Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Judge Drops Charges in Bundy Ranch Standoff Case

Judge Drops Charges in Bundy Ranch Standoff Case

She described the prosecutors’ conduct as “outrageous” and claimed they “violated due process rights of those charged.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nZYf22epfw

The U.S. judge overseeing the case against Cliven Bundy and others has decided to drop the charges. From AZ Central:

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, his two sons and a militia member will not face a retrial on charges that they led an armed rebellion against federal agents in 2014.

A federal judge on Monday said the federal prosecutors’ conduct was “outrageous” and “violated due process rights” of the defendants.

U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed the charges against the four men “with prejudice,” meaning they cannot face trial again. She said a new trial would not be sufficient to address the problems in the case and would provide the prosecution with an unfair advantage going forward.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

Will there be an action taken against the prosecutors? If so, how does that happen? Who needs to do what?

How do they get their land back now??

    Milhouse in reply to tlcomm2. | January 8, 2018 at 4:02 pm

    They never lost any of their land, so why would they need it back?

      tlcomm2 in reply to Milhouse. | January 8, 2018 at 4:50 pm

      The ranch relied on access to grazing and water rights Bundy legally owned. Are you telling me the $1 Million judgement has been dropped and the Bundy Ranch has been made whole and allowed access to their water/grazing again??

        MarkS in reply to tlcomm2. | January 8, 2018 at 5:09 pm

        As I recall, the Feds killed some of Bundy’s herd

          tlcomm2 in reply to MarkS. | January 8, 2018 at 5:57 pm

          And destroyed some water upgrades he made to facilitate his water rights.

          Milhouse in reply to MarkS. | January 8, 2018 at 6:58 pm

          Yes, they killed cattle that was trespassing on their land, and destroyed “improvements” that he made to their land, without their permission, and indeed contrary to their direct order. What about it?

          Are you people somehow under the impression that Bundy has in any way been vindicated by this decision? How could you possibly have got such an impression?

          I’m not unsympathetic to Bundy’s cause. The BLM is supposed to manage the US land in the interests of the public who use it, not in the interests of an anti-ranching ideology. Absent any evidence that the existing users’ grazing was somehow damaging the land, the BLM had a moral obligation to continue the customary arrangements that the users had relied on for generations, allowing them to run a reasonable number of cattle on it, in return for a reasonable fee. It had no moral right to use its management as a weapon to destroy the users’ businesses, by arbitrarily cutting the number of cattle allowed on its land, or by exorbitantly raising its fees. Suppose the National Park Service were to reduce the number of people allowed into Yellowstone Park to 25 at a time, or to raise the entrance fee to $20,000, in pursuit of an ideology that Nature should be left alone and people should not “exploit” it by visiting. There would be national outrage. And yet it would not justify people forcibly entering the park, let alone fighting off the rangers who came to remove them.

        Milhouse in reply to tlcomm2. | January 8, 2018 at 6:45 pm

        You asked how they get THEIR LAND back. The answer is that it’s not their land. Nobody even claims it’s their land. Even you admit it’s not their land, so why did you ask how they can get it “back”?

        Nor do they own any “rights” to it. Where did you get the idea that they do? There is no such thing as a “right” to use someone else’s land. No, the judgment has not been dropped, and they will have to pay it. Why shouldn’t they? The ranch does not need “making whole” because none of it was ever taken.

          tlcomm2 in reply to Milhouse. | January 8, 2018 at 7:02 pm

          They had water rights and grazing access for many decades. These were restricted and denied by the Feds at gunpoint. Truthfully though, I meant ranch, not land, and intended it as a whole of their business interests. Open grazing is commonplace and part-and-parcel of cattle ranching in America.
          I read the $1 million consisted of about $8k in back grazing fees which they claim was owed and deposited to the state, not the feds. I know lawyers can run up fees, but turning $8k into a cool million is pretty steep – though I believe you could pull it off and sleep well at night.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 9, 2018 at 1:51 am

          Yes, they had access to US land, on very generous terms, for many decades. How do you get from there to your outlandish statement that they “own” such “rights”? How are you different from those who insist that people who’ve been in the US for decades are therefore entitled to stay forever?

          I understand the Bundy’s position that they have a moral right to continue their old arrangement indefinitely, so long as the BLM doesn’t have a good reason to end it. The BLM has never advanced such a reason; it’s merely said “this is our land, we don’t have to justify our decisions to you”. It’s not BLM’s land; it belongs to all US citizens, including the Bundys, and BLM merely manages it on our behalf. But none of this adds up to your radical position that they therefore have any kind of right that has been infringed.

          Open grazing may still be commonplace and part-and-parcel of cattle ranching in some parts of America, but since when had it ever been anyone’s right?

          I read the $1 million consisted of about $8k in back grazing fees which they claim was owed and deposited to the state, not the feds.

          Would you put up with me moving into your house because I’d paid rent to some stranger?

          I know lawyers can run up fees, but turning $8k into a cool million is pretty steep

          How much do you think decades of litigation and attempts at enforcement of an $8K debt should cost? And it’s not just the one-time debt; what about the grazing fees for all the intervening years, and the penalties?

          tlcomm2 in reply to Milhouse. | January 9, 2018 at 1:45 pm

          Yes, they had access to US land, on very generous terms, for many decades. How do you get from there to your outlandish statement that they “own” such “rights”?
          For decades they have owned water rights to a nearby river that historically allowed an easement across open range land for access. Terms for grazing are set by the govt – the term “very generous” is pretty subjective from a lawyer.

          Open grazing may still be commonplace and part-and-parcel of cattle ranching in some parts of America, but since when had it ever been anyone’s right?
          Many states including Idaho and Montana are still “open range” according to law to this day. Cattle have rights to trespass 😉

          I read the $1 million consisted of about $8k in back grazing fees which they claim was owed and deposited to the state, not the feds. Would you put up with me moving into your house because I’d paid rent to some stranger?
          Funny – comparing two branches of the govt to renting to total strangers. Not really supposed to work that way and a bit of a stretch.

          How much do you think decades of litigation and attempts at enforcement of an $8K debt should cost? And it’s not just the one-time debt; what about the grazing fees for all the intervening years, and the penalties?
          The $8k was current total grazing “trespass fees” as of the end of 2012, according to govt records. https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/bundy-fees-2.jpg At that time, the govt had only racked up $290k in “fees”.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 9, 2018 at 3:16 pm

          The states and the USA are not branches of the same government. They are completely separate governments, andyou’d have to be insane to think you can settle a debt to one by paying another. Do you imagine you can settle a debt with Wyoming by paying Nevada?! So how can you think you can settle a debt to the USA by paying one of the states?

          Grazing rates on US land are of course set by BLM, and historically they were set very low. Generous is exactly the right term for the historical rates. The question is whether it’s right and proper to give ranchers such a sweetheart deal; my opinion is that so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else then it is right and proper, but the BLM obviously disagrees.

          And no, cattle have no right to trespass on US land, no matter which state it’s in.

Not surprised. What’s interesting is the majority of the comments will be in supportive of a man who led armed militias against federal ,state and local cops, yet these commenters will say ” We love our cops. Police Lives Matter. We back the Blue.”.

Remember LVPD cops Igor Soldo and Alyn Beck.

    tlcomm2 in reply to m1. | January 8, 2018 at 4:52 pm

    Don’t conflate support for local cops with supporting over-reaching BLM and EPA armed agents.

    MarkS in reply to m1. | January 8, 2018 at 5:07 pm

    I doubt anyone commenting “loves the cop” as you say when they are violating the rights of citizens

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to m1. | January 8, 2018 at 5:50 pm

    And the LVPD cops who gunned down a man at Costco. Oops.

“Remember LVPD cops Igor Soldo and Alyn Beck.”

We will… remember that no matter how much you lie their deaths had nothing to do with the Bundys.

Steelbutterfly | January 8, 2018 at 3:58 pm

m1 You need to do more research before trying to smear the people here and the people in this story. Follow the link to the AZ Central story which gives far more detail about the misconduct and outright lies told by those in the Dept of Justice, as well as the FBI. In particular, you might want to pay attention to the fact that “law enforcement assessments dating back to 2102 found that the Bundys posed no threat”.

However, since you also posted the totally unrelated comment about the murder of two Las Vegas police officers by a deranged couple who were specifically asked by a militia member to leave the Bundy stand off because of their “radical beliefs”, I strongly suspect that you do not care about facts that might contradict your attempts to spread propaganda.

The level of prosecutorial misconduct including willfully withholding information is just staggering. How is it that these prosecutors can do such things and not face criminal charges, much less even be sanctioned or disbarred?

Also, it will be interesting to see how some of this new information affects the issue as a whole. One of the reports that was withheld was a study that contradicted the government’s main excuse that the Bundy’s were having a negative impact on some turtle. So basically they just made it up. Also, these revelations only came about because of a whistle blower not because prosecutors had a sudden surge of ethics.

As far as the “armed resistance” of course legally the Bundy’s were wrong. However, that doesn’t mean that the BLM or FBI was right. They had unjustified, by their own assessment, surveillance and even snipers watching the place well before this escalated (also in the documents that were withheld). This is why agencies like the BLM and other non-law enforcement agencies do not need to have armed enforcement sections.

    Milhouse in reply to Gremlin1974. | January 9, 2018 at 1:54 am

    Exactly. None of this makes the Bundys right. But the BLM’s and FBI’s offenses seem far worse than those of the Bundys.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | January 9, 2018 at 2:45 am

      Yep, it just burns me that basically nothing will happen to the crooked prosecutors. I wish the Judge had held them in contempt and jailed them.

This appears to be a Double-Sekrit post – can’t find it on the main page, only shows up if you specifically search for it.

It’s sad when a white racist scofflaw who leads armed militias against federal cops can receive more support on a blog, than a black cop who uses self defense against a racist white intoxicated criminal.

    Tom Servo in reply to m1. | January 9, 2018 at 12:40 pm

    sorry troll, you’re time’s up. Please insert another quarter into the blah blah blah machine.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to m1. | January 9, 2018 at 3:23 pm

    Remember Mom like 2 dryer sheets with whites and 1 with the colors……..Ohh, that must mean she’s racist!

    Get a new line M1 you’re not even annoying anymore.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend