Nevada judge dismisses case against Cliven Bundy and sons, says government cannot retry them[W:9]

[Lerxst]

Re: Nevada judge dismisses case against Cliven Bundy and sons, says government cannot retry them

This has to do with IMHO, governmental ownership of large tracks of land, thus removing said land for public use...ie, property rights. In the Bundy case the BLM (bureau of land management) Regulated him off of public lands, then seized his private property. Now, I am not going to re argue the entire case, my views on it are contained in previous threads on the subject. But I will say that the removal of property rights are a pillar of the Communist manifesto...

You don't have a right to go and decide that the public should own federal property and then refuse to obey laws connected to that federal ownership. You also don't have a right to threaten federal agents who are doing their job under the law. Nobody was trying to physically hurt Bundy, they were executing a federal order to remove his cattle from federal land, land that moron didn't own. Bottom line is he just didn't want to pay the grazing bill and had defied the courts for so long that they finally took action.

And poor souls like you bought into his story because you didn't like Obama. As if Obama invented the laws Bundy had been violating for years. You folks are odd.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Nevada judge dismisses case against Cliven Bundy and sons, says government cannot retry them

Please, just stop. There is a difference between a mistrial and being found innocent. Bundy and his crew violated the law. They threatened to murder federal officers who were executing their sworn duty, in compliance with and under the color of federal law.

You seem to have missed the important "with prejudice" portion of this ruling. When the judge orders a mistrial with prejudice it means that they have found the case lacking in merit, the DA to be in violation of the defendant's civil rights and the DA is denied any option of retrial. That is as bad as a DA can ever lose a case short of having the judge call for disbarment hearings as a kicker.

 

[j-mac]

You support a violent criminal who broke federal law but had charges dropped due to a **** prosecutor playing games.

Doesn't change the fact he violated the law and you applaud his actions, which included threatening to murder law enforcement officers.

Can't wait to see your posts supporting black protesters the next time "stand up" to the government and riot. I bet you will be cheering them on big time huh?

Oh BS...You are being intellectually lazy....Look, I don't like that this infringement on the Bundy cattle ranch took place in the first place...Just like I don't like Bureaucrats who go up against home owners for building an out building, or improving their land because there is some pond on the property, or spotted yellow horny frog that they say is on the list....It's all governmental tyranny, and Bundy had enough...So did many of his neighbors....

So let me ask you this Lersxt...Do you believe in property rights?

 

[Lerxst]

Re: Nevada judge dismisses case against Cliven Bundy and sons, says government cannot retry them

They won here, yet you say zero... You clearly cannot count, nor do you understand the definition of terrorism.

They staged a politically motivated, armed take over of a federal building. They destroyed federal property. They are terrorists. One of the terrorists tried to kill a police officers and was shot and killed in the process.

11 conspirators plead guilty.

That's not a "win."

Good guys - 1
Terrorist assholes - 0

 

[Lerxst]

Oh BS...You are being intellectually lazy....Look, I don't like that this infringement on the Bundy cattle ranch took place in the first place...Just like I don't like Bureaucrats who go up against home owners for building an out building, or improving their land because there is some pond on the property, or spotted yellow horny frog that they say is on the list....It's all governmental tyranny, and Bundy had enough...So did many of his neighbors....

So let me ask you this Lersxt...Do you believe in property rights?

Yes I do believe in property rights. Cliven Bundy did not have any rights to graze his cattle on federal land and then refuse to pay the bill. Bundy did not own the land he allowed his cattle to illegally graze on. He was warned multiple times over multiple years, pay the grazing fees or remove your cattle, if you do not we will remove the cattle for you and seize them.

This isn't rocket science and it isn't federal government overreach. If you refuse to pay your taxes they can and will put a lien on your property. That is the law.

Cliven Bundy knowingly broke the law and refused to obey multiple court orders. There are consequences for that, as well there should be.

This isn't about Cliven Bundy's property rights. This is about Cliven Bundy breaking federal law repeatedly, for years.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Yes I do believe in property rights. Cliven Bundy did not have any rights to graze his cattle on federal land and then refuse to pay the bill. Bundy did not own the land he allowed his cattle to illegally graze on. He was warned multiple times over multiple years, pay the grazing fees or remove your cattle, if you do not we will remove the cattle for you and seize them.

This isn't rocket science and it isn't federal government overreach. If you refuse to pay your taxes they can and will put a lien on your property. That is the law.

Cliven Bundy knowingly broke the law and refused to obey multiple court orders. There are consequences for that, as well there should be.

This isn't about Cliven Bundy's property rights. This is about Cliven Bundy breaking federal law repeatedly, for years.

You are making assumptions regarding the legality of the taxes levied, the legality of the change in grazing rights, the ability of the Feds to void agreements over 20 years old, the legalities of the court orders that followed and the actions of law enforcement after the fact.

Don't make assumptions. Get the facts. See both sides of the case.

An unanswered question is why did the government want the land so bad and why did they make such efforts to void grazing agreements in place for several decades?

