After Ammon Bundy spent three days testifying about why he occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, a prosecutor Thursday afternoon fired rapid questions at him during a cross-examination that lasted just under 15 minutes.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight started out, "You are the leader'' of the occupation, right?

"No,'' Bundy said.

"Isn't it true you testified you're 'sort of the leader,''' Knight asked, noting that hours earlier Bundy had told jurors that he gave dozens and dozens of press conferences at the refuge and described in detail all of his followers.

"Is it your testimony today you were not the leader?'' Knight continued.

Bundy told Knight he wanted to clarify "what you're wanting me to say."

"I teach correct principles and let them govern themselves,'' Bundy said.

And so the cross-examination went, with the prosecutor highlighting key testimony that Bundy offered earlier in his federal conspiracy trial that seemed to bolster the government's case against him:

There was a "unified purpose'' to the occupation, guns played a role in helping carry out the refuge takeover, that Bundy knew federal employees worked at the site and Bundy and others used parts of the refuge as their own.

Knight's quick questions in a combative tone were striking in contrast to the soft-spoken questions that Bundy's lawyer Marcus Mumford asked during about 10 hours of direct examination.

Bundy is one of seven defendants charged with preventing employees from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management from doing their work through intimidation, threats or force during the 41-day occupation of the eastern Oregon bird sanctuary last winter.

The prosecutor asked if it were true that Bundy testified earlier Thursday that "We were all there for a unified purpose.''

Bundy said he didn't remember.

Knight pointed out that Bundy had testified that he gave Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward no ultimatums or threats.

"But you told him unless he agreed with your demands, there would be extreme civil unrest?'' Knight asked.

"I don't believe I said that,'' Bundy responded.

Knight referred to Bundy's testimony that he used a GPS to find the Malheur refuge when he went there on Jan. 2, the start of the occupation.

"You had to use GPS to get there even though you planned to control it until 2036?'' Knight asked incredulously, referring to Bundy's contention that he was trying to stake claim to the property through adverse possession.

Bundy's lawyer Marcus Mumford objected to the form of the question.

"My question is you went to a location you've never been before for that purpose?'' Knight continued.

"You're assuming I'm acknowledging it's a federal property,'' Bundy replied. "We were there disputing it was a federal property.''

"So you're saying the property you went to was not, in your belief, a federal property?''

"No,'' Bundy said.

"Yet you were trying to adversely possess it ... isn't that correct?'' Knight questioned.

"Yes,'' Bundy replied.

Knight pounced on Bundy's direct testimony earlier in the day about a maroon pouch, which had been locked in a refuge filing cabinet but was found later in one of the defendant's cars. It contained cash, refuge gas cards, credit cards and a refuge employee ID card, according to earlier testimony.

Bundy said during direct testimony that someone had brought the pouch to him during the occupation and it contained cash. He said he placed it in the loft of refuge biologist Linda Beck's office, where he was staying, to keep it secured.

"It wasn't ours. We didn't have a right to use it,'' Bundy testified.

Knight reminded Bundy of his statements and asked, "Yet you felt differently about the rest of the refuge, isn't that right?''

Bundy said the pouch was "clearly separate from the refuge'' as it contained receipts from the nonprofit Friends of the Malheur Refuge, which supports the sanctuary.

"We could see receipts and we knew the money was not ours,'' Bundy testified.

"And that property was different than all the other property at the refuge?'' Knight pressed.

"It needed to be secured, yes,'' Bundy replied.

Bundy added that the gas and credit cards were placed in the pouch by people occupying the refuge.

Knight questioned Bundy whether he knew federal employees worked at the refuge.

"I assumed they did,'' Bundy answered.

Knight asked if he made changes to the property? Bundy asked what he meant by "changes.''

In response to further questions, Bundy said yes, the signs were changed and the kitchen was used, but he testified that he hadn't accessed any computers or built any new roads, as Knight suggested.

