Posted on 04/12/2017 7:30:31 AM PDT by rktman
This week, a group of men who stood face to face with government agents and refused to back down will find out how many more years of their lives that decision will cost them, as a verdict is expected in their federal trial in Las Vegas. It is the case of United States v. Cliven Bundy, et al.
Here's a brief look at how it all began.
"Are you really going to shoot these people if they move forward? Yes or no?"
Dennis Michael Lynch, a documentary filmmaker, yelled this pivotal question to government agents at a ranch outside Bunkerville, Nevada two years ago this month. As Lynch explained to Megyn Kelly later, he ran ahead of a group of ranchers and their supporters as they approached federal officials. The group planned to retrieve cattle the agents had taken from rancher Cliven Bundy, by force if necessary. Federal agents, you may remember, held that the land on which the cattle were grazing belonged to the government. Lynch's purpose was to bring some reason to the rapidly escalating situation. The ranchers were "willing to die," he said – not over some taxes and fees, but over the core belief that the federal government has limits.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
You have no right to a fair and impartial trial if you oppose the government.
Ask the bikers in Waco.
Or a dozen other cases.
Ping...
Judges are paid by and work for.... The government!
Or maybe the Branch Davidians? Ruby Ridge?
Jack-booted thugs gotta stomp.
“Do you want tar and featherings of judges? Because this is how you get tar and featherings.”
Problem here. If the ecowankers had their way, you would NOT be allowed to use the tar (fossil derived? or the feathers from certain protected birds) in these endeavors. Maybe natural tree sap and some old leaves. Unless they’re given “personhood” too. ;-)
Somebody needs to check out Judge Navarro’s records on THE HAMMER and in “incidental surveillance”.
Let’s find out the truth about how the American “justice” system really works.
If they want to get all picky about it we can use pine tar and pigeon or chicken feathers. ;)
That's a scary proposition, at times.
I've found myself wondering, many times, about whether or not one could prevail in court against government overreach even when that overreach was specifically and explicitly barred by governing Constitution.
The BLM ‘force’ intended to kill those unarmed people in that gulch. There was no traffic on the overpasses above them, nor was there aircraft/new helicopters.
Besides, the BLM goons had been shooting the Bundy cattle and destroying the water collection spots where the cattle grazed. Copters and equipment was seen burying cattle.
I cannot get past the part where Bundy and his family think that we, the American people, should let them squat on public lands, grazing his cattle, without paying for it. Whether we want to support or not, the public ownership of the land, it is a fact, and they had a contract originally to graze their cattle on that land. They then chose to stop paying for that. Any discussion of personal rights, the ownership of the land, are difficult to get to win the whole act is based on theft. Theft by the Bundys against the American people. Other ranchers pay to use the public land and had the Bundys not wanted to pay any more and not graze their cattle on that land, someone else could have, giving us the revenue for the use of our public land. This is staffed. Simple, corporate welfare if we want to talk about it in a business sense. The bunnies never own any of the slim, they never had a title to any of this land, I believe the family ownership of their own land there in that areatraced back 40 years.
Background information which may or may not be reliable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
And a small summary:
The Bundy standoff was an armed confrontation between protesters and law enforcement that developed from a 20-year legal dispute between the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Cliven Bundy over unpaid grazing fees on federally owned land in southeastern Nevada.
The dispute started in 1993, when, in protest against changes to grazing rules, Bundy declined to renew his permit for cattle grazing on BLM-administered lands near Bunkerville, Nevada. According to the BLM, Bundy continued to graze his cattle on public lands without a permit. In 1998, Bundy was prohibited by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada from grazing his cattle on an area of land later called the Bunkerville Allotment. In July 2013, U.S. District Judge Lloyd D. George ordered that Bundy refrain from trespassing on federally administered land in the Gold Butte area of Clark County.
On March 27, 2014, 145,604 acres of federal land in Clark County were temporarily closed for the “capture, impound, and removal of trespass cattle”. BLM officials and law enforcement rangers began a roundup of such livestock on April 5, and an arrest was made the next day. On April 12, a group of protesters, some of them armed, advanced on what the BLM described as a “cattle gather.” Sheriff Doug Gillespie negotiated with Bundy and newly confirmed BLM director Neil Kornze, who elected to release the cattle and de-escalate the situation. As of the end of 2015, Bundy continued to graze his cattle on Federal land and had not paid the fees.
“In toto, only two days were spent on the defense. Out of that, the jury was permitted to be in the courtroom for fifteen minutes. The prosecution, on the other hand, consumed over five weeks of courtroom time to make their case. And that is only part of what looks, smells, and feels like a case of injustice – perhaps with prosecutorial and judicial misconduct added in for good measure.
Court spectators such as John Lamb, an unrelated party who traveled from Montana to watch the trial, spoke each day on a live Facebook video, after proceedings had adjourned, with notes in hand. Every afternoon, Lamb’s recounting of the trial day became more disturbing as he reported that even the most basic rights were ignored in the federal courtroom in Las Vegas. Judge Gloria Navarro told one defendant he had only three rights in her courtroom: to plead guilty, to testify on his own behalf, and to appeal his conviction, according to Lamb. Meanwhile, witnesses for the prosecution – most of them government agents – could remain in the courtroom before their own testimony. Defense witnesses were told to leave.
Other spectators confirmed Lamb’s account and more. Many of those in the courtroom carried pocket-sized Constitutions; Judge Navarro subsequently ruled that the Constitution was not allowed in the courtroom unless it was turned face-down. On April 10, a man named Neil Wampler was escorted out of the courtroom and his things collected by a U.S. marshal because he had a copy of the U.S. Constitution in his pocket that was visible to the judge.”
It is very hard to write a post, especially a long post on an iPad, were you can’t scroll up and down very well. But I think the just of my comment is understandable even if I use the word bunnies instead of Bundys. This was our land and they stole the use of it. This is no different than any other example of that, we’re normally focus on FR would say throw them in jail. Further, any other group wanting to arm themselves against the police, we also say shoot them. I like to think that I’m consistent about my views, not allowing one group to get away with what I don’t think another group should get away with. So again, there is the issue of armed theft or resistance, which the Bundys are guilty of and will go to jail. Separately, there is the issue of whether it is in our national interest to continue owning land that the US government bought in 1805. I think there is. But let’s not mix the two discussions, the bunnies are not heroes to be cheered on. let them rot in jail.
The fact that Judge Navarro refused to let copies of the Constitution into the courtroom - and removed one person for having a copy in his pants pocket where it could be seen - speaks loud and clear as to what the jury was supposed to think of the Constitution. Nothing. They were not allowed to see any evidence that we even HAVE a Constitution.
The fact that Judge Navarro refused to let copies of the Constitution into the courtroom - and removed one person for having a copy in his pants pocket where it could be seen - speaks loud and clear as to what the jury was supposed to think of the Constitution. Nothing. They were not allowed to see any evidence that we even HAVE a Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.