, an annual gathering attended by thousands of people on BLM-managed Black
Rock Desert, is organized by the Burning Man Project, a nonprofit organization, and its forprofit subsidiary, Black Rock City LLC (BRC). The permit issued by BLM to BRC showed the
event was held from August 30 to September 7, 2015, and was limited to 70,000 paid
participants. Interviewees stated that event attendees actually totaled about 80,000 individuals
when vendors and support personnel were also counted.
OLES Director Salvatore Lauro identified OLES’ major concern at Burning Man as potential
mass casualty from fire-related artwork. He also referred to past BLM enforcement actions that
resulted in crowd behavior and the need for tasers. The BLM OLES Official said that Burning
Man had a history of illegal drugs, assaults, violence, and other criminal activity, in spite of its
17
largely peaceful reputation. As a result, approximately 70 BLM law enforcement officers were
4, 20
April
on
assigned to the event. The BLM OLES Official also said thaththedSupervisory Agent prepared the
ive
arc
operational plan, then briefed the BLM OLES Official 00 Lauro. He also said that the
07 and
17-7
Supervisory Agent remained in command of No.
, operations, although Lauro attended the event.
NVL
DC-

. US

cited

in

yv
Bund

DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION

On October 7, 2015, we initiated this investigation after receiving two anonymous complaints.
The first complaint, sent by email to BLM Director Neil Kornze on September 9, 2015, and
copying the Office of Inspector General (OIG), came from the private email address of an
unidentified BLM employee. The complaint stated that a Supervisory Agent had engaged in
misconduct and ethical violations at the 2015 Burning Man event. Specifically, the Supervisory
Agent used his influence to obtain tickets to the event for family members; he also permitted his
family members to visit the ICP and receive overnight lodging at BLM-leased facilities. The
complaint also alleged that he directed five BLM law enforcement personnel to provide his
family members with an escort and tour through BRC, using BLM-procured all-terrain and
utility type vehicles while the officers were on official duty at the event.
The second complaint, also submitted on September 9, 2015, alleged that the Supervisory Agent
committed an unfair hiring practice in April 2015 when he intervened on behalf of a friend
applying for a BLM special agent position.
A third complaint, received in September 2016 near the end of our investigation, alleged that the
Supervisory Agent misused his Government vehicle when he used it to drive around with his
girlfriend during the 2015 Burning Man event.
2

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 4 of 37

Supervisory Agent’s Misconduct at Burning Man
Supervisory Agent Seeks Favor from Prohibited Source
During our investigation, we found that the Supervisory Agent obtained three full-event Burning
Man tickets for “family” members identified as his father, a family friend, and the Supervisory
Agent’s girlfriend. At the time he bought the tickets, those available to the public had been sold
out. The Supervisory Agent used his contacts and relationships with Burning Man officials to
obtain the tickets. Federal ethics regulations prohibit soliciting gifts from a prohibited source.
See 5 C.F.R. § 2635.202(a). Ethics regulations also prohibit Federal employees from using any
authority associated with their public position for the private gain of friends and relatives. See 5
C.F.R. § 2635.702.
As part of our email review, we found that, as early as February 27, 2015, the Supervisory Agent
told a BRC Attorney that he was considering bringing his parents to the 2015 event to honor a
relative’s passing at the Burning Man temple ceremony. He wrote that he might bring his parents
with the BRC Attorney’s help and approval.
We also found that the Supervisory Agent had discussed obtaining tickets with a former BLM
Special Agent serving as a current reemployed annuitant hired as a special project manager for
the event. The former BLM Special Agent reported three conversations with the Supervisory
17
4, 20
Agent:
April
n
ived

rch
00 a

o

The Supervisory Agent asked if he could17-707 tickets for $50 each through a program
purchase
No.
offered to locals, but the former-NVL, Special Agent informed him that his family
BLM
DC
.
members did not qualify. US
dy v
n
in Bu
The Supervisory Agent then informed him that he intended to purchase the tickets from
cited
BRC officials at a discount; the former BLM Special Agent urged him not to do this
because of the Supervisory Agent’s bad publicity concerning demands for expensive
items purchased by BRC for BLM’s use at the event.
Agent’s Note: In 2015, a newspaper published an article stating that a letter [went] to Secretary
Jewell, expressing concerns with "providing outlandishly unnecessary facilities for BLM and its
guests" at the 2015 event. The article also stated that the Supervisory Agent had been citied
multiple times as the person behind many of the BLM requests, and further stated that BLM
wanted Burning Man to provide a $1 million luxury compound.
During his third conversation with the Supervisory Agent, the Supervisory Agent
informed the former BLM Special Agent that he had purchased full price tickets from the
BRC Attorney, with whom the Supervisory Agent had a good relationship.
A September 3, 2015 email from the BRC Attorney to the Supervisory Agent at the time of the
event cited the BRC Attorney’s willingness to offer four regularly priced tickets as a courtesy to
the Supervisory Agent’s family. The BRC Attorney further stated that BRC held tickets at the
Box Office for unique situations that arose after tickets were sold out and that he was happy to
offer the tickets to the Supervisory Agent.

3

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 5 of 37

During his interview, the BRC Attorney said that the Supervisory Agent had either telephoned or
sent him a text message asking for three tickets for his family members just before he sent the
Supervisory Agent the September 3, 2015 email. The Supervisory Agent knew that regular
tickets for the event were sold out but that BRC also held back about 100 tickets for special
requests and needs. The Supervisory Agent approached the BRC Attorney to purchase tickets for
his family, but wanted the tickets at the regular price because of scrutiny surrounding his role in
BLM’s request for the luxury compound. The BRC Attorney forwarded OIG investigators an
email dated September 5, 2015, showing three tickets charged to the Supervisory Agent’s
personal credit card at $390 each, with a processing fee of $19 each, for a total of $1,227.
Lauro also reported that the Supervisory Agent showed him a receipt for approximately $1,200
paid on his personal credit card so that his family could attend the event. Lauro told the
Supervisory Agent it was “probably the best $1,200 you’ve ever spent because it’s going to turn,
we know it’s going to turn into a complaint.” He said the Supervisory Agent was upfront with
him regarding his family’s attendance, having tried to make sure he did not violate any policies.
Lauro knew that the Supervisory Agent had purchased tickets at full price with personal funds,
and said that the Supervisory Agent “knows people are looking.” We also found that the
Supervisory Agent had discussed the ticket purchase with several BLM law enforcement
personnel, who each felt that the Supervisory Agent wanted to make them aware that he had paid
full price for the tickets.
17
4, 20
April OLES personnel from
Lauro and a BLM OLES Official both indicated that no policy prohibited
n
ed o
having family members attend the event. Lauro said that0he chiv
ar attended the event and knew that the
7070
Supervisory Agent’s family also attended. Theofamily specifically visited the temple, which the
. 17,N
Supervisory Agent helped to construct.-NVLsaid that the Supervisory Agent was allowed to cut a
He
SDC
U
piece of wood and place Buin y v. temple in memory of a family member. The BLM OLES
it nd the
n
i
Official confirmeditthat two of the Supervisory Agent’s family members, as well as his girlfriend,
c ed

had attended a portion of the event for which the Supervisory Agent had placed a board in the
temple in his family member’s memory.

