The strange Bunkerville case has further twists

The twists and turns in the Bunkerville standoff trial defy logic.

Weeks into the federal trial of 71-year-old rancher Cliven Bundy, two of this sons and self-styled militia man from Montana, the judge has decided that all of the defendants should be released from jail to what amounts to house arrest. Ryan Bundy was so released at the beginning of the trial but the judge refused to do the same for the others.

The four have been jailed since February 2016. The judge said she “reweighed” the evidence.

But in a further twist, after previously demanding he be released under whatever terms the court might impose — travel, firearm or GPS tracking restrictions — Cliven Bundy now refuses the offer, with his lawyer saying, “To be released, he would have to agree to conditions. In his opinion, he’s not willing to take a deal with the government when he hasn’t done anything wrong to begin with. … He’s very principled and he doesn’t want to violate those principals and I respect that,” according to High Country News.

This the third trial growing out of an April 2014 confrontation in which the BLM tried to confiscate Bundy’s cattle for failure to pay grazing fees for more than two decades, but backed off when confronted with armed protesters. Originally 17 people were charged with obstruction of justice, conspiracy, extortion, assault and impeding federal officers among other things. The defendants have claimed they were simply exercising their First and Second Amendment rights, but the judge has refused that to be used as a defense.

So far in this case two have been acquitted by a jury, two have pleaded to a misdemeanor and released on time served, one pleaded to conspiracy charge and faces up to six years in prison, another was convicted and sentenced to seven years another was convicted and sentenced to 68 years in prison and still another was convicted and is awaiting sentencing but faces up to 30 years.

The trial of six more defendants, including two more Bundy sons, Dave and Mel Bundy, is scheduled for 30 days after the current trial ends, which is expected to last into February, unless something else odd happens.

Outside courthouse (R-J pix)

 

 

 

 

10 comments on “The strange Bunkerville case has further twists

  1. A.D. Hopkins says:

    Consistent with Clive Bundy’s previous actions. If I remember correctly, he was not even permitted to pay the grazing fees unless he agreed to certain conditions which he said would destroy his cattle raising business. By this account it wasn’t about the grazing fees, but the conditions. Now he’s saying it’s not about being in jail, but about the conditions of release.

  2. Thomas Mitchell says:

    BLM only allowed grazing in months when cattle lose weight.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Then i guess he should have kept his cows off their land.

  4. Thomas Mitchell says:

    He was there first.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Funny, I was “here” before my neighbor but somehow that doesn’t mean i get to do with his land what i want.

  6. Thomas Mitchell says:

    Did your neighbor take away land you were using?

  7. deleted says:

    I’m confused Thomas and I sure hope you can clear this up; are you suggesting that if my neighbor owns property, that I trespass on to use, that somehow now I have a right to continue to trespass on that property and use it even though he has made it clear that he doesn’t want me trespassing on his property?

    And remember that there is no adverse possession or adhesion against government property.

  8. Should the feds “own” the land? Do they really own the land?

    Petition by Western states:

    “When these States stipulated not to tax the lands of the United States until they were sold, they rested upon the implied engagement of Congress to cause them to be sold, within a reasonable time. No just equivalent has been given those States for a surrender of an attribute of sovereignty so important to their welfare, and to an equal standing with the original States.”

    Did I neglect to mention that the Western states are Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida? Or that the year the petition was issued was 1828?

    Today the federal government controls only 4 percent of the lands in those “Western” states, while it controls 50 percent of the current Western states.

  9. deleted says:

    Should my neighbor get to own the land he does?

    If you ask me I say no, because he seems to have a whole lot more than I do and I sure would be happy to get someone to force him to give it away to me.

    And, the history of law in this country is clear that the federal government is entitled to own land, and that there is no requirement that the get rid of any land they want to hold on to. Which seems perfectly reasonable given property law in this country which…frowns on, forcing landowners to get rid of property they don’t want to give up.

    Bundy broke the law, he took up arms to defend his claim that he was entitled to break the law, and ought to have to suffer the consequences.

  10. Steve says:

    Oh, now shammy wants to claim the government can acquire title to private property via adverse possession!
    And did so, in Nevada’s case, all the way back to the civil war!

    You POS!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s