John R. Houk
© August 24, 2017
After the Bundys and most of their fellow ranchers
were acquitted over their protest at the Malheur National Wildlife
Refuge inspired by re-jailing unjustly of a couple Hammond
family ranchers because an Obama Administration Federal Prosecutor
felt the original time served was not severe enough, the Federal government was
in Oregon to arrest them for the Bundy Ranch standoff that occurred prior to
Malheur.
When you hear or read that Cliven Bundy’s fight to withstand the
Bureau of Land Management (henceforth BLM, but not to be with another evil
organization with the same acronym Black Lives Matter) was illegal and
unconstitutional, then you have to realize you are not getting the entire story.
There is some truth to the illegal claim, but Cliven chose to resist the law
because bureaucratic rules enforced as Congressional was threatening his
ranching business. Here’s a word picture that pro-prosecution people don’t want
you to see:
A few facts about the Cliven
Bundy and the BLM incident
For some time, the Bundy’s have
owned cattle that have grazed in the Bunkerville, NV area. Since his
cattle grazed on federal land, he paid grazing fees to the federal
government. In 1993, the local grazing rules changed when a number of
things came together; the Desert
tortoise became protected under the species act, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service determined that this was one of the areas critical to their
long-term survival. Grazing rules were also changed in order
to accommodate restoration needed from years of overgrazing
and recent fires. These new rules would include Bundy having to
reduce his number of cattle. Refusing to comply, he decided to “fire” the BLM,
and stop paying grazing fees, while continuing to use federal lands for his
cattle to graze. Not only did he not reduce his cattle count, but actually
increased them over time.
As a result, Cliven Bundy’s cattle have been illegally grazing on federal land for 20 years.
Over these 20 years, Cliven Bundy has racked up over $1 million in unpaid
grazing fees, and has actually expanded his cattle’s grazing further into
federal lands. He has been taken to court (and defeated) both in
1998 and 2013.
…
In response, several protesters
(including armed militia members) gathered in defense of Bundy. The standoff
came to an end when the BLM, citing
safety concerns, decided to stand down. Supporters of Bundy
have of [sic] labeled this successful (and armed, as well as potentially
violent) defense of Bundy’s illegal activity as a “win for freedom.” – Long article
– READ ENTIRETY (Fact
Check – The Bundy Ranch Cattle & The BLM; By Fact
and Myth; 4/20/17)
Juries are having a difficult time convicting the Bundys and
their standoff supporters is because they understand bureaucracy wronged the
Bundy Ranch private business and family livelihood in the name of Eco-Marxist
rules NOT laws passed by Congress.
While I was Gab surfing I ran into a Onehope2016
post notifying readers that four on trial for participating in the Bundy Standoff had four acquittals
from a jury. Two of those four received a combination Not Guilty and a hung
jury on other charges. I was going to cross post Onehope2016’s link to a
Hagmann Report which also
linked to further info from The Republic/azcentral.com.
These guys had already endured two other hung juries. Today
I find out the Federal Prosecutors – undoubtedly holdovers from the Obama
swamp – are going to make the two that had a hung jury over some
remaining charges, back to court at taxpayers’ expense.
Below is that report from azcentral.com.
Here is a link to the Review Journal that is a history Bundy Ranch trials and tribulations that begins
with latest info but you can trace back to 2014. The Review Journal link makes
an attempt at neutrality in reporting but I could tell there was a bit of
support for the Federal Prosecutors.
JRH 8/24/17
****************
Prosecutors to retry Bundy Ranch
standoff defendants for 3rd time
Aug. 23, 2017 Updated 4:28
p.m. MT
O. Scott Drexler and Eric
Parker will be retried on lesser charges
Federal prosecutors who
didn't succeed in the Bundy Ranch standoff trial will retry and retry
again.
The U.S. Attorney's Office in
Las Vegas confirmed Wednesday it will go back to court for the third time
in an attempt to convict two men accused of taking up arms against federal
agents.