The Supervisory Agent also sent an earlier email to the BRC Attorney on August 26, 2015, in
which he attached photographs depicting his significant temple construction efforts. In the photo,
the Supervisory Agent wears his law enforcement equipment and firearm, and a shirt identifying
him as a Federal agent.
The Supervisory Agent’s account of his conversations with the former BLM Special Agent and
the BRC Attorney differed from their accounts, however. He said the former Special Agent told
him he was an “idiot” to pay full price. The Supervisory Agent said that when he went to the
BRC Attorney to find a ticket option that would bring less scrutiny, he generally knew that
tickets available for public attendance had been sold out, but he did not know that the BRC
Attorney had extra tickets. He said that he told the BRC Attorney he did not want special
treatment because of his position.
Supervisory Agent Seeks Favor from BRC for Special Passes to Man Burn
During our investigation, we learned that the Supervisory Agent had asked a BRC Official for
three special passes so that his family could watch the Man Burn, the high point of the Burning
4

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 6 of 37

Man event when an effigy is burned at the temple. The passes, which have no face value but
which are not available to the public, gave access to the inner perimeter on the night of
September 5, 2015. Our interviews of BRC officials revealed that the inner perimeter was
considered a privileged location, reserved primarily for BRC, pyrotechnics, and emergency
services staff. The BRC Attorney told us that a BRC Official controlled the special passes and
that they had never before been provided to a BLM employee’s family members.
When interviewed, the BRC Official said that the Supervisory Agent had asked on Saturday
afternoon, September 5, for three passes so that his family could attend the 10:00 p.m. Man Burn
that night. The BRC Official confirmed that access to the inner perimeter was a special privilege
and never previously requested by or given to a BLM official or law enforcement official. When
asked if the Supervisory Agent’s position had influenced the availability of the passes, the BRC
Official said that there had been apprehension at first because it seemed “a little strange.” The
BRC Official still gave the Supervisory Agent the passes because being gracious was part of the
Burning Man culture. Federal ethics regulations prohibit soliciting gifts from a prohibited source.
See 5 C.F.R. § 2635.202(a). Ethics regulations also prohibit Federal employees from using any
authority associated with their public position for the private gain of friends and relatives. See 5
C.F.R. § 2635.702.
The Supervisory Agent said that the BRC Official had given him special laminated passes so that
his family could watch from the inner perimeter, but he did not necessarily,consider it a special
17
4 20
April
privilege.
d on
e

rchiv

0a
7070

During the interview, the BRC Official indicated1that the Supervisory Agent was on official duty
o. 7
VL, N were all law enforcement officers who were on
while in the inner perimeter with hisDfamily, as
C-N
. US
dy v the event. A review of the Supervisory Agent’s time and
official business while present at
n
in Bu
attendance recordsitshowed that he was on official duty while at the Man Burn during the night of
c ed
September 5, 2015. The review showed that he claimed 24 hours of official work time for
Saturday, September 5, the day of the Man Burn. He also claimed 24 hours of official work time
for Sunday, September 6, and again on Monday, September 7.

Supervisory Agent’s Misuse of OLES Personnel and BLM-Procured, All-Terrain and Utility
Type Vehicles
OLES personnel confirmed that the Supervisory Agent directed five on duty BLM law
enforcement officials to drive, escort, and provide security for his family at the 2015 Burning
Man event. A BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent said the Supervisory Agent asked him to
take the Supervisory Agent’s family with him on his daily route around the event’s playa. He
transported the Supervisory Agent’s father, family friend, and girlfriend on a BLM-procured
Kubota utility vehicle while also performing his official duties. BLM Special Agents confirmed
that they saw a BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent transporting the Supervisory Agent’s
family in a utility vehicle at the event.
A BLM OLES Contracting Officer confirmed seeing the Supervisory Agent’s father, girlfriend,
and another man getting out of a Kubota utility vehicle, which she had procured for OLES to use
during the event. A BLM OLES Contracting Officer provided a copy of a

5

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 7 of 37

“Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items,” dated August 8, 2015, confirming the
Federal procurement. Federal law prohibits the use of Government owned or leased passenger
vehicles for unofficial purposes. See 31 U.S.C. §§ 1344(a) and 1349(b).
A BLM Special Agent further stated that the Supervisory Agent had directed him and another
BLM Special Agent, as well as two BLM law enforcement officers to accompany his family
around the event. They drove in separate all-terrain vehicles known as Razors. At one point, they
all met up with the Supervisory Agent, BLM OLES Director Lauro, and former Department of
the Interior OLES Director Harry Humbert.
A BLM Supervisory Law Enforcement Ranger also stated that at about 2:00 p.m. on September
5, 2015, the Supervisory Agent asked him to accompany Lauro, Humbert, and himself on a tour
of the event. The four of them met up with another BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent, who
drove a Kubota utility vehicle with the Supervisory Agent’s father, family friend, and girlfriend
as passengers. A BLM Supervisory Law Enforcement Ranger said that the vehicles stopped at
the temple, then drove around the playa looking at the art. They also went to an area known as
the District, where several thousand people gathered to listen to and provide music. He said that
the tour lasted 3 to 4 hours.
The BLM Supervisory Law Enforcement Ranger noted that the utility vehicles had been used to
transport Government officials (e.g., a U.S. attorney, a BLM Official, and a 2017 Solicitor
DOI
4,
April
Official), but that the vehicles had never been used to transport BLM OLES family members on
on
ived
a tour with a law enforcement escort. He said a tie to the0Government always occurred when the
arch
070
utility vehicles were used for transportation. NoBLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent informed
A . 17-7
,
us, however, that the former BLM SDC-NVL
Special Agent’s wife had routinely attended the event and
U
y v.
received a tour on a utilityuvehicle.
B nd
cited

in

A BLM OLES Budget Analyst said the Supervisory Agent’s father, family friend, and girlfriend
toured the Burning Man event with Lauro and Humbert. She also said that other law enforcement
personnel had their family members visit the event and that it was a common practice; however,
the Supervisory Agent’s family were the only non-law enforcement personnel provided a tour
that day.
During his interview, the Supervisory Agent confirmed that he oversaw all BLM law
enforcement personnel assigned to the event, while also confirming that another BLM
Supervisory Agent, a BLM Supervisory Law Enforcement Ranger, a BLM Law Enforcement
Officer and BLM Special Agents had been his subordinates during that time. The Supervisory
Agent confirmed that he had asked a BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent and other BLM law
enforcement personnel to accompany his family on a tour of the event and that all OLES law
enforcement officers were on official duty and in uniform when this occurred. The Supervisory
Agent also said that the Kubota utility vehicle had been used routinely to transport the public
because it had been rented, rather than owned by BLM.
Contrary to the Supervisory Agent, a BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent did say that law
enforcement officers typically did not escort or transport the public in the utility vehicles. He
said that the Supervisory Agent’s family received transportation, as well as preferential

