Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 12:17 am
Bundy brothers found not guilty of conspiracy in Oregon militia standoff
High-profile trial over the armed occupation of the Malheur wildlife refuge sparked a national debate about the rights of ranchers in the American west
Sam Levin in San Francisco and Lauren Dake in Portland, Oregon

Thursday 27 October 2016 19.33 EDT
Last modified on Friday 28 October 2016 17.00 EDT


A jury has found that brothers Ammon and Ryan Bundy were not guilty of conspiring against the government, a surprising end to the high-profile Oregon standoff trial that sparked national debates about public lands and the rights of ranchers in the American west.

The decision, unveiled in federal court in Portland on Thursday, is a blow to the US government, which had aggressively prosecuted the rightwing activists who led an armed takeover of public property to protest American land-use regulations.

The Bundy brothers, who orchestrated a 2 January takeover of the Malheur national wildlife refuge, were acquitted on a number of serious charges, along with five other defendants. Only a day earlier the court dismissed a juror over fears of bias, raising concerns that the trial would drag on for weeks.

“We are just so excited,” Angie Bundy, Ryan’s wife, told the Guardian after the verdict was announced. “We’ve been praying hard, and we knew they hadn’t done anything wrong.”

In a statement, federal officials said they accepted the decision. “Although we are extremely disappointed in the verdict, we respect the court and the role of the jury in the American judicial system,” said Greg Bretzing, special agent in charge of the FBI in Oregon.

The Bundy family’s public fight with the government began in 2014 when the patriarch Cliven, now 70, led an armed standoff with hundreds of supporters against law enforcement officials at his desert ranch in Nevada, over his refusal to pay grazing taxes. For decades, Cliven claimed that the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had no authority to restrict his use of public lands by his property.
Advertisement

The dispute and lack of prosecution galvanized ultra-conservative activists and militia groups across the west, and the Bundys launched a second fight with the BLM in January 2016 – in a remote part of eastern Oregon.

In response to the imprisonment of two Harney County ranchers, who were prosecuted for arson, Ammon and Ryan led a group of activists in an occupation of the Malheur national wildlife refuge, an obscure sanctuary for birds.

Ammon declared that he and other protesters, some who openly carried firearms and took over government buildings and equipment, would stay until the ranchers were freed and the refuge land was given to locals to control.

The tense standoff dragged on for 41 days, and police eventually carried out mass arrests and killed one of the leaders, LaVoy Finicum, in a roadside confrontation.

Prosecutors charged the Bundy brothers and 24 other defendants with conspiracy to impede officers through use of force, intimidation or threats, and some also faced additional charges of firearm possession and theft of public property.

Some of the defendants signed plea deals in hopes of getting shorter prison sentences, and a total of seven defendants have been on trial since September.

The defendants were acquitted on the conspiracy and firearm charges, though the jury could not come to an agreement on a property theft offense that faces Ryan.

The court proceedings drew packed crowds of rightwing supporters, who see the Bundy family as a symbol of the American west and the fight against government overreach, as well liberal environmentalists, who have called for harsh prison sentences to send a message that the government will protect public lands and promote conservation.

During the trial, federal prosecutors argued that the protesters organized a “dangerous” invasion and conspired to stop refuge workers from doing their job.

Ammon’s attorney and other defense lawyers argued that the defendants were leading a peaceful demonstration and were lawfully speaking out against federal actions and policies.


Prosecutors also revealed during the court proceedings that US authorities relied on more than a dozen confidential informants during the occupation, and defendants’ lawyers have raised concerns about how the government has used that information and how those individuals shaped the actions at the refuge.

Neil Wampler, one of the acquitted defendants, appeared joyful outside of court, telling reporters: “This is a stunning victory for rural America and an extremely humiliating defeat for a corrupt and predatory agency.”

Late on Thursday night, David Fry, another acquitted occupier and the last holdout at the refuge, was released from jail and greeted by a crowd of supporters and a Domino’s pizza.

Asked about the Standing Rock protesters in North Dakota, he said that others should be encouraged by the court victory.

“They need to take a look at this and realize battles can be won,” Fry said. “They need to stay strong and not let the federal government push them around.”

Now a free man, Fry said he might do some traveling, adding, “there are more federal buildings to occupy.”

Matthew Schindler, lawyer for defendant Kenneth Medenbach, the first protester arrested in January, said the case brought attention to grievances in parts of America that are often overlooked.

“Their way of life is going away, and unless all of us here in the cities care about that, that’s exactly what’s going to happen,” he said outside of the courthouse. “It was a very powerful thing for individuals with nothing,” he added, to “fight the federal government”.

After the verdict, Ammon Bundy’s lawyer, Marcus Mumford, reportedly got into a confrontation with the judge, Anna Brown, when he requested his client’s immediate release.

A separate trial, involving Ammon, Ryan, Cliven and two other Bundy men, is planned for next year in Nevada on charges stemming from the 2014 standoff. Given the pending case, authorities refused to release Ammon in Oregon. When Mumford argued, he allegedly ended up in a scuffle with US marshals, resulting in his arrest.
Mumford was released soon after, telling reporters that officers shocked him with a Taser.

“Marshals surrounded me, told me not to resist.”

Rick Koerber, another member of the legal team, added: “This is what this case is about. It’s okay to say no to the federal government.”