Less than 24 hours earlier,
a jury had acquitted two standoff defendants and dismissed the most
serious charges against two others. Now federal prosecutors say they will
retry the men next month on outstanding weapons and assault charges.
The move pushes back the
trials for 11 other defendants in the 2014 Bundy Ranch standoff, including
Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy, who have
spent 18 months in prison while awaiting their court date.
O. Scott Drexler and Eric
Parker, both of Idaho, were released from prison Tuesday night after a jury
acquitted them of conspiracy and extortion, which were the key
elements of the government's case.
But they found
out Wednesday they have been ordered back to court Sept. 25 to face
the charges on which the jury deadlocked.
"Surprised? No.
Disappointed? Yes," said Parker's lawyer, Jess Marchese. "It's clear
at this point the prosecution is taking this personally now."
Marchese said Acting Nevada
U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre twice called Parker a coward during a court
hearing Wednesday.
Marchese said it was
unprofessional and unnecessary. "This is a business," he said.
"And there's no need for emotion in a business."
Parker and Drexler
face one count each of assaulting a federal officer and carrying a firearm
in the commission of a crime. Parker faces two additional counts of using
a firearm to threaten a federal officer.
Jurors twice reject
government claims
Jurors dealt government
prosecutors their second stinging defeat in the case when, after four days
of deliberations, they returned no guilty verdicts against
four defendants.
Richard Lovelien of Oklahoma
and Steven Stewart of Idaho were acquitted on all counts and walked out of
court Tuesday night free after spending 18 months in prison.
This marks the second time
a jury failed to convict the defendants on charges related to the
standoff, which pitted armed ranchers and militia members against Bureau
of Land Management agents in a dusty wash below Interstate 15 about 70 miles
north of Las Vegas.
A jury in April deadlocked on charges
against the four men. It
convicted two other defendants on multiple counts. But it could not agree on
conspiracy charges against any of the six.
The men were being retried on
conspiracy, extortion, assault and obstruction charges for helping rancher
Cliven Bundy fend off a government roundup of his cattle in what became known
as the Battle of Bunkerville.
The government launched
its second prosecution last month. The case climaxed Aug. 11 when U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro
abruptly ended court by ordering Parker off the stand and striking his
testimony from the record as jurors watched.
The defendant was attempting
to tell jurors what he saw during the standoff over a barrage of objections from
prosecutors. Navarro ruled Parker violated court orders by discussing
prohibited topics. Parker returned to the defense table and started crying
while Navarro dismissed the jurors.
Marchese said jurors told him
Tuesday the incident was a factor in their verdicts. He said jurors were
sympathetic to the defendants and their inability to mount a cogent defense in
light of restrictions in talking about why they participated in the standoff
and what they were thinking while they were there.
The case went to the
jury Aug. 15 after lawyers for all four defendants waived closing
arguments as part of a protest about court proceedings and
restrictive legal rulings.
Judge's rulings limit
defense
Navarro's rulings, aimed at
trying to avoid jury nullification, severely limited defense arguments.
Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict based on its shared
belief rather than on the evidence in a case.
Navarro barred defendants
from discussing why they traveled thousands of miles to join protesters at the
Bundy Ranch. She did not allow them to testify about perceived abuses by
federal authorities during the cattle roundup that might have motivated them to
participate.
Navarro also restricted
defendants from raising constitutional arguments, or mounting any defense based
on their First Amendment rights to free speech and their Second Amendment
rights to bear arms. In her rulings, Navarro said those were not
applicable arguments in the case.
Federal officials did
not face the same restrictions. To show defendants were part of a conspiracy,
they referenced events that happened months, or years, after the standoff.
Federal prosecutors, led by
Myhre, argued in court the case wasn't about the First or Second
Amendments; that the Constitution doesn't give people the right to threaten
federal officers.
They said the Bundys' dispute
with the BLM was adjudicated and the court issued a lawful order to round up
the cattle. When ranchers and the militia conspired to force the release
of the cattle, they broke the law, prosecutors argued.