 

[Winchester]

Why do you consider obeying one law a technicality while asserting that obeying other laws are not technicalities as well?

I do not. I'm not sure how you read that into what I said.

 

[Winchester]

Re: Nevada judge dismisses case against Cliven Bundy and sons, says government cannot retry them

This has to do with IMHO, governmental ownership of large tracks of land, thus removing said land for public use...ie, property rights. In the Bundy case the BLM (bureau of land management) Regulated him off of public lands, then seized his private property. Now, I am not going to re argue the entire case, my views on it are contained in previous threads on the subject. But I will say that the removal of property rights are a pillar of the Communist manifesto...

He signed a lease and his cattle were colateral.

 

[Winchester]

So what? is the result not the same? The case was thrown out, and with prejudice as well so that it can NOT be brought again. So, you tell me the difference in reality?

Of course the result was the same, the Bundy clan walks free. Not the same as a not guilty verdict though.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I do not. I'm not sure how you read that into what I said.

You seemed to be downplaying the importance of the state informing the defendant of all evidence obtained at public expense (as a mere technicality) while stressing the importance of the defendant obeying the law. If I was mistaken then I am sorry about that.

 

[apdst]

Sounds like they're getting off on a technicality.

Not if the evidence the prosecutor withheld would have cleared them. That possibility could be why the judge dismissed the case with prejudice.

 

[apdst]

Of course the result was the same, the Bundy clan walks free. Not the same as a not guilty verdict though.

It's the same as a not-guilty verdict if there is exculpatory evidence that prooves they're not guilty.

 

[Winchester]

Not if the evidence the prosecutor withheld would have cleared them. That possibility could be why the judge dismissed the case with prejudice.

And that could very well be, but we don't know. Personally I think prosecutorial misconduct in and of itself is enough. They infringed on Bundy's right to a fair trial they don't get a second shot at it, regardless of Bundy's innocence or guilt.

 

[American]

I don't understand how your comment compliments that last sentence. The case was dismissed, not because of gun rights, but because the federal government tried to cheat their way to an easier conviction. If they had to exaggerate or withhold evidence, then they didn't trust their own case.

Gun haters was a generalization about the people that wanted their heads on pikes. Okay so the big govt heavy-handed types. Better? The prosecution didn't have a case, and hid evidence then lied about it. They ****ed up, because their case probably could stand on its own. Lots of vitriol over these guys.

 

[Tigerace117]

Prove it!

Very simple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing

When African American thugs aimed their weapons at police, and even tried to kill them away, they certainly didn't get away with it.

Meanwhile these thugs threaten police, get one of their number killed in the process, and the local systems fall all over themselves protecting them.

It's rather blatant buddy.

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: Nevada judge dismisses case against Cliven Bundy and sons, says government cannot retry them

This has to do with IMHO, governmental ownership of large tracks of land, thus removing said land for public use...ie, property rights. In the Bundy case the BLM (bureau of land management) Regulated him off of public lands, then seized his private property. Now, I am not going to re argue the entire case, my views on it are contained in previous threads on the subject. But I will say that the removal of property rights are a pillar of the Communist manifesto...

What a load of ****. Now the government is a bunch of communists? Give it up.

Your thug hero decided he was going to threaten law enforcement, got one of his cronies killed out of sheer stupidity, then used anti government sentiment to get away with his crimes.

 

[Tigerace117]

Oh BS...You are being intellectually lazy....Look, I don't like that this infringement on the Bundy cattle ranch took place in the first place...Just like I don't like Bureaucrats who go up against home owners for building an out building, or improving their land because there is some pond on the property, or spotted yellow horny frog that they say is on the list....It's all governmental tyranny, and Bundy had enough...So did many of his neighbors....

So let me ask you this Lersxt...Do you believe in property rights?

I remember another band of thugs who thought they were fighting for "property rights"..... they rose up and killed thousands of American soldiers and sailors before being crushed, only to go on to run an oppressive system for the next century.

The "property rights" argument doesn't hold water.

But hey, I'm glad you lot are bending over backwards making excuses for these thugs. That way the next time some jumped up asshole decides he's going to threaten the police and gets himself killed, we can all laugh at your shrieks of "tyranny".

 

[American]

Very simple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing

When African American thugs aimed their weapons at police, and even tried to kill them away, they certainly didn't get away with it.

Meanwhile these thugs threaten police, get one of their number killed in the process, and the local systems fall all over themselves protecting them.

It's rather blatant buddy.

You post a couple of sentences that you think proves what you're saying. Sorry, but it ain't that simple.

 

[Tigerace117]

You post a couple of sentences that you think proves what you're saying. Sorry, but it ain't that simple.

Yes, I get that you are in denial and don't want to face reality because it hurts your feelings. Sorry bud, it really is "that simple".

African American thugs get a bomb dropped on them.

White thugs are lauded as heroes standing up to "government tyranny".