6

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 8 of 37

treatment, because of the Supervisory Agent.
Lauro’s Knowledge of the Supervisory Agent’s Actions
We questioned Lauro about the Supervisory Agent’s use of BLM’s law enforcement officials
and Government procured vehicles to transport the Supervisory Agent’s family and give them a
tour of the Burning Man event. Lauro acknowledged that he saw a BLM Subordinate
Supervisory Agent driving the Supervisory Agent’s family members during the event and stated
that the Supervisory Agent told him his family was coming and that his girlfriend was staying in
the trailer. He denied knowing that the BLM law enforcement officers riding nearby were a
security escort, as well as whether the vehicle that a BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent drove
was a leased BLM ATV or belonged to the Sheriff’s department. He said the use of ATVs and
BLM personnel to transport the Supervisory Agent’s family, in addition to the use of BLM
lodging might be considered “technical” violations, especially since, as the Supervisory Agent’s
second level supervisor, he did not see anything that led him to tell the Supervisory Agent to
stop. He explained the “reality” is we “regularly” drive non-government people. He stated he did
not feel that the Supervisory Agent’s family received preferential treatment. He also said he
would not have let a BLM law enforcement officer’s family who had lost a loved one travel
around the event on their own. Lauro added, however, that he and the Supervisory Agent had
discussed the potential for an IG complaint, saying “in fact we probably could have written it
7
before it happened because he’s had like eight anonymous complaints in the2last two years.”
, 01
ril 4

n Ap

do
chive

When interviewed, Humbert said he did not know that 00 autility vehicles used to transport the
the r
07
17-7
Supervisory Agent’s family belonged to the Government. He added that, if they did, then
.
, No
Government vehicle use policies applied.VL
C-N When asked if he felt the Supervisory Agent’s family
D
v. US
members had received preferential treatment because of the Supervisory Agent’s position,
undy
nB
Humbert said, “I don’ti think there is any other way you can look at it.”
cited
Supervisory Agent’s Disregard for the Accommodations Directive and Allegations of Meals at
BLM’s Expense
The “Law Enforcement Operations Plan - Duties, Procedures, Protocols, and Rules Specific to
the 2015 Burning Man Event, dated August 11, 2015,” signed and approved by the Supervisory
Agent, stated: “Since many law enforcement officers will be sharing a room with another officer
during the Burning Man event, rooms are only for those persons assigned to the event.”
Agent’s Note: The operations plan is not provided as an attachment due to its sensitivity.
A BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent had been assigned to a BLM lodging trailer with the
Supervisory Agent. He confirmed that the Supervisory Agent’s girlfriend stayed 1 or 2 nights
with the Supervisory Agent in the trailer. She also shared meals prepared with food he and the
Supervisory Agent had purchased for the trailer. The BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent did
not know if the Supervisory Agent’s girlfriend received meals from the dining facility provided
for BLM employees.
When interviewed, the Supervisory Agent stated that his girlfriend stayed overnight with him in

7

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 9 of 37

his assigned lodging trailer, and that his father stayed the first night at a Marriott in Reno. He
said that on the second night his father stayed with his family’s friend. Regarding the lodging
rules cited in the Law Enforcement Operations Plan, the Supervisory Agent said “. . . it’s to keep
people from jumping rooms or moving rooms or trading rooms.”
During Lauro’s interview, he stated that the Supervisory Agent informed him his (the
Supervisory Agent’s) girlfriend would stay the night with him in the trailer. The Supervisory
Agent told him that he had checked with contracting and travel personnel and that there was no
violation since it was the same as staying in a hotel room together.
The Supervisory Agent’s Misuse of a Government-owned Vehicle
A BLM OLES Budget Analyst and a BLM OLES Contracting Officer contacted OIG near the
completion of our investigation to request additional interviews regarding information they had
not provided due to fear of retaliation.
Both provided details regarding the Supervisory Agent’s misuse of his assigned Government
vehicle, a silver Chevrolet Tahoe, while at the 2015 Burning Man event. According to an OLES
Budget Analyst, she and a Contracting Officer learned from the Supervisory Agent that his
girlfriend needed directions to the event. The Supervisory Agent told them that he might meet
her in his Government vehicle at a nearby community, then transport her to 2017
the event. The OLES
4,
April Agent against his
Budget Analyst and the OLES Contracting Officer warned the Supervisory
on
ived
plan, but the Supervisory Agent only appeared frustrated when he left.
arch
00
707

. 17-

o
VL, N

Later that night, according to the OLESN
C- Budget Analyst and the OLES Contracting Officer, the
USD
y .
Supervisory Agent drove updtovthem in the Government Tahoe when they were near a mobile
n
in Bu
substation. They observed the Supervisory Agent’s girlfriend in the Tahoe’s front passenger seat,
cited
when the Supervisory Agent told them to get into his vehicle. They refused. The Supervisory
Agent drove away when he saw someone approaching and became concerned that he would be
seen.
The next day, the Contracting Officer asked the Supervisory Agent why he had driven his
girlfriend in his Government vehicle. He responded to her, “You will forget that you saw that.”
During our investigation, we learned that a retired police officer and paramedic assigned to the
event had transported the Supervisory Agent’s family from the nearby community, although we
could not confirm the date or time. The retired police officer told us that, based upon a request
from the Supervisory Agent, he had met the Supervisory Agent’s family, then transported them
in his personal vehicle. He took them through the main entrance where he thought their tickets
were scanned, then dropped them off at the ICP where the Supervisory Agent waited for them.
During his interview on May 24, 2016, we asked the Supervisory Agent if he had transported his
girlfriend or other family members in his Government vehicle while at the event. He said he had
not, and that he had given orders not to transport his family in a Government vehicle.

8

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 10 of 37

Additional Statements by OLES Employees Regarding Lodging for the Supervisory Agent’s
Family
The BLM OLES Budget Analyst and the BLM OLES Contracting Officer provided additional
details about the Supervisory Agent’s intent to secure BLM lodging for his family. The BLM
OLES Budget Analyst stated that she had observed a phone conversation in which the
Supervisory Agent asked the former BLM Special Agent to reserve a travel trailer for overnight
use by his father and family friend. The conversation occurred while she, the Supervisory Agent,
and the BLM OLES Contracting Officer were outside the BLM State Office before they left for
Burning Man. The BLM OLES Budget Analyst did not know if the Supervisory Agent’s father
and family friend stayed overnight in the trailer, but the BLM OLES Contracting Officer said
that she used the Supervisory Agent’s Marriott rewards number to reserve a hotel room for his
father and family friend. The BLM OLES Contracting Officer did not know if they stayed
overnight in one of the lodging trailers. Federal ethics regulations prohibit supervisors from
encouraging or requesting subordinates to use their official time to perform unofficial duties such
as personal errands. See 5 C.F.R. § 2635.705(b).
Supervisory Agent’s Improper Influence in a Hiring Process
According to the second complaint, the Supervisory Agent increased the number of candidates
interviewed for a hiring action, which enabled a friend to be interviewed and 017 selected for
later
4, 2
April stated that the
the job instead of other more qualified candidates. The complaint further
n
ed o
rchiv
interviews were short, that the Supervisory Agent’s friendawho had applied for the position
00
-707
apparently received the questions in advance, and7that he was hired immediately after the
o. 1
,N
-NVL
interviews concluded.
SDC
ndy

