The Bundy Trial: When Justice Fails

[jmscon]

I was at Crane Hotsprings which is where the outlaw ranchers were meeting south of Burns a week after Leroy Finicum was killed. Heard story after story of how the federal govt was making ranching impossible. Documented accounts of how they changed grazing leases mid lease. Drastically changing the AUM. Forcing ranchers to sell because they couldn’t afford to feed hay. To ranch you have to know how many animals the land can support. You have loans to buy animals and equipment. Then when you loose your lease or have the AUM drastically changed it puts you into a huge crisis.   Just as many hunters feel that the game Dept is not acting in your interests so is the same feeling towards the feds by ranchers. There is a huge anti hunting and anti ranching climate in the federal govt.

LaVoy was assassinated, not killed.

I'm sorry. But if LaVoy had just done what he was told.  Not get out of the vehicle. Not walked toward law enforcement. LaVoy acted out of control. I'm not saying he was right or wrong.  I'm saying his actions helped escalate the unfortunate event. I saw the last video of him very animated saying he was prepared to die. I stopped at where he died. The tracks were still in the snow.

Very hard for lavoy to do what he was told they started shooting at the truck as soon as he came around the corner.
If he hadn't gotten out of the truck everybody else in there would be dead also.

Umm....   No.

Lavoy was ranting about not being taken alive and basically yelling at the cops begging them to shoot him when they pulled him over.

Had he not fled, and then had he not jumped out of his truck.....   He'd be alive.

He was out of control.   Period.

Dano I don't consider what he was doing as fleeing I know you and others will he was going to see the sheriff.    Period
He jumped out of the truck because they were already shooting at them.  Period
The only people out of control were the FBI and osp. That murdered him and would of killed everybody else in the truck if he had stayed in it.  Period

I guess I'll agree to disagree.

As far as I'm concerned, he did so many things that caused him to get shot, it's practically a suicide.

I figure you're trying to die if you:
  * Take over a Federal Facility by armed force
  * Wander around telling anyone with a camera that you'll never be taken alive
  * Keep telling people that you won't go down without a fight and that you're prepared to die
  * Flee a lawful stop
  * Speed out of control into a road block
  * Jump out of your car ranting like a lunatic

It boggles my mind that some of you want to make him into a folk hero.

A Black kid in a city pulling these pranks would be called a punk and a thug.

[Special T]

Their was land in question. It doesn't matter if they were guilty or innocent, if the government wants your land they'll take it. History proves this fact. 

In 100% agreement.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[idahohuntr]

Lol

I see several. There are many similarities when agreements are entered into when there is not an explicit contract termination.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Can you post the agreement you reference?  The court order I posted contradicts any suggestion of an agreement or a right.  Not even a small comparison between Bundy and Tribes.

In the second paragraph of the background it sounds like they applied for a permit from the BLM in 54 that they had already been grazing.

If you want to make the point that they should not have entered into that agreement be cause that gave up his previous rights, then we would need to see that agreement, and how that agreement has changed over time, and how it would effect a previous right.  I don't see anywhere in that legal document where it denies that the Bundies had not run cattle  before the  the first agreement in 54. its possible I missed something so feel free to point it out.

People seem to infer that because I would like to see this adressed regarding property rights that I'm some kind of Big Bundy supporter. I'm not per say, but I haven't seen an Article that lays it out.

If I wanted to go rent land now to start up ST cattle it would be under whatever kind of agreement was put in front of me.

Are you saying that the Bundies had not Ranches that area before the agreement? I belive I had read that they had been ranching since the 1880s or something to that effect.

I'd love to see a time line of the issues at hand, and I belive it starts way before 1954. 2c

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I read something about Bundy claiming grazing rights from 1880s based on some distant relative or some such.  But Bundy put up every argument he could in multiple court proceedings and no legal right exists according to every judge in every case he was involved.  Someone claiming they have a right on federal land is different than actually having one.  You keep making the point that you wish this had been a property rights case, but what I'm seeing is Bundy argued this in court many times...and never prevailed.  So it's not as though he never tried to maked this claim and bring evidence..he did, he just did not have any such right as multiple court proceedings confirmed.

[PlateauNDN]

Dan-o, Indians did exactly that and we were murdered. But he's a folk hero and we were bloody savages being greedy by not sharing our land.

I just reread my post and it sounds as if I'm lashing out at you, which I'm not. I was merely providing substance to your post. 

