Jury acquits leaders of Oregon standoff of federal charges

[webfact]

Jury acquits leaders of Oregon standoff of federal charges 
STEVEN DuBOIS, Associated Press
GILLIAN FLACCUS, Associated Press

 

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A jury delivered an extraordinary blow to the government Thursday in a long-running battle over the use of public lands when it acquitted all seven defendants involved in the armed occupation of a national wildlife refuge in rural southeastern Oregon.

 

Tumult erupted in the courtroom after the verdicts were read when an attorney for group leader Ammon Bundy demanded his client be immediately released, repeatedly yelling at the judge. U.S. marshals tackled attorney Marcus Mumford to the ground, used a stun gun on him several times and arrested him.

 

U.S. District Judge Anna Brown said she could not release Bundy because he still faces charges in Nevada stemming from an armed standoff at his father Cliven Bundy's ranch two years ago.

 

The Portland jury acquitted Bundy, his brother Ryan Bundy and five others of conspiring to impede federal workers from their jobs at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, 300 miles southeast of Portland.

 

Even attorneys for the defendants were surprised by the acquittals.

 

"It's stunning. It's a stunning victory for the defense," said Robert Salisbury, attorney for defendant Jeff Banta. "I'm speechless."

 

Said defendant Neil Wampler: "This is a tremendous victory for rural America and it is a well-deserved, overwhelming defeat for a corrupt and predatory federal government."

 

The U.S Attorney in Oregon, Billy J. Williams, issued a statement defending the decision to bring charges against the seven defendants: "We strongly believe that this case needed to be brought before a Court, publicly tried, and decided by a jury.

 

A Bundy daughter, Bailey Logue, said family members were savoring the victory, and would begin Friday to determine their next step.

 

"First thing, we're going to get down on our knees and thank our Heavenly Father, and we're going to enjoy our families," Logue said. "Tomorrow, we're going to figure out what we're going to do next."

 

Messages left for Bundy family matriarch Carol Bundy in Bunkerville, Nevada, weren't immediately returned.

 

The Oregon case is a continuation of the tense standoff with federal officials at Cliven Bundy's ranch in 2014. Cliven, Ammon and Ryan Bundy are among those who are to go on trial in Nevada early next year for that standoff.

 

While the charges in Oregon accused defendants of preventing federal workers from getting to their workplace, the case in Nevada revolves around allegations of a more direct threat: An armed standoff involving dozens of Bundy backers pointing weapons including assault-style rifles at federal Bureau of Land Management agents and contract cowboys rounding up cattle near the Bundy ranch outside Bunkerville.

 

Daniel Hill, attorney for Ammon Bundy in the Nevada case, said he believed the acquittal in Oregon bodes well for his client and the other defendants facing felony weapon, conspiracy and other charges.

 

"When the jury here hears the whole story, I expect the same result," Hill told The Associated Press in Las Vegas.

 

Hill also said he'll seek his client's release from federal custody pending trial in Nevada.

 

Ammon Bundy and his followers took over the Oregon bird sanctuary on Jan. 2. They objected to prison sentences handed down to Dwight and Steven Hammond, two local ranchers convicted of setting fires. They demanded the government free the father and son and relinquish control of public lands to local officials.

 

The Bundys and other key figures were arrested in a Jan. 26 traffic stop outside the refuge that ended with police fatally shooting Robert "LaVoy" Finicum, an occupation spokesman. Most occupiers left after his death, but four holdouts remained until Feb. 11, when they surrendered following a lengthy negotiation.

 

Federal prosecutors took two weeks to present their case, finishing with a display of more than 30 guns seized after the standoff. An FBI agent testified that 16,636 live rounds and nearly 1,700 spent casings were found.

 

During trial, Bundy testified that the plan was to take ownership of the refuge by occupying it for a period of time and then turn it over to local officials to use as they saw fit.

 

Bundy also testified that the occupiers carried guns because they would have been arrested immediately otherwise and to protect themselves against possible government attack.

 

The bird sanctuary takeover drew sympathizers from around the West.

 

It also drew a few protesters who were upset that the armed occupation was preventing others from using the land. They included Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity.

 

Suckling on Thursday called the acquittals "extremely disturbing" for "anyone who cares about America's public lands, the rights of native people and their heritage, and a political system that refuses to be bullied by violence and racism.

