Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mahatmakanejeeves

(56,892 posts)
Thu Aug 6, 2020, 09:24 PM Aug 2020

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal Of Cliven Bundy Case

Source: NPR

NATIONAL
Federal Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal Of Cliven Bundy Case
August 6, 2020 4:40 PM ET

A federal appeals court in San Francisco has denied the Justice Department's motion for a retrial in the case against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who led an armed standoff against federal agents over cattle grazing near his ranch in 2014.

The decision Thursday comes more than two years after Bundy, two of his sons and Montana militiaman Ryan Payne walked out of the federal courthouse in Las Vegas as free men. The government's case collapsed after a mistrial in which prosecutors were admonished for failing to turn over evidence and for not disclosing the existence of surveillance camera footage and federal snipers stationed by Bundy's house near the town of Bunkerville.

In May, federal prosecutors argued that any missteps they made in the original trial were inadvertent. But in the latest ruling, 9th Circuit judges ruled the lower court acted within its authority in dismissing the indictments against Bundy and his co-defendants, while also barring the criminal complaints from being refiled.

Bundy's attorney, conservative activist Larry Klayman, said the family is relieved that "this nightmare is over."

"After two years of illegal incarceration, [my client] had to endure a sham and fraudulent trial where exculpatory evidence was hidden," Klayman said in a statement.

{snip}

Read more: https://www.npr.org/2020/08/06/899886777/federal-appeals-court-upholds-dismissal-of-cliven-bundy-case



"A federal appeals court in San Francisco has denied the Justice Department's motion for a retrial in the case against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who led an armed standoff against federal agents over cattle grazing near his ranch in 2014."


14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Federal Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal Of Cliven Bundy Case (Original Post) mahatmakanejeeves Aug 2020 OP
The guy is a criminal...period!! Thekaspervote Aug 2020 #1
AGREE! bluestarone Aug 2020 #2
So let's review one of the founding principles of American jurisprudence: klook Aug 2020 #3
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Aug 2020 #4
A slight modification. You also would have to be a Republican to get away with it. cstanleytech Aug 2020 #7
Read the details. Igel Aug 2020 #8
thank you. you're 100% correct on all points. stopdiggin Aug 2020 #10
What's the deal here? Did the Justice Dept. eff it up for a mistrial on purpose? Gidney N Cloyd Aug 2020 #5
Kind of, Wellstone ruled Aug 2020 #6
the land agency BLM Kali Aug 2020 #9
not really. they badly wanted these guys stopdiggin Aug 2020 #11
Bottom line was, Wellstone ruled Aug 2020 #12
totally agree stopdiggin Aug 2020 #13
Here your Wellstone ruled Aug 2020 #14

klook

(12,134 posts)
3. So let's review one of the founding principles of American jurisprudence:
Thu Aug 6, 2020, 09:34 PM
Aug 2020

Drive with a busted tail-light, sell cigarettes on the street, walk around with Skittles, possibly pass a counterfeit $20 bill, sleep, etc. -- while also being black -- instant execution. Pull weapons on Federal agents or take over a government facility for days -- while also being white -- total exoneration.

Response to klook (Reply #3)

Igel

(35,191 posts)
8. Read the details.
Fri Aug 7, 2020, 12:07 AM
Aug 2020

The DOJ withheld information that undermined the defense. They were asked about it, they were expected under federal law to turn it over, it was a requirement and expectation. And they said they didn't have it. The defense said there were snipers. The DOJ said there were no snipers.

The government withholds information and misrepresents the facts during a federal trial, the government needs to be slapped hard with a 2x4.

Sadly, the only way the courts have found to slap the government is to let guilty people walk. Think simple behaviorist psychology. You don't reward deviant behavior. You punish deviant behavior or, at the very least, don't reward it and set it on extinction.

I found this unreasonable when I was a teenager back in the '70s. But pondering it long and hard I didn't come up with any good solution. Still haven't 45 years later. Don't want to reward despotism, don't like letting the guilty go free. There's no compromise position there; it's pure either/or.

My values are ranked such that rewarding despotism is a greater wrong than not punishing the guilty. The solution the courts have found is simply the least bad, IMO, and sometimes "least bad" all you can hope for in an imperfect universe.

This, by the way, was an effect of progressive thought on the courts and it got a lot of pushback in the '60s and '70s. I mean, the very idea that the government should be rebuked when it's oppressive and denies civil rights.


stopdiggin

(11,092 posts)
10. thank you. you're 100% correct on all points.
Fri Aug 7, 2020, 03:17 AM
Aug 2020

Cliven Bundy -- along with his entire 3%er, anti-government agenda/campaign -- are loathsome (and dangerous) degenerates in my eyes.

But that in no way can make an excuse for federal government blatantly breaking their own laws .. both in and out of court. And the only remedy possible here -- was that some absolute scumbags walked out of court as free men. But, place the blame where it belongs -- on the lying cheating scum in the Justice department.

 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
6. Kind of,
Thu Aug 6, 2020, 10:10 PM
Aug 2020

their main Witness was a total dud. So many conflicts of interest as well as a personal vindictive agenda.

The Guy was not the right choice as BLM lead person from day one. Once a total jerk,always a total jerk.

stopdiggin

(11,092 posts)
11. not really. they badly wanted these guys
Fri Aug 7, 2020, 03:27 AM
Aug 2020

perhaps a little too much? The larger problem seems to be that lying and withholding evidence has become somewhat standard practice with too many prosecutors.

 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
12. Bottom line was,
Fri Aug 7, 2020, 11:56 AM
Aug 2020

their Star Witness Mr,Love was so tainted,no jury in our area would not believe a work coming from his mouth.

As one would say,he was a bad hire. And in his case,he was a bad Appointment.

stopdiggin

(11,092 posts)
13. totally agree
Fri Aug 7, 2020, 02:43 PM
Aug 2020

my point here --
despite the fact that the feds tried time and time again to deescalate and find accommodation with these people -- in the end law enforcement really don't like civilians humiliating them, backing them down, roughing them up (in some cases), and pointing weapons at them -- it really kind of pisses them off. So, no -- Justice did not go into this case with the idea of losing, or letting somebody off easy. (as is suggested at points in this thread) They just screwed it up.

 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
14. Here your
Fri Aug 7, 2020, 03:10 PM
Aug 2020

argument. And you are spot on. When the Judge admonishes the Prosecution in both cases,that is the real story.

BTW,Mr.Love came with some serious baggage. Those whom knew him,and his egotistic agenda, were not surprised at the outcome. All about a fiefdom.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Federal Appeals Court Uph...