Dozens of federal state and
local law-enforcement officers testified in the retrial, saying they were
outnumbered and outgunned in the wash and feared for their lives.
Jurors, however, heard from
no defense witnesses. Drexler took the stand and delivered the only
defense testimony jurors were allowed to consider.
He testified that even though
he brought weapons to the standoff, he did not intend to threaten or
assault law-enforcement officers.
Remaining defendants aimed
weapons
All four defendants in the
retrial admitted bringing guns to the standoff. But pictures of Parker and
Drexler aiming their weapons went viral.
An image of Parker
has come to epitomize the 2014 protest. He is pictured lying prone on an
overpass and sighting a long rifle at BLM agents in the wash below. The image
galvanized the public and brought international awareness to the feud over public
lands and the potential consequences of such a dispute.
The Bundy Ranch standoff is
one of the most high-profile land-use cases in modern Western history, pitting
cattle ranchers, anti-government protesters and militia members against the
Bureau of Land Management.
For decades, the BLM
repeatedly ordered Bundy to remove his cattle from federal lands and in 2014
obtained a court order to seize his cattle as payment for more than $1 million
in unpaid grazing fees.
Hundreds of supporters from
every state in the union, including members of several militia groups,
converged on his ranch about 70 miles north of Las Vegas.
The standoff was hailed as a
victory by militia members. Ammon and Ryan Bundy cited their
success at Bundy Ranch in their run-up to the siege of an Oregon
wildlife refuge in 2016, also in protest of BLM policies. An Oregon federal jury acquitted Ammon,
Ryan and five others in October.
No arrests were made in the
Bundy Ranch case until after the Oregon siege ended.
Last year, the government
charged 19 people for their roles in the Nevada standoff. Two men took plea
deals. Trials for the remaining defendants were broken into three tiers
based on their alleged levels of culpability in the standoff.
Although defendants in the
first trial and the retrial were considered the least culpable, all 17
defendants face the same charges. Those convicted could spend the
rest of their lives in prison.
The second trial, which will
include Cliven, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, who are considered ringleaders, was
supposed to start 30 days after the conclusion of the first trial. But the
start date has been delayed because of the retrials.
Marchese said Wednesday the
remaining 11 defendants remain incarcerated and the delays are wearing on them.
"Those guys want
their day in court," he said.
Parker plans on returning to
Idaho and seeing his family.
"He wants to be a
dad," Marchese said. "He wants to see his kids ... and to be a
father."
________________
Supporting Bundys in Trials & Tribulations
John R. Houk
© August 24, 2017
_________________
Prosecutors to retry Bundy Ranch standoff defendants for 3rd time
About azcentral.com
azcentral.com is the Valley’s #1
site. The top local source for news and information, azcentral.com's experts
deliver topics and insights residents care about like nobody else can. From
breaking news, investigative journalism and community stories, to things to do, sports, politics and more,
azcentral.com is where Arizona heads to stay connected.
azcentral.com tells the full story with in-depth videos and photo galleries, and is updated
throughout the day with up-to-the-minute news. Top columns are also featured
here, from local favorites that include Clay Thompson, E.J. Montini, Dan Bickley and Karina Bland.
In addition to 24/7 desktop and mobile access, enjoy more by downloading news and sports apps, the
azcentral Fact Check app and more. Also featured is
the e-Newspaper, an online edition
of The Arizona Republic, and the ability to subscribe to more than 30 email newsletters, ranging from the
top 5 daily headlines to things to do on the weekends. For those looking to
make a purchase, azcentral.com includes thousands of listings from
careerbuilder.com, cars.com and homefinder.com. Plus, subscribers can take
advantage of exciting events, deals and extras found only with the azcentral Insider program.
As the Valley’s #1 website, azcentral.com is more than a
destination for consumers – it’s the #1 advertising solution for Valley businesses.
azcentral.com attracts more than three times the traffic of its nearest local
competitor. Delivering unrivaled reach, audiences and engagement, plus
multilayered digital capabilities to help advertisers, azcentral.com is the
powerful digital solution every business needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment