Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They are all Feds. Whoever it was that made the decisions and put this thing together was nuts. Could not have been handled worse. Waited way too long and then blew the prosecution. Perhaps it was a DofJ task force. If so they should fire the whole core structure of it. I presume it was BLM. But maybe not. We shall see.
The withholding of information was done on purpose and yes, they all should be fired.
New trial date set for Feb 26th. FBI, don't mess this up - or you'll have a whole slew of militia LARPers competing for their day in the spotlight, and some people will die as a result.
The FBI didn't screw up. The federal prosecutors did.
The FBI provided surveillance evidence to the prosecutors long before the trial was scheduled, and as evidence, the prosecutors were required by law to turn a copy of the FBI report to the defense lawyers.
Since the report included some evidence that made the BLM agents look bad, the prosecutors withheld the report from the defense until they were forced to hand it over, well into the trial. Before then, the defense didn't even know the report existed.
The rule of law declares the prosecution must share all evidence it has to the defense in all cases. But the defense does not have to share any evidence it finds with the prosecution.
At first glance this seems unbalanced, and therefore unfair, but if a person is considered innocent until proven guilty, then the accused must know what the charges against him are, and the evidence that make the charges valid.
Otherwise, any prosecution can charge anyone with anything with no need for validity. This essentially would turn our most basic legal tenant- innocent until proven guilty- upside down, making it guilty until proven innocent.
In other countries, guilty until proven innocent is the basis of law, so ours is no standard, but it is ours, and always has been.
Ours allows any new evidence to be entered as a trial progresses, but the evidence that brought the charges has to be there first. In the case of confusing or vague evidence, a Grand Jury makes the decision if the charges are valid or not, so our system provides ample protection for the innocent. Here, no one can force a trial on anyone with nothing to back the charges up.
My personal thoughts about the Bundy family are well known here; I've been following this for a long time, well before the Bunkerville standoff. I believe there are valid criminal offenses that bear prosecution.
But I can't quarrel with this mistrial. The Bundy's attorneys were entitled to the evidence, even if it was damaging to the prosecution's case.
I also believe the prosecution chose the wrong crimes to prosecute in the first place against the Bundys.
Their basic flaw was lumping a bunch of different crimes committed by different groups and individuals together and charging them all with the same offenses.
If the charges were separated out as to who did what when, all the pre-trial work would have been more complicated, but would have avoided most of the trouble the prosecution team found itself in later, during the trials.
The Bundys were only a part of the group, and they didn't commit all the crimes. Neither did the rest of the individuals who were tried, and some of the groups that participated as a group, were never charged at all.
Will there be another trial?
I doubt it, for several reasons. The first is the expense. Some agency, or several agencies, are paying for all of this, and it's obvious that, so far, this has cost a lot of tax money.
Another trial would cost more money, and all the charges would have to be overhauled, as withholding evidence invalidated some of them, so new charges would have to be brought. That would increase the time and expense.
The Bundy family all played separate parts in the standoff. They didn't initiate it as a group, as some of them weren't even in the same state when it began. And during the standoff, different Bundys did different things. So some may be guilty of different offenses than others, and some of those offenses are less serious than others.
So, another prosecution would probably have to reconsider whether some of the charges, which could be misdemeanors, worth the expense, time, and trouble to prosecute.
A further complication was the people who rushed to the standoff ready to do battle. The prosecution would have to reconsider all of them as well, including those who were never charged this time. There were many more of these individuals than there were members of the Bundy family. And the Bundys themselves did not all interact with these people to the same degree, or at the same time, or with the same participation.
So it goes. So much of the entire affair was symbolic on all sides that it's all a rat's nest of actual crimes, no crime, symbolic gestures, and nothing but innocent onlooking. Trying to untangle it all could mean years of continuance.
Last edited by banjomike; 12-21-2017 at 01:31 AM..
The FBI didn't screw up. The federal prosecutors did.
The FBI provided surveillance evidence to the prosecutors long before the trial was scheduled, and as evidence, the prosecutors were required by law to turn a copy of the FBI report to the defense lawyers.
Since the report included some evidence that made the BLM agents look bad, the prosecutors withheld the report from the defense until they were forced to hand it over, well into the trial. Before then, the defense didn't even know the report existed.
The rule of law declares the prosecution must share all evidence it has to the defense in all cases. But the defense does not have to share any evidence it finds with the prosecution.
At first glance this seems unbalanced, and therefore unfair, but if a person is considered innocent until proven guilty, then the accused must know what the charges against him are, and the evidence that make the charges valid.
Otherwise, any prosecution can charge anyone with anything with no need for validity. This essentially would turn our most basic legal tenant- innocent until proven guilty- upside down, making it guilty until proven innocent.
In other countries, guilty until proven innocent is the basis of law, so ours is no standard, but it is ours, and always has been.
Ours allows any new evidence to be entered as a trial progresses, but the evidence that brought the charges has to be there first. In the case of confusing or vague evidence, a Grand Jury makes the decision if the charges are valid or not, so our system provides ample protection for the innocent. Here, no one can force a trial on anyone with nothing to back the charges up.
My personal thoughts about the Bundy family are well known here; I've been following this for a long time, well before the Bunkerville standoff. I believe there are valid criminal offenses that bear prosecution.
But I can't quarrel with this mistrial. The Bundy's attorneys were entitled to the evidence, even if it was damaging to the prosecution's case.
I also believe the prosecution chose the wrong crimes to prosecute in the first place against the Bundys.
Their basic flaw was lumping a bunch of different crimes committed by different groups and individuals together and charging them all with the same offenses.
If the charges were separated out as to who did what when, all the pre-trial work would have been more complicated, but would have avoided most of the trouble the prosecution team found itself in later, during the trials.
The Bundys were only a part of the group, and they didn't commit all the crimes. Neither did the rest of the individuals who were tried, and some of the groups that participated as a group, were never charged at all.
Will there be another trial?
I doubt it, for several reasons. The first is the expense. Some agency, or several agencies, are paying for all of this, and it's obvious that, so far, this has cost a lot of tax money.
Another trial would cost more money, and all the charges would have to be overhauled, as withholding evidence invalidated some of them, so new charges would have to be brought. That would increase the time and expense.
The Bundy family all played separate parts in the standoff. They didn't initiate it as a group, as some of them weren't even in the same state when it began. And during the standoff, different Bundys did different things. So some may be guilty of different offenses than others, and some of those offenses are less serious than others.
So, another prosecution would probably have to reconsider whether some of the charges, which could be misdemeanors, worth the expense, time, and trouble to prosecute.
A further complication was the people who rushed to the standoff ready to do battle. The prosecution would have to reconsider all of them as well, including those who were never charged this time. There were many more of these individuals than there were members of the Bundy family. And the Bundys themselves did not all interact with these people to the same degree, or at the same time, or with the same participation.
So it goes. So much of the entire affair was symbolic on all sides that it's all a rat's nest of actual crimes, no crime, symbolic gestures, and nothing but innocent onlooking. Trying to untangle it all could mean years of continuance.
As always, I appreciate your thoughtful analyses, & particularly with these situations ~ you've lived it.
The Bundy family & their loyalists are as the Sovereign Citizen crew, i.e. US laws are for other folks & don't apply to them. It's a very large internal inconsistency that will continue to bump up against the laws of the land. They all seem to carry around copies of the US Constitution yet ... deny they are US citizens. Baffling.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is suitable to be applied here for prosecution & for civil penalties to combat racketeering activity performed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise.
You wouldn't be saying that if the Bundys were black. The Bundys kept their cattle on public land for years without paying the grazing fees for years, and you're sticking up for them? Most ranchers have no problem paying those cut-rate fees; they know they're getting a bargain, but Bundy was too cheap to pay even that.
The federal government did screw the pooch, but it was when they let the Bundys get away with their dishonesty for so long.
This proves that you are uninformed/misinformed on this issue.
This was never about paying the fees, the Bundy's paid their fees for many years, and offered to continue to pay their fees.
The Bundy's stopped paying their fees because the BLM imposed rules that made it impossible to continue to ranch in the area. The BLM imposed rules that put 49 other ranchers out of business in the area, forcing them to sell their land. This was all done to force the ranchers off their land, so the BLM, and land developers could buy the land for pennies on the dollar. Sadly the BLM is doing this in many places around the country.
I'm not saying the Bundy's were right to continue grazing their cattle on BLM land, but the BLM sure isn't right in this situation either.
Some good came out of this standoff, it put what the BLM is doing into the national spotlight.
As always, I appreciate your thoughtful analyses, & particularly with these situations ~ you've lived it.
The Bundy family & their loyalists are as the Sovereign Citizen crew, i.e. US laws are for other folks & don't apply to them. It's a very large internal inconsistency that will continue to bump up against the laws of the land. They all seem to carry around copies of the US Constitution yet ... deny they are US citizens. Baffling.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is suitable to be applied here for prosecution & for civil penalties to combat racketeering activity performed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise.
In this case the prosecutors said "The laws are for other folks and don't apply to them".
This proves that you are uninformed/misinformed on this issue.
This was never about paying the fees, the Bundy's paid their fees for many years, and offered to continue to pay their fees.
The Bundy's stopped paying their fees because the BLM imposed rules that made it impossible to continue to ranch in the area. The BLM imposed rules that put 49 other ranchers out of business in the area, forcing them to sell their land. This was all done to force the ranchers off their land, so the BLM, and land developers could buy the land for pennies on the dollar. Sadly the BLM is doing this in many places around the country.
I'm not saying the Bundy's were right to continue grazing their cattle on BLM land, but the BLM sure isn't right in this situation either.
Some good came out of this standoff, it put what the BLM is doing into the national spotlight.
The Gold Butte area etc were all targeted at Tortoise reserve. No interest in selling it or using it for some other purpose. There has been a long battle about cattle in these areas and the damage they do. There was some right wing silliness about Reid and solar but it had no rational basis. There are huge swatches of land suitable for solar much more convenient than Gold Butte.
The Gold Butte area etc were all targeted at Tortoise reserve. No interest in selling it or using it for some other purpose. There has been a long battle about cattle in these areas and the damage they do. There was some right wing silliness about Reid and solar but it had no rational basis. There are huge swatches of land suitable for solar much more convenient than Gold Butte.
And yet they built highway on/off ramps right near the Bundy ranch, and there has been land development in the area.
Sorry, but the whole, save the tortoises thing has been debunked long ago.
Can’t wait to see the reactions from people when the next group stages an armed standoff with the Feds, and the nutters doing it aren’t looked upon favorably like ranchers are.
Can’t wait to see the reactions from people when the next group stages an armed standoff with the Feds, and the nutters doing it aren’t looked upon favorably like ranchers are.
I've noted that the Black Lives Matter protesters should take note on how well it worked for Bundy.
Yes, it would make many who support Bundy have a cow.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
