Case Against Cliven Bundy 'Dismissed With Prejudice,' Preventing a Retrial
On Monday, a federal judge dismissed the case against 71-year-old Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, his two sons (42-year-old Ammon Bundy and 44-year-old Ryan Bundy), and Ryan Payne "with prejudice," meaning the federal government cannot retry the offenders after a judge declared a mistrial last month.
U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro declared a mistrial in the case on December 20, saying federal prosecutors had violated the Brady rule, requiring that prosecutors disclose evidence that could be favorable to a defendant. Navarro ruled that federal prosecutors willfully withheld evidence that the Bundys and Payne should have been able to access.
"The court finds that the universal sense of justice has been violated," Navarro told The Los Angeles Times.
The Bundy case traces back to the 1990s, when the federal government limited grazing rights on federal lands in order to protect the desert tortoise. A full 84.9 percent of Nevada's land area belongs to the federal government. In 1993 Bundy willfully broke the law, refused to renew his cattle grazing permit, and continued grazing his livestock on these public lands.
Bundy declared that he did not recognize the authority of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over the sovereign state of Nevada — a legal argument that does not square with the U.S. Constitution. Federal courts sided with the BLM against Bundy, but the rancher persisted for 20 years, and he ended up owing over $1 million in fees and fines by 2014.
That year, officials came to capture and impound the cattle trespassing on federal land. Protesters, many of them armed, tried to block the authorities. For a time, they shut down a portion of I-15, the main interstate highway through southern Nevada.
The four defendants were charged with threatening a federal officer, carrying and using a firearm, and engaging in conspiracy — felony counts that could have sent them to prison for decades.
Despite the mistrial, federal prosecutors argued in a Dec. 29 filing that they didn't willfully withhold evidence from the defense and they still planned to launch another trial.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre argued that the government shared 1.5 terabytes of information — "by far, the largest review and disclosure operation in this [U.S. attorney's office] history."
Even so, Payne's defense lawyers — Renee Valadares, Brenda Weksler, and Ryan Norwood — filed a briefing the same day, seeking to dismiss the case. "The government's irresponsible and, at times, false proffers to this Court as well as its dismissiveness toward the defense inspires no confident in the prospect of fairness," they wrote.
"A dismissal is necessary to remedy the constitutional violations, to preserve the integrity of this court's processes, and to deter future misconduct. Anything short of dismissal is tantamount to condoning the government's behavior in this case," the defense lawyers concluded.
While Bundy was in violation of federal law, it is arguable that the federal government selectively attacked him while ignoring other gross violations of federal law — especially when it comes to sanctuary cities, the enforcement of Obamacare, and the "Fast and Furious" gun-walking scandal.
This case seems akin to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recent decision to crack down on marijuana enforcement. Federal law supported the government's case against Bundy, as it does Sessions' marijuana crack-down. But that does not mean government resources are well spent in enforcing this particular part of federal law while neglecting other areas.
Furthermore, Bundy's ugly racist remarks — while celebrated by the Left — do not prove his campaign against the BLM was racist, as Victor Davis Hanson pointed out on PJ Media at the time.
While the Bundy trial did not start until 2017, when Donald Trump had become president, it should still be viewed as part of Barack Obama's legacy, as Obama's BLM pushed the issue. Bundy's legal success should stand as a rebuke to the Obama administration's selective application — and misapplication — of federal law. https://pjmedia.com/trending/case-against-cliven-bundy-dismissed-with-prejudice-preventing-a-retrial/
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
79 visitors
Time to kick the squatter off public lands.
He doesn't live there, only grazes his cattle there. This was liberal government harassment and overreach of the first order. Thankfully, the lady Hispanic judge saw this farce for what it was.
He lives next door that is why the land he doesn't pay the fees to graze was important.
It never was about the fees, and we both know it.
He owed a substantial amount to the BLM refused to pay and still used the land as his own. What exactly was it about then, was he persecuted because he was a Christian, a radical subversive?
Should the IRS not care if you disregard one million dollars in back taxes?
Brilliant!/s
In violation of Fed law.
The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (Pub.L. 73–482) is a United States federal law that provides for the regulation of grazing on the public lands (excluding Alaska) to improve rangeland conditions and regulate their use.
Read it - you'll learn a helluva lot more than you know now.
It was overreach and overreaction by the Obama government. They were actually killing his cattle and the BLM was threatening women and children with assault weapons, including having a sniper located up on a hill overlooking the sight. Sounds like something the Russians would do.