 

"The Bundy clan and their followers peddle a dangerous brand of radicalism aimed at taking over lands owned by all of us. I worry this verdict only emboldens the kind of intimidation and right-wing violence that underpins their movement," Suckling said.

 

One of Ammon Bundy's attorneys, Morgan Philpot, had a different perspective after watching Mumford get tackled by marshals.

 

"His liberty was just assaulted by the very government that was supposed to protect it, by the very government that just prosecuted his client — unjustly as the jury found."

 

There's another Oregon trial coming up over the wildlife refuge.

 

Authorities had charged 26 occupiers with conspiracy. Eleven pleaded guilty, and another had the charge dropped. Seven defendants chose not to be tried at this time. Their trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 14.

___

Associated Press Writers Andrew Selsky in Salem, Ore., and Ken Ritter in Las Vegas contributed.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-10-28

[elgordo38]

For the people by the people actually exists. I am truly amazed 

[sgtsabai]

Had they been Indian, that land is Indian land, and done the same they would have been shot down. Same if they had been black. Same same with the standoff at the thieves ranch. And they are thief's. Bundy's and their ilk are not the good guys, far from it. The represent the worst of the worst.

[OMGImInPattaya]

A nice bit of jury nullification...telling the gub'ment what to do with their indictment and take a hike ?

Edited October 28, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[stevenl]

This shows the limitations of jury trials: these people were acquitted because of emotions, despite them clearly being guilty according to the law.

[thaihome]

Though I vehemently disagree with the beliefs of these people that land acquired by the Federal government prior to statehood should be given to the states (numerous Supreme Court rulings says it's Federal land), I do agree federal law enforcement way over reacted to what was basically  "sit-in protest" and the conspiracy charges were ludicrous. There were several other options law enforcement could have chosen to address the issue.  Another case of over aggressive law enforcement that had tragic results.

 

Bit ironic though in which posters are cheering this. 

TH  

[Srikcir]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

this case needed to be brought before a Court, publicly tried, and decided by a jury.

And it was. Better still, under the US judicial system the federal government cannot appeal the "not guilty" verdict. The verdict showcases the fairness of the US  judicial system.

[Kabula]

51 minutes ago, sgtsabai said:

Had they been Indian, that land is Indian land, and done the same they would have been shot down. Same if they had been black. Same same with the standoff at the thieves ranch. And they are thief's. Bundy's and their ilk are not the good guys, far from it. The represent the worst of the worst.

You watch too much T.V.!

 

You need to study land rights going back to the 1800's.  The Bundy's were in the right, did not owe the money alleged, and stood firm for the people and the many ranchers who had their land and property stolen from them.  Some even murdered and incarcerated.

 

You need to do your homework and study the Legal Bundy land and water rights before posting  ignorant content that could get you sued for libel.  You should focus on why the government wants the ranchers off the their Land!

[thaihome]

12 minutes ago, Kabula said:

You watch too much T.V.!

 

You need to study land rights going back to the 1800's.  The Bundy's were in the right, did not owe the money alleged, and stood firm for the people and the many ranchers who had their land and property stolen from them.  Some even murdered and incarcerated.

 

You need to do your homework and study the Legal Bundy land and water rights before posting  ignorant content that could get you sued for libel.  You should focus on why the government wants the ranchers off the their Land!

Indeed.

A recent confrontation between federal (BLM) employees and protesters over the attempted confiscation of cattle (belonging to rancher Cliven Bundy) that ha been grazing on federal land (illegally, going on 20 years now) has made its way into several news outlets. The usual suspects have  turned this into some Orwellian takeover and suppression of civil liberties, along with alleged backroom deals involving Harry Reid and Chinese solar farms. A basic fact check reveals that reality is more benign and less dramatic. Rather than taking the time to learn about and explain the history, structure and legal mandate of the BLM, as well as the multiple court cases Bundy lost and complaints from other locals and environmental groups (often confusing and overlapping) over Bundy’s trespass cattle, many ideological opportunists have seized this opportunity to portray the BLM as some shadowy organization trampling a rancher’s rights.

http://www.factandmyth.com/conspiracy-theory/cliven-bundys-cattle-and-the-federal-land-grab

 

The Bundys have no legal basis for their claims and therefore have resorted to anti government conspiracy accusations and spurious legal claims to enlist anti government militias and so called Patriots into their lost cause. Strongly suggest posters read the link above to get the full story.

TH 

[sgtsabai]

Ah, Mr. Trump, please don't sue me...lol.

 

I don't watch too much tv, in fact don't watch, internet brings my news. Creek/Choctaw, Wounded Knee II veteran.

 

Thank you thaihome for beating me to the answer. I also strongly suggest posters read the link before putting foot in mouth. Interesting that some folks think the BLM officers shouldn't have been armed. They are always armed, they are law enforcement officers, as I was in New Mexico. They should have never given the cattle back and finished the job right then and there.

[Emster23]

Government screwed up: charges had to do with preventing government employees from doing their work, and in this case didn't do it. I'm from Oregon, have friends who live near the reserve, and they are not happy campers over this bunch getting off.

[impulse]

2 hours ago, sgtsabai said:

Had they been Indian, that land is Indian land, and done the same they would have been shot down. Same if they had been black. Same same with the standoff at the thieves ranch. And they are thief's. Bundy's and their ilk are not the good guys, far from it. The represent the worst of the worst.

 

They may be the worst of the worst, and it may be a travesty of justice that the government trampled on their rights so profoundly that prosecuting them went haywire.

 

But if that sends a message to the government and out of control law enforcement people, it was a good outcome on the whole.

[timendres]

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

This shows the limitations of jury trials: these people were acquitted because of emotions, despite them clearly being guilty according to the law.

 

Hence the entire purpose of the "jury of one's peers" system - to compensate for laws being improperly or unjustly applied. That is not to say that juries never make mistakes. It is to say that the system allows for a jury to look through the legal process and attempt to ensure justice can prevail. Just as "innocent until proven guilty" is imperfect, so is the jury process, but crucial to the overall system.

[DerringDo]

The law is the law until it is changed or modified. What is illegal today may not have been in the past and may not be in the future. So all those carping about the law remember it can change and usually does under pressure.

 

Juries are often made of people who live in the real world not necessarily the ideal world of law makers.

 

Many a good/well intentioned law is abused and warped by agenda setters.

[thaihome]

Again, notice that the same posters that rant against Black Lives Matter and the need to immediately obey an order [to black males] by a law enforcement officer are now 100% behind these white guys disobeying an order by law enforcement to stop their protest (of a legally incorrect cause) and their destruction of government property . 

 

Amazing hypocrisy . 

TH 

 

[bendejo]

10 hours ago, thaihome said:

I do agree federal law enforcement way over reacted to what was basically  "sit-in protest" and the conspiracy charges were ludicrous.

 

The sit-in is a form of peaceful protest.  This is the first time I ever heard of a sit-in where the protesters were obviously armed, and not just with pistols.  Had the Civil Rights demonstrators of the 1960s been armed, well....

In the weeks leading up to the occupation certain people of Burns, such as the families of law enforcement officials,  were being stalked at night by mysterious pickup trucks with out-of-state plates.  Heavily-armed strangers in town scaring the citizens, you call that peaceful?

 

If you can, try to catch the explanations given by the occupiers themselves, or the Bundy father speaking of his own case in Nevada, and you'll find that their ideas don't add up and they haven't thought all this stuff through. 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, stevenl said:

This shows the limitations of jury trials: these people were acquitted because of emotions, despite them clearly being guilty according to the law.

That's why we have jury trials, because sometimes the law is indeed an ass. This is justice for the little people.

 

Justice 1- government/ FBI 0. Excellent result.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, bendejo said:

 

The sit-in is a form of peaceful protest.  This is the first time I ever heard of a sit-in where the protesters were obviously armed, and not just with pistols.  Had the Civil Rights demonstrators of the 1960s been armed, well....

In the weeks leading up to the occupation certain people of Burns, such as the families of law enforcement officials,  were being stalked at night by mysterious pickup trucks with out-of-state plates.  Heavily-armed strangers in town scaring the citizens, you call that peaceful?

 

If you can, try to catch the explanations given by the occupiers themselves, or the Bundy father speaking of his own case in Nevada, and you'll find that their ideas don't add up and they haven't thought all this stuff through. 

 

 

WACO- need I say more?

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, thaihome said:

Though I vehemently disagree with the beliefs of these people that land acquired by the Federal government prior to statehood should be given to the states (numerous Supreme Court rulings says it's Federal land), I do agree federal law enforcement way over reacted to what was basically  "sit-in protest" and the conspiracy charges were ludicrous. There were several other options law enforcement could have chosen to address the issue.  Another case of over aggressive law enforcement that had tragic results.