[idaho guy]

Their was land in question. It doesn't matter if they were guilty or innocent, if the government wants your land they'll take it. History proves this fact. 

In 100% agreement.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

X2 and I seen it first hand with a freeway through a relatives ranch and also flooding a homestead for a reservoir . They “buy” your property for their price and you don’t have much to say about it. So much for personal property rights

[Dan-o]

Dan-o, Indians did exactly that and we were murdered. But he's a folk hero and we were bloody savages being greedy by not sharing our land.

I just reread my post and it sounds as if I'm lashing out at you, which I'm not. I was merely providing substance to your post. 

I knew where you were headed.     

[KFhunter]

I don't have any white guilt, none. 

[Special T]

Lol

I see several. There are many similarities when agreements are entered into when there is not an explicit contract termination.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Can you post the agreement you reference?  The court order I posted contradicts any suggestion of an agreement or a right.  Not even a small comparison between Bundy and Tribes.

In the second paragraph of the background it sounds like they applied for a permit from the BLM in 54 that they had already been grazing.

If you want to make the point that they should not have entered into that agreement be cause that gave up his previous rights, then we would need to see that agreement, and how that agreement has changed over time, and how it would effect a previous right.  I don't see anywhere in that legal document where it denies that the Bundies had not run cattle  before the  the first agreement in 54. its possible I missed something so feel free to point it out.

People seem to infer that because I would like to see this adressed regarding property rights that I'm some kind of Big Bundy supporter. I'm not per say, but I haven't seen an Article that lays it out.

If I wanted to go rent land now to start up ST cattle it would be under whatever kind of agreement was put in front of me.

Are you saying that the Bundies had not Ranches that area before the agreement? I belive I had read that they had been ranching since the 1880s or something to that effect.

I'd love to see a time line of the issues at hand, and I belive it starts way before 1954. 2c

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I read something about Bundy claiming grazing rights from 1880s based on some distant relative or some such.  But Bundy put up every argument he could in multiple court proceedings and no legal right exists according to every judge in every case he was involved.  Someone claiming they have a right on federal land is different than actually having one.  You keep making the point that you wish this had been a property rights case, but what I'm seeing is Bundy argued this in court many times...and never prevailed.  So it's not as though he never tried to maked this claim and bring evidence..he did, he just did not have any such right as multiple court proceedings confirmed.

If his family has not in fact been ranching the same land in question, then my intrigue  on the subject  is irrelevant. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[olyguy79]

It's no wonder people get convicted for crimes they didn't commit. They don't or won't see the evidence that is presented. This is why the Bundy's got off, innocent of all charges.

They were not found innocent, they were not found guilty, they were not acquitted. The case was dismissed. Legally there is a big difference.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

They were not found innocent, which means guilty then. They were not found guilty, which means innocent then. They were not acquitted,  means they get off of the charges. The case was dismissed, which means innocent. Please explain all the differences and not, well, it's supposed to mean, XXXX. I want specifics of law.

You're statement shows how little you know about law.

Dismissed certainly does not mean innocent. To take it to an easy to understand level. Lets say you get cited for going 50 in a 35 (and you really were doing 50), you go to court and ask for a deferment where if you don't get cited/arrested for 12 months the case gets dismissed. Does this mean you are innocent? No. Does it mean you are not guilty? No. Will a guilty conviction be on your record? No.

Judges dismiss cases all the time, either as part of a plea deal, due to a lack of probable cause, etc. The big thing to look at is how is it dismissed; with prejudice or not. The vast majority are dismissed without prejudice which means the govt. can re-file charges. Maybe there just wasn't enough to prove probable cause, the govt. can go back and re-investigate the crime. When a case is dismissed with prejudice (like this Bundy case) it's almost always due to negligence on the government side. For Bundy, it was the US Attorney's Office failing to fulfill discovery rules.

[olyguy79]

I was at Crane Hotsprings which is where the outlaw ranchers were meeting south of Burns a week after Leroy Finicum was killed. Heard story after story of how the federal govt was making ranching impossible. Documented accounts of how they changed grazing leases mid lease. Drastically changing the AUM. Forcing ranchers to sell because they couldn’t afford to feed hay. To ranch you have to know how many animals the land can support. You have loans to buy animals and equipment. Then when you loose your lease or have the AUM drastically changed it puts you into a huge crisis.   Just as many hunters feel that the game Dept is not acting in your interests so is the same feeling towards the feds by ranchers. There is a huge anti hunting and anti ranching climate in the federal govt.