Government testimony earlier in the trial indicated that three refuge employees' computers were accessed using one refuge worker's computer code and that a new road was made to the bunkhouse.

Knight asked whether all the changes made at the refuge were steps to stake claim to the property through adverse possession?

"You would take those steps in any federal government facility and it would be yours?'' Knight questioned.

"No there's a process,'' Bundy said. "There has to be a legitimate dispute.''

Knight said guns were brought to "keep the federal government away," right?

"No,'' Bundy responded.

Yet Knight reminded him of his testimony that if the occupiers hadn't brought firearms to the refuge, they likely would have been hauled off in zip ties and handcuffs in a paddy wagon.

"So the presence of guns prolonged your presence?'' Knight asked.

"It protected us from being detained,'' Bundy said. "I would say they allowed us to express our First Amendment rights.''

Knight asked Bundy if it was his belief that federal government's power is limited by the U.S Constitution.

Bundy said the government's powers are restricted to those "enumerated'' in the 10th Amendment.

"If you'd like me to read the 10th Amendment,'' Bundy offered.

"Thank you, that's OK,'' Knight cut in.

"You're not a rancher?'' Knight asked.

"No. ... I grew up on a ranch,'' Bundy said.

Then Knight turned to Bundy's business, a fleet management company called Valet Fleet Service. Bundy acknowledged that he managed it during the occupation.

Knight asked if it were true that Bundy had received a $530,000 loan from the U.S. Small Business Administration to support his business. Bundy's lawyer objected to the question, but the judge overruled the objection.

Knight said he offered the information to show that Bundy, even during his occupation of the federal refuge, has relied on the federal government, with his business partly funded by the government loan.

Bundy testified that he received the loan from a bank in Glendale, Arizona, about seven years ago.

"I don't think it's against the Constitution,'' Bundy responded. "If you want to debate the Constitution, I'll debate it.''

Knight said he was done with his cross-examination.

During redirect questioning by his lawyer, Bundy said he obtained the loan when he was merging two businesses into one and hasn't defaulted on it. Even while in jail the last 8 1/2 months, he said he's continued to pay off the loan.

"I feel it's my obligation to do so,'' Bundy said.

"You pay taxes?'' Mumford asked. Bundy said yes.

"You pay federal taxes?'' Mumford asked. "Absolutely,'' Bundy replied.

Earlier Thursday, co-defendant Ryan Bundy questioned his brother, addressing him awkwardly at first as "Mr. Bundy,'' then later slipping in the less formal, "Brother Ammon.''

Jeanette Finicum takes the stand

Also Thursday, Jeanette Finicum, the widow of occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy'' Finicum, briefly testified.

She said her husband got a call on New Year's Day, asking him to support the Jan. 2 rally in Burns in support of Harney County ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, ordered to return to prison for arson on federal lands.

She said her husband drove all night to Burns with co-defendant Ryan Bundy. She thought he'd stay a day or two, and when he told her he was at the refuge and planned to be there, she urged him to return to Arizona.

"The first part of the week I repeatedly asked my husband to come home,'' she said, breaking down in tears.

By the end of that first week, she said her husband was committed to staying because local ranchers had urged him to do so. She visited the refuge the weekend of Jan. 22, and had planned to meet up with her husband again in Idaho on the following weekend.

The judge didn't allow anyone to question Finicum's widow about her husband's shooting, or a wrongful death lawsuit that she intends to bring against the government.

"She should not be asked about his death, period,'' U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown instructed.

State police fatally shot her husband after he drove off from a police stop on Jan. 26, crashed his truck into a snowbank, got out and tried to reach into his jacket at least three times, according to police. Investigators found a loaded 9mm handgun inside his left jacket pocket.

A federal investigation is ongoing into an alleged firing of gunshots by FBI agents at the scene and an alleged cover-up of the evidence.

-- Maxine Bernstein

mbernstein@oregonian.com

503-221-8212

@maxoregonian