 

Bit ironic though in which posters are cheering this. 

TH  

The government learned nothing from Waco. This is payback, even if not much.

[Kabula]

17 hours ago, thaihome said:

Indeed.

 

 

 

The Bundys have no legal basis for their claims and therefore have resorted to anti government conspiracy accusations and spurious legal claims to enlist anti government militias and so called Patriots into their lost cause. Strongly suggest posters read the link above to get the full story.

TH 

Nonsense ......

 

Don't believe everything you read.  You need to do your own in-depth research, so you don't confuse the people and in time look foolish!

Edited October 29, 2016 by Kabula
Correct spelling

[thaihome]

1 hour ago, Kabula said:

Nonsense ......

 

Don't believe everything you read.  You need to do your own in-depth research, so you don't confuse the people and in time look foolish!

 

"Nonsense, in-depth research " That's the best you can do?

 

TH 

[thaihome]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

WACO- need I say more?

 

In several threads discussing Police shootings of black males you have stated that the police were blameless as the black male did not obey a lawfully order and the shooting was justified.  Now you are making martyrs of white  people that defied a legal search warrant and killed 5 law enforcement officers attempting to serve it.

 

Can you explain exactly what your criteria is for refusing to follow a legal order and not being justifiably shot? There appears to be some inconsistencies in your rationalizations.  

TH

[stevenl]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That's why we have jury trials, because sometimes the law is indeed an ass. This is justice for the little people.

 

Justice 1- government/ FBI 0. Excellent result.

 

 

Talk about flawed reasoning, yours is on top.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, thaihome said:

 

In several threads discussing Police shootings of black males you have stated that the police were blameless as the black male did not obey a lawfully order and the shooting was justified.  Now you are making martyrs of white  people that defied a legal search warrant and killed 5 law enforcement officers attempting to serve it.

 

Can you explain exactly what your criteria is for refusing to follow a legal order and not being justifiably shot? There appears to be some inconsistencies in your rationalizations.  

TH

I don't remember saying that ( but I'll take your word for it ), but in general I think it is foolish to refuse to obey someone that can shoot you if you don't do as they say. Also, it gives probable cause to support the police for shooting you, even if they were wrong originally.

I hesitate to accept that I said the police were blameless, as I have no sympathy for cops that are thugs or bend the rules. Certainly, as happens, every case should be judged on it's merits. There are bad cops just as there are bad people in every walk of life. However, I don't blindly support opponents of the police as they do a very dangerous job that I wouldn't do.

 

Waco is different because the authorities were incompetent and used overwhelming force when it wasn't needed.

They could have starved them out, but took the usual route of excessive force.  Putting a lot of hyped up people with guns into a situation is only justified if you intend to kill people, as in war. It's not like the cult people had tanks or a doomsday bomb.

From Wikipedia

The exchange of fire continued, but 45 minutes into the raid the gunfire began to slow down as agents began to run low on ammunition. The shooting continued for two hours.

 

BTW, just because the "law" says so, doesn't always make it right. Slaves were legal property, so owning slaves was lawful- does that make slavery right?

 

PS. I scorn your attempt to imply I am racist.

Edited October 29, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

39 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Talk about flawed reasoning, yours is on top.

I care not a jot for your opinion.

[Kabula]

On 10/28/2016 at 4:23 PM, thaihome said:

Indeed.

 

 

 

The Bundys have no legal basis for their claims and therefore have resorted to anti government conspiracy accusations and spurious legal claims to enlist anti government militias and so called Patriots into their lost cause. Strongly suggest posters read the link above to get the full story.

TH 

 

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I care not a jot for your opinion.

 

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I care not a jot for your opinion.

US citizens have lost their country because most were indifferent to the truth, and too lazy to study history, and conduct their own research by keeping an open mind.

 

Many, never served in the military, nor experienced war. History always repeats itself. A closed, lazy mind killed billions throughout Germany and Russia with the very same blueprint.

 

You didn't even take the time to listen to the alleged, conspiracy, alternative media who have been right for the last 20 years, which people are finally waking up to. That is a good source  to begin your own investigation to confirm the facts.

 

The jury recently found the alleged occupiers in Oregon, led by the Bundys not guilty and the Bundys have been released as well.  The Feds in the court room knocked the Defense Attorney down and hit him with a stun gun after asking for the release of the Bundys.

 

They will also be found not guilty for the standoff on their own ranch and probably the only ranch in that area that wasn't stolen.