LaVoy was assassinated, not killed.

I'm sorry. But if LaVoy had just done what he was told.  Not get out of the vehicle. Not walked toward law enforcement. LaVoy acted out of control. I'm not saying he was right or wrong.  I'm saying his actions helped escalate the unfortunate event. I saw the last video of him very animated saying he was prepared to die. I stopped at where he died. The tracks were still in the snow.

Very hard for lavoy to do what he was told they started shooting at the truck as soon as he came around the corner.
If he hadn't gotten out of the truck everybody else in there would be dead also.

Umm....   No.

Lavoy was ranting about not being taken alive and basically yelling at the cops begging them to shoot him when they pulled him over.

Had he not fled, and then had he not jumped out of his truck.....   He'd be alive.

He was out of control.   Period.

Dano I don't consider what he was doing as fleeing I know you and others will he was going to see the sheriff.    Period
He jumped out of the truck because they were already shooting at them.  Period
The only people out of control were the FBI and osp. That murdered him and would of killed everybody else in the truck if he had stayed in it.  Period

The law considers driving away from the police when they are trying to stop you fleeing. Doesn't matter what you consider fleeing, only what the law says.

[Mudman]

Its only murder if the law says so.  Or not...  Throw the moral compass in the trash along with the Constitution.  To argue with people who ONLY view life through the Laws eyes is a fools folly. Voting and more importantly $ is the only way to fight/change etc.  Too bad we so broke.

[olyguy79]

Its only murder if the law says so.  Or not...  Throw the moral compass in the trash along with the Constitution.  To argue with people who ONLY view life through the Laws eyes is a fools folly. Voting and more importantly $ is the only way to fight/change etc.  Too bad we so broke.

Well considering murder is a legal term.....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[NW SURVEYOR]

Has any one of the people on this thread ever really inspected Clive Bundy's birith certificate.
He may not have even been born in this country.
Him trying to take our property makes him look like a thief from some Sh%$*&@e country.
We need to get Sherrif Joe Arripao to investigate, he'll find the truth!



There are  lot of Conspiricy Theorists on this thread.
Kinda scary.
Can anyone say "birther"?

Have a nice day!
Rob.


 

[Dan-o]

I don't have any white guilt, none.

I'm happy for ya.   

I don't have any white guilt either, and I'm as white as they come. 

Seems kind of irrelevant unless you're just looking for someone to take the bait.   

[CAMPMEAT]

I was at Crane Hotsprings which is where the outlaw ranchers were meeting south of Burns a week after Leroy Finicum was killed. Heard story after story of how the federal govt was making ranching impossible. Documented accounts of how they changed grazing leases mid lease. Drastically changing the AUM. Forcing ranchers to sell because they couldn’t afford to feed hay. To ranch you have to know how many animals the land can support. You have loans to buy animals and equipment. Then when you loose your lease or have the AUM drastically changed it puts you into a huge crisis.   Just as many hunters feel that the game Dept is not acting in your interests so is the same feeling towards the feds by ranchers. There is a huge anti hunting and anti ranching climate in the federal govt.

LaVoy was assassinated, not killed.

I'm sorry. But if LaVoy had just done what he was told.  Not get out of the vehicle. Not walked toward law enforcement. LaVoy acted out of control. I'm not saying he was right or wrong.  I'm saying his actions helped escalate the unfortunate event. I saw the last video of him very animated saying he was prepared to die. I stopped at where he died. The tracks were still in the snow.

Very hard for lavoy to do what he was told they started shooting at the truck as soon as he came around the corner.
If he hadn't gotten out of the truck everybody else in there would be dead also.

Umm....   No.

Lavoy was ranting about not being taken alive and basically yelling at the cops begging them to shoot him when they pulled him over.

Had he not fled, and then had he not jumped out of his truck.....   He'd be alive.

He was out of control.   Period.

Dano I don't consider what he was doing as fleeing I know you and others will he was going to see the sheriff.    Period
He jumped out of the truck because they were already shooting at them.  Period
The only people out of control were the FBI and osp. That murdered him and would of killed everybody else in the truck if he had stayed in it.  Period

The law considers driving away from the police when they are trying to stop you fleeing. Doesn't matter what you consider fleeing, only what the law says.

They did stop and the cops didn't do squat because the informant was in the other vehicle. They didn't to want kill the informant. The cops give zero instructions to the pickup and LaVoy told them they had meeting in John Day, with the Sheriff and left. Remember ?