Bu
ed in

v. U

We found that the iBLM OLES vacancy announcement resulted in two applicants being hired: a
ct
BLM Special Agent, formerly employed as a special agent for the U.S. Secret Service, and the
Supervisory Agent’s friend, formerly employed as an air marshal for the Supervisory Agent’s
previous employer, the Federal Air Marshals Service (FAMS).
Hiring for a BLM Special Agent Position
The BLM OLES Official said he had little involvement in the hiring process for the BLM special
agent position. He said the Supervisory Agent would have handled the hiring locally from a
single announcement that filled two positions in the Supervisory Agent’s office. He subsequently
discussed the hiring with the Supervisory Agent, who identified a “natural break” of 5 percent in
the resume scores at the 32nd candidate, which meant that a gap greater than one or two
percentage points between the scores occurred at this point. He said he was not concerned if a
friend of the Supervisory Agent applied for the position, as long as the Supervisory Agent
followed the human resources process.
The BLM OLES Official further stated that, while gathering documents for OIG’s investigation,
he learned from the Supervisory Agent that the Supervisory Agent’s friend had worked
previously with him as a Federal air marshal. The Supervisory Agent told him that their working
relationship had occurred years earlier, that he had not had contact with his friend (and special
agent job applicant) since they worked together, and that the two of them were not friends.
9

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 11 of 37

Our review of documents gathered by the BLM OLES Official revealed a schedule titled
“Resume Summary,” signed by the Supervisory Agent and dated April 16, 2015, showing the
combined scores of 121 unnamed applicants. This schedule also contained a handwritten
notation, citing a 5-percent break at the 32nd applicant. A separate schedule, also titled “Resume
Summary” but containing the names of the 121 applicants and their combined scores and
ranking, showed that the Supervisory Agent’s friend ranked 23rd out of 121 applicants.
Lauro stated that he did not know if the Supervisory Agent and the individual hired as a BLM
Special Agent were friends when the man was hired, but he assumed that the Supervisory Agent
probably knew the applicant since both worked for FAMS. He also did not know if the
Supervisory Agent halted the hiring process so that the individual would receive an interview.
When shown the Resume Summary and the various other hiring documents that the BLM OLES
Official provided, Lauro said that he would never interview 30 people for a position and hoped
that the Supervisory Agent had a good reason for his decision.
The Supervisory Agent’s Influence On the Hiring Process
A BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent said that he was designated as the selecting official for
the two BLM special agent positions, for which more than 200 applicants applied. The
Supervisory Agent had told him that an identified applicant’s skills, as well as his personality,
would fit well with the team and that he would like to give him a chance at, the1job. The BLM
20 7
ril 4
Apbeen hired because he
Subordinate Supervisory Agent said that the applicant should not have
on
ived
was not as qualified as the top candidates.
arch
00
707

. 17-

o
VL, N

A BLM Special Agent who was on both the resume review and interview panels said the
C-N
USD
Supervisory Agent taskedundy v. oversee the hiring process for the BLM special agent positions.
him to
nB
He also said that the d i
cite identified applicant had been discussed long before the applicant resumes
had been ranked. The Supervisory Agent previously asked him to speak with the identified
applicant on the telephone to discuss the hiring process, and the Supervisory Agent brought him
into the office to meet with the BLM Special Agent to discuss the job.
The BLM Special Agent said that when he and a BLM State Ranger scored the applicant
resumes, the identified applicant had ranked low, somewhere “in the forties” or lower. He further
stated that, although the BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent had intended to include only the
top 10 to 15 candidates in the interview cut-off, the Supervisory Agent intervened, moving the
cut-off to about the 30th applicant, which gave his friend, the identified applicant, an interview
and made it clear to the BLM Special Agent that the Supervisory Agent had moved the cut-off
for that purpose. He had concerns about the identified applicant’s law enforcement
qualifications, which did not match those of most criminal investigators.
The BLM State Ranger said that, while on assignment with other OLES employees, he and the
BLM Special Agent scored and ranked the applicant resumes, finding a natural break at a 3- to 5percent difference in the scoring after about the 13th applicant. He said that the identified
applicant ranked at about 30 among approximately 120 resumes. Since he and other OLES
employees had discussed the identified applicant, he knew the Supervisory Agent would not be
happy if the identified applicant did not receive an interview. He said the BLM Subordinate

10

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 12 of 37

Supervisory Agent later told him that the Supervisory Agent had interfered with and suspended
the process to ensure interviews for the top 30 candidates.
We also found that a BLM OLES Budget Analyst was assigned to handle certain administrative
tasks pertaining to the hiring process. These included preparing spreadsheets to reflect applicant
scores and rankings, and contacting applicants to arrange interviews. The BLM OLES Budget
Analyst confirmed that the Supervisory Agent had discussed his friend, the identified applicant,
with her and the other OLES employees many times to sell his qualifications. The Supervisory
Agent’s friend had visited the OLES office on several occasions, and the Supervisory Agent
required her and other OLES employees to accompany them to lunch. The Supervisory Agent
also told employees that everyone would like his friend, mentioning common interests his friend
shared with OLES employees. The BLM OLES Contracting Officer reported that, in March
2015, the Supervisory Agent sent a text saying that his friend would be visiting the office that
day. The Supervisory Agent wanted them all to go to lunch together. The BLM OLES
Contracting Officer complied because the Supervisory Agent was her immediate supervisor and
she feared he might retaliate if she refused.
The BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent felt that a definitive interview cut-off occurred about
the 12th or 13th applicant. He had several conversations with the Supervisory Agent about his
friend, the identified applicant; he said the Supervisory Agent knew that his friend did not rank
among the top 13. The BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent told the Supervisory Agent that his
2017
il 4,
AprEventually, the
friend was not the best candidate, but the Supervisory Agent disagreed.
n
ed o
Supervisory Agent suspended the hiring process because, archBLM Subordinate Supervisory
the iv
700
Agent believed, the Supervisory Agent wanted . 17-70
o his friend hired. The BLM Subordinate
,N
Supervisory Agent provided a seriesDof-NVL
emails, dated April 13, 2015, in which the Supervisory
S C
U
Agent said he was goingBunsuspend the hiring process until he could conduct a review. BLM’s
to dy v.
n
i
Subordinate Supervisory Agent said the Supervisory Agent suspended the process because he
cited
wanted to hire his friend.
During our second interview with the BLM OLES Budget Analyst, she denied she told the
Supervisory Agent his friend’s rank in the resume scoring. She told us during her final interview,
however, that she met with the Supervisory Agent after returning from the Las Vegas
assignment, and he looked at the rankings list without any names attached. The Supervisory
Agent marked and signed the list, establishing the interview cut-off. He then told the BLM
OLES Budget Analyst to let him know before proceeding with the interviews if the cut-off was
not low enough. The BLM OLES Budget Analyst said she understood that he wanted to know if
his friend did not make the cut-off because the Supervisory Agent had previously told her that he
wanted his friend to be interviewed.
The Supervisory Agent acknowledged his role as the approving official for the hiring process.
He said he stopped the process so that he could evaluate the rationale for selecting interview
candidates. He expressed concern because only 12 applicants had been selected out of a pool of
130, using only their scored resumes as justification.
The Supervisory Agent further stated that he increased the number of candidates because the 32nd
candidate marked the first 5-percent difference in scores and was the first natural break in the