Asked about Mumford’s arrest, Lisa Bundy, Ammon’s wife, told the Guardian that officials had reacted poorly to the decision. “I feel like they are sore losers,” she said. “What is the matter with them? It’s so inhumane.”

The Bundys are devout Mormons, and Angie, who has taken care of their eight children during her husband’s detention, cited her family’s faith when celebrating the decision on Thursday night.

“This means that God answers prayers, that God cares about man’s freedom. This is huge.”

While Bundy supporters celebrated outside the courtroom – with prayer circles, chants of hallelujah and trumpets from a ram’s horn – environmental groups criticized the decision, saying it sent a dangerous message about public lands.

“We are deeply disappointed in today’s verdict, which puts our park rangers and scientists at further risk just for doing their jobs,” Jennifer Rokala, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, said in a statement. “The outcome of today’s trial will undoubtedly embolden extremist groups.”
Advertisement

Jason Liss, a Bundy supporter wearing a “Hillary for Prison 2016” shirt, said the court win could help promote the idea that federal agencies aren’t allowed to control public lands – an argument that legal experts and courts have rejected.

“It’s great a group of people still believe the constitution is the foundation of our country.”

The Oregon decision could have significant implications for the Nevada case, where the Bundys and a group of activists still face a range of similar accusations, including charges of conspiracy.

Ryan’s wife said she hoped the jury’s decision would pave the way for a clear win next year. “Ranchers have been oppressed long enough.”

Lisa said prosecutors should end the case against Ammon in Nevada.

“I hope they realize they don’t have anything and drop the charges,” she said, adding, “He would just love nothing more than to come home to his babies even though he knows he has to go to Nevada.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/27/oregon-militia-standoff-bundy-brothers-not-guilty-trial
 
roger
 
  6  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 12:29 am
@Blickers,
Bad precedent
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 08:17 am
@roger,
Practicing civil disobedience is a bad precedent? Or finding them innocent of such activities?
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 09:29 am
@roger,
Not to be nit-picky, but legally this a not a precedent, at least not the kind a lawyer can refer to when arguing a future case. If a judge handed down a decision, then that is a legal precedent and future lawyers can refer to it, unless it is reversed on appeal. Then the opposing counsel in some similar case has to find some other judge's decision which negates this one or else the legal point is won. (Amazing the stuff you can pick up watching all those Law & Order and other legal shows).

This is just a case where the jury handed down this decision, it seems hard to believe, and it is possible-even probable now-that some other people will take over Federal lands using guns again. In that case, the jury is free to hang their butts. We'll see.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  5  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 09:43 am
@McGentrix,
Quote McGentrix:
Quote:
Practicing civil disobedience is a bad precedent?

Civil disobedience usually entails a group of unarmed people assembling on public land to make a point. Usually, the authorities let the people make the point for a few days, then disperse them as peacefully as possible.

These people assembled on public land, however not only were some of them armed, their spokesmen bragged about almost all of them being armed and that they were prepared to use these arms to prevent themselves from being evicted by the authorities. That's when it stopped being something that should be considered civil disobedience, and has moved onto criminal activity. This particular jury disagreed. Whether future juries will also disagree when this pattern repeats itself, as it is likely to do, remains to be seen.
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 12:46 pm
@Blickers,
Being armed or not has nothing to do with civil disobedience. You just disagree with the people that protested so you will find any evil in them you can.

Fortunately a jury thought better of them than you do.
Blickers
 
  5  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 12:59 pm
@McGentrix,
Really? So anyone who disagrees with the Federal government-or who doesn't recognize Federal authority in anything, which is what most of these guys thought-can put together a group of armed people and permanently occupy a Federal building and grounds and that any attempt to get them out will be met with gunfire, and that's the end of the story? They squat there forever?
maporsche
 
  4  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 01:03 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

Really? So anyone who disagrees with the Federal government-or who doesn't recognize Federal authority in anything, which is what most of these guys thought-can put together a group of armed people and permanently occupy a Federal building and grounds and that any attempt to get them out will be met with gunfire, and that's the end of the story? They squat there forever?


I wonder if he thinks that Clinton's disregard of some rules in the State department is possibly her form of Civil Disobedience. She obviously didn't want to follow some of the rules, so she didn't. Maybe she should be championed like some are with these guys.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 04:37 pm
@maporsche,
I'll give that some thought - as soon as I quit laughing.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 04:43 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

Really? So anyone who disagrees with the Federal government-or who doesn't recognize Federal authority in anything, which is what most of these guys thought-can put together a group of armed people and permanently occupy a Federal building and grounds and that any attempt to get them out will be met with gunfire, and that's the end of the story? They squat there forever?


If this is the definition of civil disobedience you want to run with, have a ball. Why do you feel it's necessary to always change the subject though? Maybe you need more ADD medicine?
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 05:02 pm
@McGentrix,
So what's your definition of civil disobedience, and why do these Malheur guys meet it? Remember, they were armed, present for several weeks, had said they would meet attempts to evacuate them with gunfire, and that they planned to be there permanently until the Federal government gave the Malheur preserve over to the county-not the state, the county-and the county gave the whole preserve over to the ranchers.

I await your response about how the Federal government had no right to arrest or evacuate these guys.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Acquittal for Malheur Protestors
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 05:10:53