Federal employees from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Burns residents can't simply testify about the "subjective fears'' they had during the occupation of the bird sanctuary without an admissible purpose for the evidence, the trial judge told prosecutors Monday.

The judge agreed with attorney Matthew Schindler arguing on behalf of defendant Kenneth Medenbach.

"The fact that an official feels incidentally threatened is not relevant,'' Schindler said. "That may be a valid feeling, but that feeling is not evidence.''

Prosecutors intend to call seven employees from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to testify at the Sept. 7 trial. They will be asked to explain their work at the refuge and how they were prevented from doing their jobs, identify photos from the refuge and identify defendants driving government vehicles, Assistant U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Barrow told the court.

The testimony is to show that defendants charged with federal conspiracy accomplished their objective in obstructing the employees from carrying out their work during the course of the 41-day armed occupation, Barrow said.

The government also plans to call Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward and Steve Grasty, who chairs the county commission and performs limited judicial duties. The two will testify about their direct interaction with some of the defendants, the defendants' efforts to enlist the local government to force the federal government out of the county and the impact it had on the community, prosecutors said.

U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown said it's unnecessary to prove that an employee was "impeded'' in the federal conspiracy case and it's irrelevant that an employee may have felt scared. Neither helps show the defendants' "state of mind'' during the alleged conspiracy, the judge said.

Eight of 26 defendants indicted on a charge of conspiring to impede federal officers at the refuge through "intimidation, threats or force,'' are set for trial next month. Eleven defendants have pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge. Seven others are scheduled for trial in February.

Monday was the first of what is expected to be several days of pretrial conferences to determine what evidence should be allowed during the trial.

"The fact that a Fish & Wildlife employee may have felt impeded - how does that show defendants intended to impede'' federal officers versus that defendants intended to protest the return to federal prison of two local ranhcers and the federal government's management of public land, the judge asked.

"The fact that a person is intimidated doesn't make it more probable than not that (the defendants) intended to intimidate,'' Brown said.

The judge directed prosecutors to spend the night going through the evidence and testimony they wish to present at trial and come back with an identifiable purpose for allowing the material at trial.

"The fact that the community was afraid is not the point,'' the judge said. "The government has to have a legitimate purpose before the evidence is offered.''

Defense lawyer Schindler also argued that the hundreds of exhibits on guns or ammunition that prosecutors plan to introduce at trial is too expansive and should be limited to any weapons that can be directly tied to a defendant in the case. He said the government had pared down its initial 361 exhibits of either firearms, ammunition or photos of guns and ammunition to 250, but he argued that's still too broad.

Prosecutors have countered that guns played a critical role in the case: Armed guards were posted at entrances to the refuge. Defendants talked openly about their possession of firearms and that they would not be removed from the refuge. Defendants also called on others to bring weapons to the refuge.

Brown signaled that each gun doesn't have to be linked to a defendant in the case. "If a person joins a conspiracy, they're liable for acts that occurred during the course of a conspiracy,'' the judge said.

In a related motion, defense lawyers argue that prosecutors shouldn't be allowed to discuss the April 2014 standoff with federal officers near Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy's property in Bunkerville, Nevada. Cliven Bundy is the father of Oregon standoff defendants Ammon Bundy and Ryan Bundy.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Gabriel said the Bunkerville standoff will be introduced to provide the jury with context about why the Bundy brothers and their co-defendants took over the refuge in Harney County. It further reveals the defendants' motives in Harney County - "to have another standoff in victory with the federal government,'' Gabriel said.

A Bureau of Land Management agent from Nevada will testify about how federal officers carrying out a court order to impound Cliven Bundy's cattle grazing illegally on federal land suspended their efforts when they were threatened with guns, Gabriel said.

Prosecutors plan to use statements from defendant Pete Santilli, in which he referred to the Oregon refuge occupation as "another Bunkerville,'' Gabriel said.

While Santilli called the Bundy ranch in Nevada the "freest place in America,'' Santilli said he came to Burns to make it the "second freest place in America,'' Gabriel said. The government also plans to use Bunkerville-related quotes from Ammon Bundy's Facebook posts and press conference statements and from Neil Wampler's emails.

Schindler argued that the Bunkerville references would be highly prejudicial to all defendants, particularly to those who weren't involved in Bunkerville.

Gabriel said the court could provide jurors with instructions on how the testimony should be considered or restricted to certain defendants.

Also during Monday's hearing, defendant Ryan Bundy stood, arguing that the federal government doesn't control the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

"Mr. Bundy, I'm not going to take argument about whether the federal government owns the Malheur refuge,'' the judge told him.

Ryan Bundy continued, saying "it is not verified'' that the refuge falls within federal control.

The judge told him she's considered that issue at least three times, through Medenbach's motions.

"Take a seat, we're finished,'' Brown ordered. "And, if you raise it again, you're going to forfeit your right to self-representation.''

"The question has not been answered by the Supreme Court,'' replied Ryan Bundy, who then took his seat.

On Tuesday, the court is expected to consider a defense motion urging the court to suppress defendants' Facebook data based on the government's improper sharing of raw data from 10 defendants' Facebook accounts that were considered irrelevant to this case with all 26 defendants indicted.

More than 200 potential jurors remain in a jury pool for next month's trial, after more than 90 of 350 were eliminated Monday due to alleged bias or hardship based on their answers to a lengthy jury questionnaire. The court sent out 1,500 questionnaires, but received 350 back.

Ammon Bundy's lawyer said the initial review of the questionnaires indicated a "significant bias'' against the defendants. One juror knocked out called the defendants "impotent gun nuts.'' Another called them "lawless.''

When one juror wrote that he or she simply doesn't want to be part of the trial, the judge remarked, "If that were the test, none of us would be here, right?''

-- Maxine Bernstein

mbernstein@oregonian.com

503-221-8212

@maxoregonian