11

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 13 of 37

list. He denied knowing where his friend ranked and that increasing the number of candidates
meant his friend received an interview.
Interviews of Applicants
The documents that the BLM OLES Official provided included one titled “First Round Interview
Schedule – Monday, April 20.” It showed that 28 applicants had been scheduled for interviews at
20-minute intervals. The document also included each applicant’s scores in response to four
questions asked during interviews with the BLM Special Agent and the Special Agent Panel
Member for Interviews. An interview rating summary showed that the Supervisory Agent’s
friend ranked fourth.
The BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent said that the Supervisory Agent had wanted short
applicant interviews with a definitive number of questions asked of all the candidates so that they
could demonstrate their verbal skills.
The BLM Special Agent and the Special Agent Panel Member for Interviews conducted the
interviews by telephone. Both indicated that the Supervisory Agent’s friend appeared to know
the questions in advance. When interviewed, the BLM Special Agent said that he, the
Supervisory Agent, and the Special Agent Panel Member for Interviews had developed the
questions, but that he no longer had them. The Special Agent Panel Member2for Interviews said
17
4, 0
April
the same.
d on
e

rchiv

0a
7070

The Special Agent Panel Member for Interviews1further stated that the Supervisory Agent’s
o. 7
VL, N the “zinger” question, which asked what
friend interviewed well and correctly C-N
answered
USD
percentage of the state wasndy v. land. She sensed that the Supervisory Agent’s friend had been
public
n Bu
given the questionsted i of time, based on the way he responded. She also said that everyone
ci ahead
knew the Supervisory Agent and the applicant he had identified for the position previously had
worked together.

The Supervisory Agent said that 10 questions had always been asked during previous interviews.
He did not know why only 4 questions were asked or if they were sufficient to consider hiring an
applicant. He denied that he provided the questions to his friend for his interview. When
interviewed, the Supervisory Agent’s friend said he had not received interview questions
beforehand.
Reference Checks for the Supervisory Agent’s Friend
The BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent said that he had contacted two individuals not listed as
references on the resume of the Supervisory Agent’s friend, both of whom had worked with the
friend on a Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) assignment. After speaking with them, the BLM
Subordinate Supervisory Agent reported to the Supervisory Agent that he had received
unfavorable feedback. The Supervisory Agent then contacted a FAM supervisor, who gave his
friend a favorable recommendation.

12

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 14 of 37

An intelligence analyst who had worked with the Supervisory Agent’s friend at JTTF told the
BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent that the Supervisory Agent’s friend did not respond to
requests for assistance or carry through with assigned tasks. A Federal Bureau of Investigation
special agent also assigned to JTTF did not recall being contacted by the BLM Subordinate
Supervisory Agent, but had talked with the Supervisory Agent’s friend about the Supervisory
Agent, whom she had known at JTTF. She also had seen both of them together. She said that
they appeared to be good friends.
A FAMS Special Agent reported that the Supervisory Agent had contacted him during his
friend’s reference check. He gave the Supervisory Agent’s friend a favorable recommendation.
He also said that the Supervisory Agent’s friend was a good employee with great character. He
said being a good employee had been required for the Supervisory Agent’s friend to be
considered for the JTTF assignment.
When interviewed, the Supervisory Agent’s friend said that he had known the Supervisory Agent
since April or May 2002 and that they had worked together at FAMS. At that time, he and the
Supervisory Agent also socialized periodically after business hours and on weekends with a
group of friends. This continued until the Supervisory Agent transferred to JTTF. He said that
the Supervisory Agent eventually transferred to BLM OLES in 2005 or 2006 and that they had
no further contact until the Supervisory Agent’s friend transferred to JTTF in 2012.
17
4, 20
April
While with JTTF, the Supervisory Agent’s friend reached out to d on Supervisory Agent to
the
e
discuss schools and homes in the area. He later pursued 0 archiv special agent position as his
the BLM
0
-707
JTTF assignment neared an end and as his wife.chose to remain in the area with their son. The
o 17
,N
Supervisory Agent contacted him 3 DCweeks after his BLM interview to inform him that he had
½ -NVL
S
U
been selected for the position. v.
ndy
n Bu
i
cited

In a May 5, 2015, email, the BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent notified the BLM OLES
Official that he and the Supervisory Agent had selected the Supervisory Agent’s friend for the
position. The email reflected that the BLM OLES Official subsequently notified OLES Director
Lauro of the selection.
The Supervisory Agent said that the BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent never told him that his
friend should not be hired or that he had concerns about his friend. The BLM Subordinate
Supervisory Agent also never told him why his friend was not the best person for the job. He
said the BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent also had every opportunity to tell the BLM OLES
Official if he thought hiring his friend was inappropriate.
The BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent said that although he disagreed with the Supervisory
Agent over hiring his friend, he ultimately selected the Supervisory Agent’s friend for the
position because “that's how life is and… it's his program.”

13

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 15 of 37

The Supervisory Agent’s Attempts to Influence Employee Testimony and Employee Concerns of
Retaliation
Several employees informed us that the Supervisory Agent had contacted them prior to and after
their interviews with OIG to influence them and to learn interview details. These employees
feared the Supervisory Agent would retaliate because of information they had provided.
A BLM State Ranger and a BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent both stated that the
Supervisory Agent contacted them before their interviews with OIG. The BLM State Ranger said
that the Supervisory Agent told him that saying “I don’t recall” was a valid answer when
responding to OIG’s questions. The BLM State Ranger said that the Supervisory Agent
contacted him after his interview. The Supervisory Agent asked him, “So do I still have a job or
did you get me fired?” He said the Supervisory Agent’s comments made him uncomfortable and
were an attempt to influence his testimony.
The BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent said that the Supervisory Agent gave him “stuff” to
say. For instance, he said that the Supervisory Agent told him to tell OIG investigators that wives
of sheriff’s department officers had also attended the Burning Man event and eaten at the
commissary, and that they had entered the event without paying. He further said that the
Supervisory Agent told him to tell OIG about ticket types that could be purchased and that the
7
former BLM Special Agent’s wife attended the event.
, 201
ril 4

n Ap

do
chive

Following his interview, the Supervisory Agent sent the0 ar Subordinate Supervisory Agent a
BLM
070
17-7 sheriff transporting his wife and son by
text message concerning a news article aboutNa .local
, o
helicopter to the Burning Man event. C-NVL text, the Supervisory Agent wrote, “Email that
In his
D
v. US
[article] to [OIG]! . . . Jesus!dI look like a choir boy!”
un y
B
cited

in

When interviewed, the Supervisory Agent acknowledged that he had conversations with the
BLM State Ranger, the former BLM Special Agent, the BLM Subordinate Supervisory Agent,
and another BLM State Ranger about OIG’s interview, but he denied that he attempted to
influence anyone’s testimony.
During her final interview, the BLM OLES Contracting Officer said that when she returned from
the Burning Man event, the Supervisory Agent informed her that two complaints had been filed
with OIG against him. She said the Supervisory Agent blamed her for the complaints and told
her that she needed to do damage control. She said he threatened to ruin her career if she did
anything against him.
The BLM OLES Contracting Officer also stated that during the return trip from Burning Man,
the Supervisory Agent had a copy of a complaint sent to OIG. She said that he accused another
BLM State Ranger of filing the complaint, and threatened to retaliate against the BLM
Supervisory Law Enforcement Ranger, as well as an additional BLM State Ranger for providing
OIG with information. She also stated that the Supervisory Agent later told her, “If you’re not on
my ship, you’re going to sink . . . . So I suggest you get on my ship.” As a result, she feared the
Supervisory Agent and kept her office door locked.