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
Nope, i am looking at most every post you've made in this thread though.
At best all misrepresentations, at worst all lies.
It's pretty easy to pull up video that proves Bundy's crowd were scoping federal agents.
hint, there were plenty of snipers but they weren't BLM agents.
If there were BLM snipers it's doubtful they would be silhouetted on ridge tops..........
it's more likely that they were militia supporting Bundy.
The Bundys are immoral moochers. But yet the right cheers for them....if they were Democrats the right would slander the heck out of them.
But remember, the Repubs are for law and order - totally the opposite of the Dems.
No, the repubs are hypocrites cheering this taker on.
What part of he didn't PAY his grazing fees don't you understand. He owes the government money but it's okay because he is a hero to Repubs....
Do you pride yourself on making "challenged" comments?
Six defendants have taken a plea for a reduced sentence. Sentencing will be in Feb. One was convicted and sentenced to 68 years in prison.
Too bad Bundy and his son didn't get the same treatment.
Why? They weren't convicted of anything...kinda like Hillary wasn't.
But they were guilty as hell while Hillary wasn't guilty of anything.
Um yes Hillary was guilty but Comey decided she was to ignorant to realize she broke the law. They gave her a pass on stupidity.
Guilty of what? Protecting their livestock from being slaughtered, and their families threatened by the BLM thugs?
Pull up the videos and see who was pointing the guns. It wasn't Bundy or his supporters
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
You sound just like Black Lives Matter when they proclaim every victim is innocent and the cops are the bad guys, Hmmm BLM the bad guys both times.
What is an Inbred Supporter ?
Would that be the same as a Crazed Bernie or Hillary Supporter ?
BLM doesn't know what they are. They are more worried about how to "Fry Bacon" !
Skirting the CoC [ph]
No! Those would be brain dead supporters!
You obviously fail to comprehend the similarities between groups that both claim the innocence of the victims and the vile corrupt police.
Such "Group" Hating you have. Based on that type thinking, if I say Liberals are nutz....I would be correct in meaning ALL ?
Actually...I have to be an "It is Me" about it.
You make waaaaay too many mistakes.
And just who are the "vile brutal police"?
Have you missed the references to the Federal thugs?
Did you note that somewhere in our conversation ?
I wonder if they still get to own guns now?
The good news is that the federal court order to remove Bundy's feral & ornery cattle from federal land still stands. Maybe they can be sold for dog food to help reimburse the government for the $1 million+ overdue grazing fees and for the free board & lodging the Bundy Klan received while they were in prison.
I can go for a big steak right about now.
You think the cattle form that incident are still alive? That speaks volumes about you I have to say.
No, what it says is that Bundy no longer has any grazing rights and will never be allowed to have them again. Any Bundy cattle on federal lands will be removed or shot.
That would be a "taking", and he would have to be compensated.
Liberal logic:
If it supports a narrative you like then by all means it is okay to break any law, trample any right. No biggie if it somehow helps progress your left wing crackpottery.
You have to have a LEGAL right/claim/holding to be able to file for compensation for loss of property - including intellectual rights. Bundy was squatting on Fed land, hence there is no basis for a claim.
1st, have you watched "American Standoff?"
I'm curious what you thought of it.
so you subscribe to "Liberal Logic" in the Bundy case, I got it, at least in the sense that your made up "liberal logic" carries the water.
No, haven't watched it - don't like reality shows - scifi, historical, suspense, "secret agents" and lots of Native American flicks.
Lol, it's a documentary and you should watch it.
It's very well done and would likely expand your understanding of the situation.
Many here don't care to understand it any further than their current biases will take them. You don't seem to be one of those but perhaps i am mistaken.
Sparty - When I worked with/for DoD, I had to interact with most of the DoI sub-agencies doing Cultural/Natural Resources/Tribal Consultations, so I have a fairly strong understanding of the various laws/regulations concerning those three areas.
While I understand the Bundy group's mentality, I have serious issues with their complete willful disregard for compliance with laws that have been on the books for decades. The Taylor Grazing Act was established to assist in ensuring that the lands available would be used for the most benefit for all concerned - farmers, ranchers, private owners and Indian Tribes.
