• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Judge declares a mistrial in Bundy case

Jul 9, 2009
10,758
2,086
136
Pretty clear prosecutorial misconduct to illegally suppress evidence that the FBI had procured.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/us/cliven-bundy-mistrail.html


'A federal judge declared a mistrial on Wednesday in the case of Nevada cattle ranchers and one of their supporters, whose dispute with the government over grazing rights turned into an armed standoff in 2014. The judge stated that prosecutors had improperly withheld evidence from the defense.

The ruling in Federal District Court in Las Vegas by Judge Gloria M. Navarro was the latest failure by federal prosecutors to convict participants in the standoff led by Cliven D. Bundy and his sons Ammon E. Bundy and Ryan C. Bundy. Two earlier trials against other defendants ended in hung juries.

The judge ruled that prosecutors violated the rights of the defendants — the three Bundys and a supporter, Ryan W. Payne — by failing to turn over an array of material ahead of the trial. That included video taken from within the Bundy ranch during the standoff by a federal informant, evidence that F.B.I. agents were involved in the standoff, and a threat assessment of the Bundys drafted by the government. She ruled verbally, and not in writing.
........
Among the withheld reports the judge mentioned, she said, was one in which government officials said the Bundys were not violent. “She cited all of that,” Ms. Bundy said. “At this point, I don’t know what kind of a case they have against us.”
............
The Bundys had long alleged misconduct by federal agents and prosecutors, and powerful evidence for their claims emerged last week in The Oregonian newspaper, which made public a complaint that a Bureau of Land Management agent had filed with the Justice Department. The agent alleged unprofessionalism, bias, heavy-handed tactics, and withholding of evidence by his colleagues during and after the standoff, and he said that after he informed prosecutors, he was removed from the case.
..........
"Andrea Parker, the wife of Eric Parker, an ally of the Bundys who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor related to the standoff, said, “It’s great that they’re showing the malicious prosecution that’s been going on — by the prosecution, the F.B.I. and the B.L.M. It’s finally getting out there, it’s something we weren’t afforded or allowed at our trial.”



https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ac0fd7f097e_story.html?utm_term=.5b4aa6662ca9
"U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro determined that the prosecution suppressed evidence from FBI surveillance cameras recording the Bundy family home and the presence of Bureau of Land Management snipers around the property in the days leading up to the standoff there. Additionally, the prosecution did not provide FBI logs, maps, reports and threat assessments that said the Bundy family was not dangerous.

Navarro pointed to assessments conducted by the FBI, the Southern Nevada Counter Terrorism Center and the BLM that said “the Bundy family is not violent” and that they “would probably get in your face, but not get into a shootout.”

The court “regrettably believes a mistrial is the only suitable option,” Navarro told the packed Nevada courtroom. “A fair trial at this point is impossible.”
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
Oh crap! With all the other stuff going on I completely forgot about this.

Thanks for the update.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,758
2,086
136
More here.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/12/blm_investigator_alleges_misco.html

"
A scathing memo from the lead investigator who assessed how federal officers handled the 2014 armed standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy accuses agents of far-reaching misconduct, recklessness and unrestrained antipathy toward the family.

The 18-page document, obtained Thursday by The Oregonian/OregonLive, is dated Nov. 27.
Wooten wrote that supervisory agents with the bureau repeatedly mocked the defendants in an "amateurish carnival atmosphere'' that resembled something out of middle school, displayed "clear prejudice'' against the Bundys, their supporters and Mormons, and prominently displayed degrading altered booking photos of Cliven Bundy and other defendants in a federal office and in an office presentation.

The memo described "heavy handedness'' by government officers as they prepared to impound Cliven Bundy's cattle. He said some officers "bragged about roughing up Dave Bundy, grinding his face into the ground and Dave Bundy having little bits of gravel stuck in his face.'' Dave Bundy, one of Cliven Bundy's sons, was arrested April 6, 2014, while videotaping men he suspected were federal agents near his father's ranch.

...............................
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,205
4,885
136
I'm glad that the truth came out and perhaps they can counter sue the fed. Too many times law enforcement acts like nazi's and they should be held accountable for their behavior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imported_tajmahal
Jul 9, 2009
10,758
2,086
136
Another editorial on the Bundy case.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/opini...federal-prosecutors-in-the-cliven-bundy-case/

"In her ruling on Wednesday, Judge Navarro found that the government had willfully withheld evidence from the defense. The information included FBI interview reports and video surveillance maps that the judge concluded were potentially favorable to the accused.

“The defense has a right to information,” she said, “so it can provide it to the jury so the jury can decide.”

This is Evidence 101. As an attorney for one of the defendants put it, “‘willfully’ means they did it on purpose.” How federal prosecutors could let this happen in such a prominent case deserves further attention, but it smacks of vindictiveness and desperation.

Whether the Bundys are patriots defending the Constitution or misguided scofflaws intent on ignoring established law is irrelevant. Either way, they deserve a speedy and fair trial unmarred by prosecutorial misconduct.


Judge Navarro has set a Jan. 8 hearing on the future of the prosecution. Expect defense attorneys to mount vigorous arguments that the government’s “willful” behavior should result in the dismissal of all charges. Federal prosecutors will have a hard time offering a convincing rebuttal.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,293
14,712
146
"Misguided scofflaws?"