14

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 16 of 37

The BLM OLES Budget Analyst said the Supervisory Agent told her that he was going to ruin
the BLM Law Enforcement Ranger’s career. He bragged about ruining a BLM State Ranger’s
reputation with BLM State Directors and other managers. She said that shortly after the
Supervisory Agent changed positions, he had bragged to her that “he owned” Lauro and the
BLM OLES Official and that, as a result, no action could be taken against him.
The BLM OLES Budget Analyst further stated that a few weeks after the Supervisory Agent’s
removal from his position in the office, he sensed that she no longer wanted to interact with him.
She said he had called her into his office. The Supervisory Agent said, “You know, if you don’t
side with me, grenades are going to go off and you’ll get hit.”
SUBJECT(S)
1. Supervisory Agent, BLM OLES
2. Salvatore Lauro, Director, BLM OLES
DISPOSITION
We are forwarding our report of investigation to the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals
Management for any action deemed appropriate.

-

o. 17

cited

ndy
in Bu

L, N
C-NV

D

v. US

15

ed

rchiv

0a
7070

pril
on A

17
4, 20

cited

ndy
in Bu

v. U

-NV
SDC

L, N

-7
o. 17

070

hive
0 arc

d on

4, 2
April

017

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 17 of 37

cited

ndy
in Bu

v. U

-NV
SDC

L, N

-7
o. 17

070

hive
0 arc

d on

4,
April

2017

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 18 of 37

cited

ndy
in Bu

v. U

-NV
SDC

L, N

-7
o. 17

070

hive
0 arc

d on

4,
April

2017

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 19 of 37

ndy
in Bu
cited

v. U

-NV
SDC

L, N

-7
o. 17

070

hive
0 arc

d on

4,
April

2017

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 20 of 37

Las Vegas Nevada Attorney Bret Whipple

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 21 of 37

Select Language

HOME

ABOUT

CONTACT

LEGAL RESOURCES

[phone]

HOME

CRIMINAL

BANKRUPTCY

CIVIL

INJURY

DC-N

. US

yv
Bund

707

. 17-

ived

rch
00 a

IMMIGRATION

o
VL, N

FAMILY

on

4,
April

ESTATE
2017

TAXES

Free Consultations!
[phone]
cited

in

Contact Us Today!

Las Vegas Nevada Attorney Bret
Whipple
As a native of rural Nevada, Bret has a deep and personal
knowledge of the unique issues related to providing legal
http://mylasvegaslawyer.com/las-vegas-nevada-attorney-bret-whipple/[4/4/2017 11:01:12 AM]

Las Vegas Nevada Attorney Bret Whipple

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 22 of 37

representation to the smaller communities. Having lived in Las
Vegas for a number of years, he is also acutely aware of the
issues present in the big cities. Bret has actively practiced in
White Pine County, Lincoln County, Washoe County, and Clark
County.
Bret’s experience includes three years with the Clark County Public Defender Office, and an
additional three years with the Clark County Special Public Defender Office, which is restricted to
murder and death-penalty cases.
In addition to his legal practice, Bret is also a Certified Public Accountant, and has served as
Chairman of the Tax Section of the Nevada State Bar. Recognizing the importance of education for
future generations, Bret welcomed the opportunity to serve as University Regent for five years.
At the age of 18, Bret left Nevada searching for his path in
life, and what he discovered is that the best route to a good
17
4, 20

life is through education.d As April
on a Nevada state officer of the
chive

Future Farmers 00 ar
of America, Bret Whipple learned to
-707
o. 17

cited

ndy
in Bu

L, N
cultivate crops at a young age. Today, as a member of the
C-NV

D
v. US Board of Regents, he’s adapted that knowledge to fit the

needs of Nevada’s growing system of higher education.
“The growth in our state puts tremendous pressure on
higher education,” says Whipple. “My intent is to make sure

the Board changes with that growth in a positive manner, and that we continue to improve the
quality of instruction at our institutions.” Long before he pondered the question of how higher
education can most effectively meet the demands of a booming state, Whipple focused on
completing his chores and making it to school. Growing up on a ranch in Hiko, Nevada, Whipple fed
cattle and milked cows by hand every morning and every night, and laced up his boots during
school weeks and walked a quarter mile to reach his school’s bus stop. From there, “it was a fivemile ride to Alamo, where I attended both elementary and high school.” After graduating from high
school, Whipple took a brief hiatus from traditional education and traveled around the world. Three
days after graduation he packed his bags and set off for Western Europe. Although his mother
provided most of the funding for his trip, he earned the rest from agricultural employers. “Through
the Future Farmers of America’s Work Experience Abroad program, I had the names and numbers
of families in Germany and Australia.” After spending five months working on a family farm in
Germany, Whipple traveled for a couple of months through other countries, eventually making his
way to Australia. Unlike the farm work in Germany, Whipple’s host family in Australia required him
http://mylasvegaslawyer.com/las-vegas-nevada-attorney-bret-whipple/[4/4/2017 11:01:12 AM]

Las Vegas Nevada Attorney Bret Whipple

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 23 of 37
to do much “hairier” work to earn his keep.
“I worked about five months on a sheep station in the Australian outback sheering sheep.” Well
traveled and more knowledgeable in the areas of farming and related industries, Whipple was ready
to return to the states a worldly man after his 13-month oversees odyssey.
Once home, Whipple picked up where he left off with traditional education. “I decided to attend a
junior college on the coast of California. While I was there, I went to school, played football and
worked in a feedlot in the evenings.” After a year and a half of junior college, Whipple knew he
wanted to attend an Ivy League school on the east coast. To that end, he took a bold step: He flew
to Boston, where he met with an official at one of the most prestigious schools in the state. “I walked
into the football coach’s office at Harvard University and told him I wanted to attend the school.”
Armed with only his transcripts and footage from a few of his football games, Whipple won over the
coach. “He told me, ‘I’m not sure if I can get you in, but I’ll see what I can do,’ “ Whipple recalls.
Following the coach’s advice, Whipple visited some of the neighboring Ivy League schools, and was
able to meet his goal. “I interviewed at Princeton, Brown, Yale, and the University of Pennsylvania.
Penn accepted me first.”
17
4, 20
April of the Penn football team
on
In addition to the time he devoted to his studies, Whipple was iaemember
v d
arch
that won two Ivy League championships in football.7He 700 spent considerable time in the ring,
70 also
.1 , No
perfecting his boxing skills by trainingSDC-NVJoe Frazier in north Philadelphia. After three years, he
under L
.U
yv
graduated from Wharton d in Bund of Business with a bachelor of arts in economics/ accounting. But
School
e
cit