The Feds were put "in charge"/responsible for being caretakers of the lands by Congress, so, as you are aware, policies and regulations were put in place to prevent folks like the Bundy's to overuse the grazing that was/is available to all - not just them. Unfortunately, the Bundy's are of the mentality that the Feds should not be in charge - the states and the local landowners should be. But, to their consternation, Congress (the Feds) have a different idea of what's best for the people - not just the Bundy's.
Bundy had signed lease agreements for many years and lived up to the requirements of those leases which included paying the lease fees, so he can't say, all of a sudden, that he doesn't have to abide or that he didn't know. Hell, he hasn't paid for his previous leases of 21 years ago and now owes over $1.2M dollars - just in lease fees - and he's bitching about being denied access to lands that are controlled by the Feds - not the state. To me, that's the same thing as not making your house payment and continuing to live in/on the property in violation of a signed contract between the bank and yourself. By not making the payments, you have voided your contract which gives the bank total authority to foreclose on your property. Bundy didn't meet/make his contractual payments, so his use of the property was cancelled.
Not so hard to understand. He is in violation of, not just the Taylor Grazing Act, but numerous other Fed laws - Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Archeological Resource Protection Act, Treaty between the U. S. and the Shoshone/Ute/Paiute Indian Tribes, etc..
He will be back in court and he will lose because the government learned its lesson the hard way and they will double down on his criminal/civil violations.
No argument with that in concept but it is not quite that cut and dried IMO. The documentary gets into much of this. it looks at the cause and effect of the standoff pretty well i think.
Bundy's complaint started long ago when the Fed's restricted grazing from about 500,000 acres of land to protect a desert tortoise species. Much of that land was their traditional winter grazing lands. The Fed offered no recourse or options and few if any other options were available for their cattle to survive. The move was arguably tantamount to putting them out of business and that ruffles business owner feathers when it's arguably over nonsense like this turtle.
Then it gets into restricting water rights. Then it gets into how the Fed retaliates by blaming the Bundy's for basically all the wildfires in the area, most of which were proven to be caused by lightning. Then we can talk about what the actual grazing fees are and how the total $$ the Fed says is owned is mostly federal penalties and interest. It goes on and on.
Nah, i can't agree with you overall here. I do agree the Bundy's acted stupidly with the standoff and such but these are not the acts of a central government tending to all it's citizens needs. There is no good eminent domain type reasoning at play here IMO.
That was my takeaway from the documentary. I'm sure the TPA (Turtle Protection agency) was happy. But the cattlemans association? Not so much. This is bureaucracy out of control IMO. Again i'm not saying Bundy acted 100% properly but i certainly don't think the Fed did either. Right or wrong i think many felt the Fed gave them no other choice than to protest application of the laws the way they did.
I still suggest you watch it. Regardless of your position, if you are interested in the entire story, it is very germane to the discussion at hand.
And i'm not so sure this is going to end up the way you think. Time will tell.
500,000 thousand acres will sustain 27,777 cows for an entire year. Bundy had 4,800 head of cattle, so he only "needed" to use 2,700 acres (1.8 acres per cow).
His DEMAND to use the entire 500,000 acres of which part of that acreage belong to Native American tribes was/is quite a bit much. His lease, that had expired, was for usage of 5,000 acres and, back then, he only had 1,000 cattle.
The restrictions placed on all ranchers in the area were due to the Desert Tortoise and the area restricted only amounted to the Mojave Desert regions in Southern Nevada, Southern California, Arizona, Utah and Colorado. By "only amounted", Desert Tortoise typically don't take up much area, but the area they do have has to remain open. USFWS and Nevada Game and Fish issued restrictions beginning in the 40's.
Water rights???? Water belongs to the land owner - which is the Federal government, with the exception of Native American tribes. The Feds, through the Taylor Grazing Act, are required to ensure adequate water is available to the natural habitat and to ranchers who are leasing grazing lands. In fact, the Feds have set up numerous watering "stations" on lands established for grazing. Bundy's complaint 'bout not having enough water to graze was mostly due to his lack of payment for his voided grazing leases.
Bundy cared nothing for any of the rules/regulations regarding maintenance and protection of the grazing lots. He wanted/wants to have free access and total use of all lands, grasses, hays, waters to the TOTAL 500,000 acres when all he had initially signed up for was 5,000.
Sorry Bundy - your greediness has cost you your cattle, lots of money and potential future jail time.
interesting read from 2014 and Clark County's Las Vegas expansions are mentioned in the last few paragraphs.