 

[Lerxst]

You are making assumptions regarding the legality of the taxes levied, the legality of the change in grazing rights, the ability of the Feds to void agreements over 20 years old, the legalities of the court orders that followed and the actions of law enforcement after the fact.

Don't make assumptions. Get the facts. See both sides of the case.

An unanswered question is why did the government want the land so bad and why did they make such efforts to void grazing agreements in place for several decades?

Get the facts? Nothing has changed with regard to the grazing rights in Nevada. The facts are that Cliven Bundy violated federal law with regard to grazing land that is managed by the BLM. Bundy had his day in court multiple times and lost. This wasn't just the BLM trying to screw him out of his "rights." He had no "right" to graze his cattle illegally, in fact the SCOTUS determined in 2000 that possessing a permit to graze your livestock on federal land inferred no rights related to that land. A federal judge heard the case and ruled against him. In fact several times. Bundy argued the land was state property and the feds had no authority to charge him. Wrong, without any ambiguity, he was wrong.

The government didn't "want the land so badly," they already owned it, the BLM managed it. They didn't cancel any agreements with Bundy over his grazing rights (as he had none), they restricted grazing on that plot because of an endangered species issue (desert tortoise). Bundy didn't agree with the change and ignored it and refused to pay the BLM his grazing fees. There is no "unanswered question."

So his response, after ignoring multiple court orders, was to threaten law enforcement officials who were doing their duty in rounding up his cattle and seizing it in accordance with the law. You don't get to pick and choose the laws you think are valid or not, and you certainly don't get the option of armed resistance to the authorities when they come to hold you accountable for violating the law.

The laws are valid, the BLM is valid, the federal jurisdiction is valid. There is no "assumption" about it's legality. It's in the US Code and has been upheld in court multiple times, including the SCOTUS.

The judge dismissing all of the charges over the prosecutors misconduct in submitting all of the evidence is in no way some validation for this crack pots anti-government bull****. It just means the federal prosecutor was a moron and blew the case as it related to the standoff...and should be fired.

Get the facts?

 

[Lerxst]

Re: Nevada judge dismisses case against Cliven Bundy and sons, says government cannot retry them

You seem to have missed the important "with prejudice" portion of this ruling. When the judge orders a mistrial with prejudice it means that they have found the case lacking in merit, the DA to be in violation of the defendant's civil rights and the DA is denied any option of retrial. That is as bad as a DA can ever lose a case short of having the judge call for disbarment hearings as a kicker.

In this case the prosecutor did not fully disclose all of the evidence relating to the presence of FBI snipers on the property and potential BLM misconduct prior to the standoff. Doesn't mean Bundy didn't do it, just means the prosecutor ****ed up on an epic scale and angered the judge. The judge didn't say Bundy was innocent, she said he will not be prosecuted on these charges because the prosecutor was a dishonest asshole and Bundy wouldn't have gotten a fair trial.

This wasn't an exoneration of Bundy, it was a repudiation of the prosecutor's case. And it sounds like the DA should be disbarred.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Nevada judge dismisses case against Cliven Bundy and sons, says government cannot retry them

In this case the prosecutor did not fully disclose all of the evidence relating to the presence of FBI snipers on the property and potential BLM misconduct prior to the standoff. Doesn't mean Bundy didn't do it, just means the prosecutor ****ed up on an epic scale and angered the judge. The judge didn't say Bundy was innocent, she said he will not be prosecuted on these charges because the prosecutor was a dishonest asshole and Bundy wouldn't have gotten a fair trial.

This wasn't an exoneration of Bundy, it was a repudiation of the prosecutor's case. And it sounds like the DA should be disbarred.

It means Bundy didn't do WHAT? The whole purpose of the trial was to determine if Bundy was guilty of the crime that he has been accused of. What the judge has ruled guarantees that Bundy will remain innocent of the charges.

Innocent until proven guilty... and he will never be proven guilty, so you figure this out. The only person that the judge found guilty of anything was the DA.

 

[dobieg]

Oh look. Yet another band of thugs gets away with their crimes because of their skin color. I wish I could say this was a surprise, but it’s been clear for decades that local law enforcement is useless when it comes to dealing with these terrorists.

You mean like the illegal who shot Kathryn Steinle?

 

[Tigerace117]

You mean like the illegal who shot Kathryn Steinle?

No, I mean like these particular bunch of thugs, though I'm not surprised to see you justify thuggery on the basis of what color those responsible's skin color is.

 

[Lerxst]

Re: Nevada judge dismisses case against Cliven Bundy and sons, says government cannot retry them

It means Bundy didn't do WHAT? The whole purpose of the trial was to determine if Bundy was guilty of the crime that he has been accused of. What the judge has ruled guarantees that Bundy will remain innocent of the charges.

Innocent until proven guilty... and he will never be proven guilty, so you figure this out. The only person that the judge found guilty of anything was the DA.

Innocent as the justice system is concerned. But we all know that old racist asshole did that ****, we watched him do it on television and social media.