he wasn’t ready to return to Nevada just yet. Instead, he spent some time boxing on the east coast,
and then returned to Europe. Once there, he worked as a tax accountant during the day, and spent
his leisure time representing Hanover, Germany on the city’s amateur boxing team.
So far, Whipple’s life has been a fascinating journey. He’s gone from
a farmer, to an athlete, to a CPA — all while maintaining one belief. “I
believe education is the one route all Americans have equal access
to in order to benefit their lives.” That belief has not only kept him
grounded, but was no doubt part of the reason he earned his juris
doctorate for the University of Arizona’s College of Law. Despite his
tough schedule, the husband and father of two finds time to work on the family ranch in central
Nevada. He feels his experience as an attorney and as certified public accountant helps the Board
make informed decisions regarding specialized issues. And he knows he’s not alone in his fervor for
education. “Everyone on the Board o Regents firmly believes in higher education; it’s a common
theme for us, and something we all enjoy,” he says. “It’s not only nice to know that everyone is
interested in higher education, but it also provides the basis for some strong friendships as well.”

http://mylasvegaslawyer.com/las-vegas-nevada-attorney-bret-whipple/[4/4/2017 11:01:12 AM]

Las Vegas Nevada Attorney Bret Whipple

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 24 of 37
Contact Las Vegas Nevada attorney Bret Whipple today at [phone].

FREE CONSULTATION
Within 24 hours you will receive a response from a Nevada licensed attorney.
Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Your Phone

Your Message

-

o. 17

cited

ndy
in Bu

L, N
C-NV

ed

rchiv

0a
7070

pril
on A

17
4, 20

D

v. US

Enter the code below:

Send

LAS VEGAS NEVADA
ATTTORNEYS

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY
Within 24 hours you will receive a

http://mylasvegaslawyer.com/las-vegas-nevada-attorney-bret-whipple/[4/4/2017 11:01:12 AM]

FIND US NOW

Las Vegas Nevada Attorney Bret Whipple

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 25 of 37

1100 S 10th St

response from a Nevada licensed

View larger map

attorney.
Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)
The Las Vegas Nevada attorneys at
Justice Law Center are among the top
lawyers in the state. We are eager to

Your Phone

©2017 Google - Map Data

assist with your legal needs. Browse

Terms of Use

Report a map error

View Larger Map

and learn more about our Las Vegas
Nevada attorneys. [Learn more...]

1100 S. 10th Street

Your Message

Las Vegas, NV

-

o. 17

L, N
C-NV

ed

rchiv

0a
7070

D
v. US
undy
B
Enter the code below:
d in

cite

pril
on A

17
4, 20

89104
[phone]
Reno
Las Vegas
Ely

Send

COPYRIGHT © 2017 JUSTICE LAW CENTER · NEVADA WEB DESIGN SERVICES BY NEVADA CENTRAL MEDIA USING GENESIS
FRAMEWORK BY STUDIOPRESS

http://mylasvegaslawyer.com/las-vegas-nevada-attorney-bret-whipple/[4/4/2017 11:01:12 AM]

Scopes Trial | HistoryNet

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 26 of 37

MENU

Scopes Trial
FACEBOOK

TWITTER

LINKEDIN

PINTEREST

PRINT

BY J. KINGSTON PIERCE
6/12/2006 • AMERICAN HISTORY

Scopes Trial Summary: The Scopes Trial, commonly referred to as the Scopes Evolution Trial or the Scopes Monkey trial, began on
violating the Butler Act by teaching the theory of evolution in his classes. The Butler Act forbid the teaching of any theory that denied
breaking the law.
17
4, 20
April
on
ved
publicity, and therefore money, into the town by a group of local businessmen. arcreality, Scopes was unsure of whether he had ever
In hi
00
-707
o. 17
,N
-NVL
he agreed to incriminate himself so that the ButlerUSDC
Act could be challenged by the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union). Several
v.
ndy
n Bu
i
cited

the verdict was thrown out on a technicality on an appeal. For the next few years, textbooks in Tennessee had all mention of evolution
removed. The Butler Act was repealed in 1967.

Travelers wandering through Dayton, Tennessee, in mid-July 1925 might have been excused for thinking that the tiny hill town was

http://www.historynet.com/scopes-trial.htm[4/4/2017 11:10:57 AM]

Scopes Trial | HistoryNet

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 27 of 37
town’s butcher shop featured a sign reading, ‘We handle all kinds of meat except monkey.’
As comical as this scene sounds, its background was anything but amusing. Sixty-six years after Charles Darwin published his
controversial Origin of Species, the debate he’d engendered over humankind’s evolution from primates had suddenly reached a fever

the involvement of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). It also attracted two headliners of that era–Chicago criminal attorney
Clarence Darrow and former presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan–to act as opposing counsel.

ed

rchiv

a
0700
17-7 life.’
.
other hypothesis that links man in blood relationship to any otheroform of
L, N
C-NV
D
v. US
undy
in B
cited

pril
on A

17
4, 20

John Washington Butler couldn’t have agreed more. In January 1925, this second-term member of the Tennessee House of

kill the legislation by proposing an amendment to also ‘prohibit the teaching that the earth is round.’ Yet senators ultimately sanctioned

law. As he did so, though, he noted that he had no intention of enforcing it. ‘Probably,’ the governor said in a special message to his
Legislature, ‘the law will never be applied.’

http://www.historynet.com/scopes-trial.htm[4/4/2017 11:10:57 AM]

Scopes Trial | HistoryNet

the law.

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 28 of 37

and football coach at Rhea County Central High School. Yet his views on evolution were unequivocal. ‘I don’t see how a teacher can
evolution. And he was a vocal supporter of academic freedom and freedom of thought. Yet Scopes was reluctant to participate in the

No one who knew the 65-year-old Bryan well should have been surprised by his involvement in the case. Bryan had been trained in the
law before being elected as a congressman from Nebraska, and he made three spirited but unsuccessful runs at the presidency on the
writing and lecturing more often about theology than politics. With the same silver tongue he’d once used to excoriate Republican

-

o. 17

cited

ndy
in Bu

L, N
C-NV

ed

rchiv

0a
7070

pril
on A

17
4, 20

D

v. US

electric chair. The ACLU would have preferred a less controversial and more religiously conservative counsel than Darrow, an

included Bryan, Circuit Attorney General Arthur Thomas Stewart, and Bryan’s son, William Jennings Bryan, Jr., a Los Angeles
and Scopes’ local lawyer, John Randolph Neal.

am not sure that it is involved. The right of the people speaking through the legislature, to control the schools which they create and
http://www.historynet.com/scopes-trial.htm[4/4/2017 11:10:57 AM]

Scopes Trial | HistoryNet

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 29 of 37
support is the real issue as I see it.’ With this direction in mind, Bryan and his fellow attorneys took two days to call four witnesses. All

completely triumphant.’ So sure were they of a swift summation that Mencken and others in the press17
corps simply packed their bags
4, 20
il July 20, the ACLU’s Arthur Hays rose
and left town. Yet Darrow had a surprise up his sleeve. When the court reconvened on Monday,
Apr
d on
hive
arc
to summon one more witness–William Jennings Bryan. ‘Hell is going to pop now,’ attorney Malone whispered to John Scopes.
0700
17-7
o.
L, N
C-NVpopular one. Throughout the trial, the politician-cum-preacher had been
Calling Bryan was a highly unusual move, but an USD
extremely
v.
undy
in B
cited

righteous cause.