 

From your comments some might think you work for CNN.

 

Are you embarrassed yet?

 

Shame on you.

 

A veteran and ex rancher.

[thaihome]

25 minutes ago, Kabula said:

 

 

US citizens have lost their country because most were indifferent to the truth, and too lazy to study history, and conduct their own research by keeping an open mind.

 

Many, never served in the military, nor experienced war. History always repeats itself. A closed, lazy mind killed billions throughout Germany and Russia with the very same blueprint.

 

You didn't even take the time to listen to the alleged, conspiracy, alternative media who have been right for the last 20 years, which people are finally waking up to. That is a good source  to begin your own investigation to confirm the facts.

 

The jury recently found the alleged occupiers in Oregon, led by the Bundys not guilty and the Bundys have been released as well.  The Feds in the court room knocked the Defense Attorney down and hit him with a stun gun after asking for the release of the Bundys.

 

They will also be found not guilty for the standoff on their own ranch and probably the only ranch in that area that wasn't stolen.

 

From your comments some might think you work for CNN.

 

Are you embarrassed yet?

 

Shame on you.

 

A veteran and ex rancher.

 

Not the least embarrassed, but do wonder how you cannot be.

 

You will note that in my posts I have said I agree with verdict for the conspiracy charges.  It was a fairly clear case of overreach by the prosecution .  

 

I do not agree with purpose of the protest and fully agree with some 200 years of legislation and judicial review that says land acquired by the Federal government prior to statehood remains Federal land after statehood and the BBLM(among other agencies ) is responsible for the management of that land for the benefit of all the people of the US and not just a few ranchers that own ajoining property.

 

Bundy will not win his case in Nevada. The Federal ownership of the land in question is included in the Nevada state constitution.  It was not stolen from the family, regardless of how long they used it or did or did not pay grazing fees.  He hasn't won one yet.

 

Your statement "conspiracy, alternative media who have been right for the last 20 years, " pretty much says it all.

 

Oh, and what the <deleted> does being a veteran have to do with it? That makes you uniquely qualified some how to have your opinion taken as fact? I'm a veteran as well, so what? Your opinions are an embarrassment to veterans as far as I'm concerned . 

TH

[thaibeachlovers]

54 minutes ago, Kabula said:

 

 

US citizens have lost their country because most were indifferent to the truth, and too lazy to study history, and conduct their own research by keeping an open mind.

 

Many, never served in the military, nor experienced war. History always repeats itself. A closed, lazy mind killed billions throughout Germany and Russia with the very same blueprint.

 

You didn't even take the time to listen to the alleged, conspiracy, alternative media who have been right for the last 20 years, which people are finally waking up to. That is a good source  to begin your own investigation to confirm the facts.

 

The jury recently found the alleged occupiers in Oregon, led by the Bundys not guilty and the Bundys have been released as well.  The Feds in the court room knocked the Defense Attorney down and hit him with a stun gun after asking for the release of the Bundys.

 

They will also be found not guilty for the standoff on their own ranch and probably the only ranch in that area that wasn't stolen.

 

From your comments some might think you work for CNN.

 

Are you embarrassed yet?

 

Shame on you.

 

A veteran and ex rancher.

Why are you claiming that I agree with thaihome?

[Kabula]

17 hours ago, thaihome said:

 

Not the least embarrassed, but do wonder how you cannot be.

 

You will note that in my posts I have said I agree with verdict for the conspiracy charges.  It was a fairly clear case of overreach by the prosecution .  

 

I do not agree with purpose of the protest and fully agree with some 200 years of legislation and judicial review that says land acquired by the Federal government prior to statehood remains Federal land after statehood and the BBLM(among other agencies ) is responsible for the management of that land for the benefit of all the people of the US and not just a few ranchers that own ajoining property.

 

Bundy will not win his case in Nevada. The Federal ownership of the land in question is included in the Nevada state constitution.  It was not stolen from the family, regardless of how long they used it or did or did not pay grazing fees.  He hasn't won one yet.

 

Your statement "conspiracy, alternative media who have been right for the last 20 years, " pretty much says it all.

 

Oh, and what the <deleted> does being a veteran have to do with it? That makes you uniquely qualified some how to have your opinion taken as fact? I'm a veteran as well, so what? Your opinions are an embarrassment to veterans as far as I'm concerned . 

TH

Most vets are more awake to the truth and do their own research.