Interesting though - if you read through the whole thread, Las Vegas started the problem with its expansion and dreams of further expansion, putting the ranchers in jeopardy by reducing the available land they could use.
Actually the feds are free to impound or kill and remove any trespass cattle from federal lands. Bundy's cattle have been in that category since 1998 - he's just lucky that the BLM and the courts were so lenient in their enforcement of court orders.
That would be false since Bundy's cattle aren't authorized to graze on federal land. In fact they're prohibited by court order from all land which the feds lease for grazing.
The end result will be that federal agencies will no longer be so restrained when the Posse Comitatus loons and other such "sovereign citizen" terrorists commit these crimes, so we can expect more Wacos.
At the very least the BLM will have a much larger armed presence when they kill and remove the Cloven Bundy's feral & ornery cattle from federal land.
While the Republicans are in charge, a travesty of justice like this case will very likely not happen again
So you're admitting that Republicans won't enforce federal law?
Well, just the federal laws that are broken by white guys (especially with guns).
The next time citizens aim loaded weapons at federal officers, they should immediately be shot. The BLM should have left, the National Guard should have been mobilized, every cow should have been confiscated, and everyone pointing a weapon at federal agents should have been shot.
Well, had that actually happened, i'm sure they would have been shot. I never saw any proof that ANY loaded weapons were ever AIMED at Federal officers in that standoff.
Were you a principle in the investigation or at least supplied with the documentation?
We do know from the video's, that BLM weapons were pointed at Bundy and his family.
Did i say i was?
That said Lavoy Finicum is pretty good empirical evidence of what those Feds would have done if anyone would have simply "reached" for a "perceived" weapon. No need to actually pull one out and aim it to get shot with those guys.
Horseshit. I know you think you're Supergirl, with telescopic vision, but you aren't and you couldn't see that from the video provided. Now you are seeing things that aren't there.
Skirting the CoC [ph]
I agree. Damn lying Federal officers.
Honest Bundy's, lying cops, Hmmm this is vaguely familiar, care to defend.
When dealing with armed or threatening insurrectionist that is probably exercising good judgment. I see a strong agreement with the good criminals and bad cops club. I believe there are number of organizations that would welcome that anti law enforcement ideology.
It's already been proven that at least one federal LEO lied about their actions in this standoff.
Defense rests.
Sound familiar?
Yeah - the agent said he didn't fire his weapon, yet when they had bullet count and he was missing one, he "remembered" firing, totally missing his target and striking the roof of the truck on the other side of the highway. Hell, I'd be embarrassed too, but the FBI are not known for being good or accurate shooters.
When conducting re-quals at FLETC, we used to laugh at the FBI folks and their lack of ability to even hit the broad side of a barn - if they could see it.
You'll notice that it was a Sheriff's deputy that shot Finchin, not a Fed.
Not for you anyway, lol...
Care to enlighten the rest of us with a link to the video you claim to have seen?
Ok, now supply a link of them aiming at law enforcement..
Can't? or won't?
I think they would have been if the feds had shown up with a sufficient force and were wearing body armor. They won't make that mistake again with these Sov Cit loons, particularly since some of them have murdered LEOs since then.
It's also ridiculous that for almost 20 years now the BLM has been unable to enforce a simple court order merely because some white supremacist Mormon dimwits have guns and are willing to use women and children as human shields.
The justice system prevails and the usual left wing pontificators start whining that familiar whine. Pathetic.
Called this one months ago much to the consternation of those same whiners. The insults were plentiful and of the usual sophomoric/hateful style that is the norm for that crowd.
Too bad whiners, you lose and Justice prevails. Sucks to be you.
Did the Rev Al Sharpton ever pay his over $4 million tax debt?? Did armed IRS agents round up he and his family and seize his businesses??
Does the IRS and BLM function under the same legal domain? If Al Sharpton has anything to do with this conversation I expect several thousand others could be then associated. Bundy owed lots of money to the BLM and refused to pay so they took legal action he then decided to escalate it into a local war. His choice. If the IRS attempted to arrest Sharpton (I would offer to help) and he decided to resist he should get what is deemed appropriate, and not some sniveling claim of sovereign immunity. He was billy bad ass until it hit him in the wallet.
They are always full of hate and anger. They've probably never had a happy and joyous day in their lifetimes.
Well there's a nice libelous ad hom attack!
In whose court? LOL! Find a civil court anywhere in the U.S. that wouldn't laugh you out of it.......