Pete Santilli has a Secret, Files Late Night Motion for Ex Parte Privileges

03-17-2016 ECF 316 USA v SANTILLI – Motion for Leave to File Motion Under Seal

santilli motion under seal

By CHERI ROBERTS for Challenging the Rhetoric

Late yesterday, Thomas K. Coan, the attorney for jailed internet talk show host, Pete Santilli, filed a motion ex parte on his clients behalf. The motion is under seal. There is no time stamp on the filing.

In general, ex parte is a legal proceeding brought by one in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties. Meaning, this is not disclosed to the prosecutors nor Santilli’s co-defendants while under seal if the judge grants the motion.

According to Wiki,

ex parte

Ex parte is most often used [on a temporary basis] when there is a presumed or perceived imminent or ongoing harm or danger, in order to protect the one filing.

According to,

Ex parte matters are usually temporary orders (like a restraining order or temporary custody) pending a formal hearing or an emergency request for a continuance.

A judicial officer may grant or deny the relief requested without a hearing.

The term “work product” in the filing refers to work put together specifically in preparation for litigation or the filing. says ‘work product’ is,

Written materials, charts, notes of conversations and investigations, and other materials directed toward preparation of a case or other legal representation. Their importance is that they cannot be required to be introduced in court or otherwise revealed to the other side. Sometimes there is a question as to whether documents were prepared by the attorney and/or the client for their use in the case preparation or are documents which are independent and legitimate evidence.

In other words, whatever ‘work product’ sealed in the motion was specifically created for the purpose of this filing. It is not something that was previously presented or even disclosed.

Currently all the Oregon Standoff defendants are grouped for a single trial. They had all previously agreed to this, however, it has been rumored some defendants may ultimately separate their cases from that of their co-defendants.

Are we seeing the beginnings of Santill separating himself from his co-defendants? If so, what would warrant an ex parte request? Remember, ex parte means Santilli perceives some harm or danger in what he wants to provide via a “workproduct” and neither the prosecutors, nor his co-defendants get to see it, at least temporarily, if the judge rules in favor.

Stay tuned …

UPDATE: Peter Santilli. Ex Parte hearing with defense counsel and defendant only is SET for 3/22/2016 at 09:30 AM in Portland Courtroom 14A before Judge Anna J. Brown



Thank you! If you like this or other Challenging the Rhetoric articles, please share. Don’t forget to follow the website, Facebook page and/or@CTRNewsFeed on Twitter and of course listen to the LIVE show every Weds. @ 6pmPST/9pmEST. You can also pick one from the archives or on YouTube.  If you would like to make a PayPal donation in support of the show, it is appreciated.

Checkout these other recent articles by Cheri Roberts.

22 responses to “Pete Santilli has a Secret, Files Late Night Motion for Ex Parte Privileges

    • If you have a more constructive comment, I am happy to hear it. I compared 4 completely different, and credible sites. I ran it all by a 30+ year court reporter and one of the biggest National Security Attorneys in the country. I brushed up.

      So, again, instead of a vague blanket statement … ?

      Liked by 1 person

    • There was nothing vague about my statement, it’s clear and precise. That being said, have you reported that the motion is now unsealed and your assertions about Pete’s motivations were completely off? Oh – and he filed it with one of the other defendants…and of course, every single one of the other defendants have also filed ex parte motions. It’s common 😉


  1. Pingback: DOODLE IN THE COURT: An Oregon Standoff Paper Trail | Challenging the Rhetoric·

  2. Did you delete my comment about how this is unsealed now and all the other defendants have also filed ex parte motions and it’s common? Because I can’t see it…


    • LOL you do know, that you have not proven a single thing inaccurate with this article. And ooh irony, you fail to mention it contains not a single attack or Santilli, or anyone else for that matter. What idiot YouTubers then do with truth is obviously YOUR problem Deb & Mo, not mine. But hey, you’re used to it because you do the same thing they do.


      • I’m flattered you think I’m Deb or Mo… The comment wasn’t showing up, I wasn’t aware you had to post them. My bad. I never said anything was inaccurate with the article other than your description of ex parte is a little off, and in the legal world a little is the same as a lot. Ex parte has more to do with timing than with excluding people from the proceedings. For example, in California a single mom I knew wanted to move out of state for a job but she had to get permission from court so she filed a motion for ex parte hearing because she needed to move quickly. She was granted the hearing which excluded the father of the children, not because she wanted him excluded, but because she wanted to move quickly and no one knew where he was – he hadn’t been in contact for years. If the father had been around, he would not have been excluded but it still would have been an ex parte hearing.

        “Ex parte judicial proceedings are usually reserved for urgent matters where requiring notice would subject one party to irreparable harm.”


  3. Pingback: 94 Points of Interest in Deschutes County Sheriff Incident Report Detailing Oregon Standoff Operation Resulting in Death of LaVoy Finnicum | Challenging the Rhetoric·

  4. Pingback: Washington National Guard’s Militia Moe tells ACLJ to Get Off Their Asses | Challenging the Rhetoric·

  5. Pingback: Is Another Bundy Ranch Indictment Coming this Week? | Challenging the Rhetoric·

  6. Pingback: YouTuber Dallas Ahrens says Pete Santilli Influenced Him to Go to Malheur, Read Constitution | Challenging the Rhetoric·

  7. Pingback: When Your Source is the Crowd, Does the Crowd You Source Matter? | Challenging the Rhetoric·

  8. Pingback: Deschutes County Sheriff Releases Ryan Bundy Cell Phone Video | Challenging the Rhetoric·

  9. Pingback: Why is ATF Surveilling Pheonix, Arizona Strip Mall Location of United Nation Ammo Company Blocks Away From Home of Bundy Ranch Indictee, Gregory Burleson | Challenging the Rhetoric·

  10. Pingback: What Evidence Did the Feds Retrieve from Pete Santilli and Deb Jordan’s Enterprise Rental Car? | Challenging the Rhetoric·

  11. Pingback: Was Pete Santilli Everybody’s Perfect Patsy? | Challenging the Rhetoric·

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s