Fucking greedy criminals who graze their cattle on public (BLM) lands, then refuse to pay grazing fees...that's what started this shit.

The actions in Oregon should be charged as felonies...with stiff penalties for taking over government lands and buildings. Armed occupation of public (government) property is not a peaceful protest.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,758
2,086
136
"Misguided scofflaws?"

Fucking greedy criminals who graze their cattle on public (BLM) lands, then refuse to pay grazing fees...that's what started this shit.

The actions in Oregon should be charged as felonies...with stiff penalties for taking over government lands and buildings. Armed occupation of public (government) property is not a peaceful protest.
In the article the Bundy's claimed they had Water Rights which gave them the right to graze the land.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,984
55,389
136
Can't withhold evidence from the defense, that's pretty shitty. I think we all agree that a mistrial is appropriate. Now of course the feds should immediately prosecute them again and put these scumbags in prison where they belong.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,026
2,879
136
It's pretty clear that our government's founders wanted to make sure its citizens had the ability to protect themselves from said government. That takes precedent over criminal activity of the citizens themselves.
 
Dec 10, 2005
28,805
14,001
136
It's pretty clear that our government's founders wanted to make sure its citizens had the ability to protect themselves from said government. That takes precedent over criminal activity of the citizens themselves.
Where did you get that idea? The actions of the Founding Fathers suggest that they had no problem using force to put down protests (i.e., The Whiskey Rebellion).

The Bundys also were not protecting themselves from some over-reaching government. They're freeloaders who are refusing to pay the public back for the public land they are using to graze their cattle.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,984
55,389
136
It's pretty clear that our government's founders wanted to make sure its citizens had the ability to protect themselves from said government. That takes precedent over criminal activity of the citizens themselves.

I have no idea what you’re saying here or how it relates to this case.

There’s zero doubt here, these guys need to be in prison for a very long time.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,026
2,879
136
Where did you get that idea? The actions of the Founding Fathers suggest that they had no problem using force to put down protests (i.e., The Whiskey Rebellion).

The Bundys also were not protecting themselves from some over-reaching government. They're freeloaders who are refusing to pay the public back for the public land they are using to graze their cattle.

The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments come to mind. Really, the whole bill of rights is for that cause.

I'm not trying to defend the Bundy's criminal actions. I'm saying that if they cannot be prosecuted without violating their rights, they shouldn't be prosecuted at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WackyDan

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,293
14,712
146
I guess that's what this trial is about. Misconduct by the Feds doesn't make their case look very strong.


The feds SHOULD have turned the Malheur Wildlife Preserve into another Waco...the dead don't need trials.

(or, you know...another Mountain Meadows Massacre)
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,758
2,086
136
The feds SHOULD have turned the Malheur Wildlife Preserve into another Waco...the dead don't need trials.

(or, you know...another Mountain Meadows Massacre)
Another Waco? You think the Feds should have shipped in some kids and burned them alive?
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,293
14,712
146
Another Waco? You think the Feds should have shipped in some kids and burned them alive?

Well...that's one way to clean the gene pool...and with the inbreeding in the Mormon community...it certainly could use some cleansing.








(Before anyone takes offense...I jest)
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Another editorial on the Bundy case.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/opini...federal-prosecutors-in-the-cliven-bundy-case/

"In her ruling on Wednesday, Judge Navarro found that the government had willfully withheld evidence from the defense. The information included FBI interview reports and video surveillance maps that the judge concluded were potentially favorable to the accused.

“The defense has a right to information,” she said, “so it can provide it to the jury so the jury can decide.”

This is Evidence 101. As an attorney for one of the defendants put it, “‘willfully’ means they did it on purpose.” How federal prosecutors could let this happen in such a prominent case deserves further attention, but it smacks of vindictiveness and desperation.

Whether the Bundys are patriots defending the Constitution or misguided scofflaws intent on ignoring established law is irrelevant. Either way, they deserve a speedy and fair trial unmarred by prosecutorial misconduct.


Judge Navarro has set a Jan. 8 hearing on the future of the prosecution. Expect defense attorneys to mount vigorous arguments that the government’s “willful” behavior should result in the dismissal of all charges. Federal prosecutors will have a hard time offering a convincing rebuttal.

So, that's hearsay from a disgruntled former employee?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
So, the prosecution will provide the defense with the evidence the judge considers pertinent & will proceed from there.

It's a shame they gave the right wing ravers another opportunity to do their usual thing.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,758
2,086
136
So, the prosecution will provide the defense with the evidence the judge considers pertinent & will proceed from there.

It's a shame they gave the right wing ravers another opportunity to do their usual thing.
We'll see, the Judge says she'll make her ruling on Jan. 8th, she can always dismiss it "with prejudice" which means it can't be retried. It's also drawn the attention of Attorney General Sessions.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wire...ws-sessions-probe-calls-broad-review-51961402
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,984
55,389
136
But isn't that a presumption of guilt rather than innocence. Only a trial can say that.

Since I’m not a court I’m under no obligation to presume innocence. I just look at the available evidence and that’s awfully clear.