that the trial reconvene on the adjacent lawn. There, while slouched back in his chair and pulling now and then on his signature

Darrow wanted to know if Bryan really believed, as the Bible asserted, that a whale had swallowed Jonah. Did he believe that Adam

people.’ Similarly, when discussing the creation, Bryan conceded that the six days described in the Bible were probably not literal days

http://www.historynet.com/scopes-trial.htm[4/4/2017 11:10:57 AM]

Scopes Trial | HistoryNet

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 30 of 37
parsed in a court of law. His only recourse was to impugn Darrow’s motives for quizzing him, as he sought to do in this exchange:

use a court in Tennessee–
DARROW: I object to that.
BRYAN: –to slur at it, and, while it will require time I am willing to take it.

17
4, 20
April
on
ived
The jury conferred for only nine minutes before returning a verdict of guilty. YetcBryan’s public embarrassment in Dayton would
ar h
00
-707
o. 17
,N
-NVL
SDC
v. U
ndy
n Bu
i
cited

Not until April 1967–42 years after the Butler Law was passed, and 12 years after Inherit the Wind, a play based on the Scopes
Monkey Trial, became a Broadway hit–did the Tennessee Legislature repeal the anti-evolution law.

http://www.historynet.com/scopes-trial.htm[4/4/2017 11:10:57 AM]

Scopes Trial | HistoryNet

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 31 of 37

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

LINKEDIN

PINTEREST

, education, evolution, Politics,

Sponsored Content:
SEE ALSO
Veteran Military Records

Photo Gallery Online

Search Military Records

Dixie Flags For Salel 4, 2
Apri

Army Records Online
in
cited

DC-N

US
y v.

Bund

Request Military Service Records

California Police Departments Urge Residents To
Carry New Flashlights With Them At All Times

RELATED STORIES
http://www.historynet.com/scopes-trial.htm[4/4/2017 11:10:57 AM]

707

. 17-

o
VL, N

ived

rch
00 a

017

on

World War 2 Posters

Historical Flags For Sale

PRINT

Scopes Trial | HistoryNet

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 32 of 37

The Making of a Hero: Douglas
MacArthur’s Daring Mexican Heroics

-

o. 17

cited

ndy
in Bu

D

L, N
C-NV

v. US

Doble Model E: Last of the Red-Hot
Steamers (Sidebar by Jay Leno)

Encounter: When Dennis Wilson Met
Charles Manson
http://www.historynet.com/scopes-trial.htm[4/4/2017 11:10:57 AM]

ed

rchiv

0a
7070

pril
on A

17
4, 20

Scopes Trial | HistoryNet

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 33 of 37

Déjà Vu: Of Scales and Thumbs

-

o. 17

cited

ndy
in Bu

D

L, N
C-NV

v. US

Cameo: The Story of That Other Cassius
Clay

The Hardest Call: What Happens When

http://www.historynet.com/scopes-trial.htm[4/4/2017 11:10:57 AM]

ed

rchiv

0a
7070

pril
on A

17
4, 20

Scopes Trial | HistoryNet

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 34 of 37
The President Can’t Govern?

ALSO FEATURING

California Police Departments Urge Residents To
Carry New Flashlights With Them At All Times

-

o. 17

SUBSCRIPTIONS

L, N
C-NV

USD

v.
ndy
SECTIONS
n Bu
i

cited

ed

rchiv

0a
7070

pril
on A

TOPICS

17
4, 20

ABOUT US

American History

Today in History

Civil War

Contact Us

America's Civil War

Daily Quiz

Black History

Write for HistoryNet

Aviation History

Interviews

Women's History

Work For HistoryNet

Civil War Times

Personalities

Vietnam War

What is HistoryNet.com?

Military History

Reviews

American History

Advertising Inquries

MHQ

Ask Mr. History

Vietnam

Heritage Travel Directory

Vietnam

Videos

John F. Kennedy

Privacy Policy

Wild West

Galleries

Art

World War II

Military History
Historical Figures

http://www.historynet.com/scopes-trial.htm[4/4/2017 11:10:57 AM]

Scopes Trial | HistoryNet

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 35 of 37

features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in
our various magazines.

-

o. 17

cited

ndy
in Bu

D

L, N
C-NV

v. US

http://www.historynet.com/scopes-trial.htm[4/4/2017 11:10:57 AM]

ed

rchiv

0a
7070

pril
on A

17
4, 20

Biography

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 36 of 37

Biography
Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is known for his strong public interest advocacy in
furtherance of ethics in government and individual freedoms and liberties. During his tenure at Judicial Watch, he
obtained a court ruling that Bill Clinton committed a crime, the first lawyer ever to have done so against an American
president. Larry became so famous for fighting corruption in the government and the legal profession that the NBC
hit drama series "West Wing" created a character after him: Harry Klaypool of Freedom Watch. His character was
played by actor John Diehl.
In 2004, Larry ran for the U.S. Senate as a Republican in Florida's primary. After the lrace017
, 2 ended, he founded
pri 4
Freedom Watch.
on A
ed
rchiv
00 a
707
Larry graduated from Duke University with honors in political -science and French literature. Later, he received a law
. 17
, No
VL
degree from Emory University. During the administration of President Ronald Reagan, Larry was a Justice
DC-N
. US
y trial team that succeeded in breaking up the telephone monopoly of AT&T,
Department prosecutor and was onnthe v
Bu d
thereby creating competitiondinnthe telecommunications industry.
e i
cit
Between Duke and Emory, Larry worked for U.S. Senator Richard Schweiker (R-Pa.) during the Watergate era. He
has also studied abroad and was a stagiaire for the Commission of the European Union in its Competition
Directorate in Brussels, Belgium. During law school, Larry also worked for the U.S. International Trade Commission
in Washington, D.C.
Larry speaks four languages—English, French, Italian, and Spanish—and is an international lawyer, among his
many areas of legal expertise and practice.
The author of two books, Fatal Neglect and Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment, Larry has a
third book in the works dealing with the breakdown of our political and legal systems. His current book, Whores, is on
now sale at WND.com, Amazon.com, BarnesandNoble.com, Borders.com, and all major stores and booksellers.
Larry is a frequent commentator on television and radio, as well as a weekly columnist, on Friday, for WND.com.
Larry has been credited as being the inspiration for the Tea Party movement. (See "Larry Klayman - The One Man
TEA Party," by Dr. Richard Swier.)

http://www.larryklayman.com/about.php[4/4/2017 11:02:44 AM]

Biography

Case: 17-70700, 03/30/2017, ID: 10377743, DktEntry: 11-3, Page 37 of 37

-

o. 17

cited

ndy
in Bu

v. US

D

http://www.larryklayman.com/about.php[4/4/2017 11:02:44 AM]

L, N
C-NV

ed

rchiv

0a
7070

pril
on A

17
4, 20