The Bundy Trial: When Justice Fails

[Sitka_Blacktail]

I read the article about the Cuban preacher, it looks as if that stream was diverted before by cattle ranchers, so I wonder where the original stream bed is   

That's not how I read it.  This "On his side of the berm, a sloping wash lined with the husks of withered plants is carved into the dusty terrain.

On the other is the federal government, which says it needed to divert the water to protect a fragile ecosystem home to 26 endangered species, including the 3-inch-long Ash Meadows speckled dace, a grayish-green fish found only here, in a network of spring-fed creeks surrounded by the Mojave Desert."

And this.... "In court filings, Fish & Wildlife has asserted a prior claim on the water. The agency’s 2009 conservation plan included a diversion of the stream, as well as several others. Refuge managers eventually rerouted a dozen waterways."

I read this as the Federal government diverted the water.

[KFhunter]

When Fuentes and his wife, Annette, arrived in 2006, water from the nearby Longstreet Spring filled the now dry arroyo, winding through a corner of their property before feeding into a downstream reservoir left over from the ranching of previous decades.

It's not clear to me where the water went prior to ranching, I could just see this used against the Cuban dude.

[Jack Diamond]

Wayne Hage and the sagebrush rebellion.  Another heavy handed action by the feds that was finally resolved when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the 9th circuit courts appeal.
In may of 2013 US district judge Robert Clive Jones issued a 104 page opinion detailing what he called the federal governments vindictive actions against the ranching family.
Over alleged cattle trespass , grazing and water rights.
The 9th circuit, the fed agents ,prosecutors and agency supervisors after years of litigation fell flat on their face.
Ranchers in the western U.S. are well aware of this case and the taking of 100+ head of cattle by the feds. And the heavy handed way it was handled.
Just to clarify that the Bundy's were
 not the 1st in our modern time to have to argue the facts with the government for the ability to continue a way of life. Whether you agree or not
The government employees are not always right.

,

[bigtex]

Wayne Hage and the sagebrush rebellion.  Another heavy handed action by the feds that was finally resolved when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the 9th circuit courts appeal.
In may of 2013 US district judge Robert Clive Jones issued a 104 page opinion detailing what he called the federal governments vindictive actions against the ranching family.
Over alleged cattle trespass , grazing and water rights.
The 9th circuit, the fed agents ,prosecutors and agency supervisors after years of litigation fell flat on their face.
Ranchers in the western U.S. are well aware of this case and the taking of 100+ head of cattle by the feds. And the heavy handed way it was handled.
Just to clarify that the Bundy's were
 not the 1st in our modern time to have to argue the facts with the government for the ability to continue a way of life. Whether you agree or not
The government employees are not always right.

,

You do realize this means SCOTUS agreed with the Feds and not the Hage's.....

The District Court Judge agreed with Hage, the Ninth Circuit overruled the District Court Judge, Hage appealed to SCOTUS which declined to take the case (essentially meaning they agree with the Ninth Circuit)

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/us-supreme-court-closes-book-on-wayne-hage-sagebrush-rebellion-court-case/

[Jack Diamond]

However the point was in fact the years of litigation involved, and the tactics used..
Not to mention the cattle were seized in 1991.

[Jack Diamond]

And no mention of the 4.2 million+17 years of interest awarded to the Hage family in 2008 by a federal claims judge.
Did they get it ,
So there was a lot of division within the fedeal judiciary,  through the decades this case was ongoing.
Money not well spent.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

You do realize this means SCOTUS agreed with the Feds and not the Hage's.....

The District Court Judge agreed with Hage, the Ninth Circuit overruled the District Court Judge, Hage appealed to SCOTUS which declined to take the case (essentially meaning they agree with the Ninth Circuit)

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/us-supreme-court-closes-book-on-wayne-hage-sagebrush-rebellion-court-case/

Not necessarily true. The high court limits itself to about 80 cases a year out of 10,000 cases presented to it. The reasons they take cases are many and varied. Agreeing or disagreeing with a particular case is not high on the list of reasons.  For starters, that would mean they had their minds made up before hearing a case. And  a bunch of law clerks have more to do with deciding which cases will be heard than the justices do. The clerks research cases that are presented and make recommendations and the justices make the final decisions based sometimes on personal whims.

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/how-does-the-u-s-supreme-court-decide-whether-to-hear-a-case.html