Bundy's acquitted in Oregon Case

[wind gypsy]

Leaders of Oregon standoff acquitted of federal charges, lawyer tackled in court - CBS News

I did not see that one coming..

 

[jlrichesin]

Me either. Hope they come out with more details!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[colonel00]

The attorney was Marcus Mumford? I love that band

So, why was the attorney tackled by 6 US Marshals in the courtroom? That seems a bit odd in an all around strange story.

 

[tipsntails7]

****ing unbelievable...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tipsntails7]

The attorney was Marcus Mumford? I love that band

So, why was the attorney tackled by 6 US Marshals in the courtroom? That seems a bit odd in an all around strange story.

Here you go...

Jury finds all Oregon standoff defendants not guilty of federal conspiracy, gun charges | OregonLive.com

From all the other articles and things I've read, the trial was a complete shit show, and an embarrassment for federal prosecutors. Ryan represented himself in court, and apparently the judge commented that he was doing a great job, better than the prosecution.
I'm blown away that they were found not guilty of all charges... speechless really.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TJ]

Absolute Bu** Sh**, the Federal Prosecutor should be looking for job wright now!

 

[gelton]

Glad to see the jury do its job. Its not everyday you see someone prevailing in a Federal lawsuit, usually the odds are highly stacked in the guvmints favor.

I think it comes down to the charges of not allowing federal agents to do their job. The refuge was closed for the winter so they had no job to do. Even if they did, it wasn't the bundys that were keeping them from entering, they were surrounded by the FBI, so the FBI were the ones restricting access, the Bundy's didnt have a chance to not let them do their job. The feds probably should have found a different statute to charge them with.

Whatever you think of the Bundy's and their actions, its nice to see the little guy stand up against the Man and win. They fought the law and THEY won.

 

[tipsntails7]

Glad to see the jury do its job. Its not everyday you see someone prevailing in a Federal lawsuit, usually the odds are highly stacked in the guvmints favor.

I think it comes down to the charges of not allowing federal agents to do their job. The refuge was closed for the winter so they had no job to do. Even if they did, it wasn't the bundys that were keeping them from entering, they were surrounded by the FBI, so the FBI were the ones restricting access, the Bundy's didnt have a chance to not let them do their job. The feds probably should have found a different statute to charge them with.

Whatever you think of the Bundy's and their actions, its nice to see the little guy stand up against the Man and win. They fought the law and THEY won.

Are you for real right now??? Whatever your views on the government your line of thinking is ridiculous....

This does nothing but put fuel on this wacko fire...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gelton]

Are you for real right now??? Whatever your views on the government your line of thinking is ridiculous....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please explain. So you think they went forward on the right charges? Are you implying the jury was wrong? Or that the government is infallible? Confused.

 

[power54]

Hopefully things end up a little differently for the Bundy boys in Nevada.

 

[Beendare]

Well this is what government corruption gets us. When the Attorney general of the US makes the comment, "I have Obamas back"... I'm sickened. What about having the backs of the avg citizen?
The AG is there to protect the people...but that has somehow morphed into protecting the politicians in power- thats not good.
Using the power of the federal government against our own citizens in cases like this, the IRS attacking conservative groups, big money doing as it pleases, and on and on without any prosecutions....I never thought I would see the day.

Voting every last one of these politicians out for a couple of election cycles is our only hope of bringing the power back to the people.

 

[tipsntails7]

Please explain. So you think they went forward on the right charges? Are you implying the jury was wrong? Or that the government is infallible? Confused.

I think the entire situation is bullshit is what I think. I also find the judges conduct to be a ****ing joke, and that goes for both sides. How she's a federal judge I have no ****ing idea.

First, just because the refuge was "shut down" doesn't mean workers were still not doing their jobs. Fish and wildlife work year round at that facility, but just because the public is not allowed access at certain times does not mean anything. Second, if there were a bunch of wackos with guns standing outside your work, would you just walk in? Me? Probably not. How about if you asked them to leave (which the citizens of Harney county did) but they chose to continue?
There were at one point over 100 "armed" men at that location, that's a lot of people to be stuffed into that refuge building, I've been there.
Finally, have you seen the photos of the inside of this place? It's a ****ing mess. And all the while tax dollars are being spent to rectify this entire situation. You can stand outside the refuge and protest till you fall over and die if you want, but you cannot commandeer a property that is funded through tax dollars and use it however you see fit. Did they drink water? Did they eat anything? Did they trash the place(yep). All that is theft from the taxpayers.

And I absolutely blame the prosecutors, from everything I've read throughout this case and yesterday they did a terrible ****ing job....

I guess I don't know what type of working knowledge you have of this case but this is my home state, and I've been paying attention to it. The amount of guns and ammo recovered from the refuge was quite extensive. So there should have at least been weapons charges.

I absolutely do not believe the government is infallible, I do believe this was a group of complete dickshines that now will do this again, most likely in a grander scale and people will get hurt and taxpayers will pay.

This all has nothing to do with their "cause" given the history of this part of Oregon, its premise is laughable...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gelton]

Thanks for the explanation. I have been following the case as well. I dont think its illegal to be armed in a wildlife refuge, also dont think there is a limit to how much ammo you have on you either.

There were also at least 15 undercover federal agents inside there egging them on.

The only violence that came out of that place was when Lavoy Finickum was shot dead on the side of the road.

Like I said, the government should have found a different statute to charge them with, they probably would have been more successful. And again, glad to see someone represent themselves and beat the piss out of someone with unlimited resources and a stacked deck...tickles me pink

Doesnt mean I agree with their tactics or persuasion though. I dont believe they were morally right to do what they did but they stood up for what they believed in, and for that I commend them.

 

[gelton]

And for the record, as a Sophomore in High School (circa 1990) I represented myself for the charge of hunting Texas public land without a permit (technically I had a permit but they still wanted you to check in each morning at this specific unit but not others owned and operated under the same program, and didn't post their regulations correctly).

The judge called me to the stand and in front of the state prosecutor and jury told me that if I didn't turn out to be a lawyer that I had missed my calling. I won that case. Wished I would have listened to the judges advice and went to law school.

 

[mtwarden]

****ing unbelievable...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

my thoughts exactly, almost choked on my coffee (as I was falling out of my chair!)

someone (s) definitely mucked something up; an armed seizure of a federal facility (for over a month!!!) and they get off scott free- WTF?

 

[bigeasygator]

What a joke. I saw BHA released a few statements which I could not agree more with:

MISSOULA, Mont. – Backcountry Hunters & Anglers reacted with “profound disappointment” to the acquittal of a group of anti-government extremists, including Ammon and Ryan Bundy, in the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon in January.
BHA President and CEO Land Tawney issued the following statement:

“On behalf of the American sportsmen who pay for and help maintain our national wildlife refuges, we are profoundly disappointed in the jury’s decision. It shows we have a lot to do to educate the American people about our public lands – and that we must continue to be vigilant in the face of ongoing attempts to seize, transfer or otherwise divest them from their owners, the citizens of the United States.”

Tawney continued:

“The jury’s decision flies in the face of the basic principle that America’s national wildlife refuges and other public lands belong to all Americans. We, the rightful owners of these lands, can – and should – debate their management. But threatening public servants, hijacking public lands and damaging our shared natural resources serve no beneficial purpose and have no place in a democracy like ours.”

Longtime BHA member Mark Heckert offered this comment:

“These lands are not ‘revenue streams’ or playgrounds for the wealthy; they are treasures bequeathed to all of us by our far-thinking ancestors and a priceless inheritance for our descendants. They speak to us across time – of real value, and the heart-filling wonder of wildness. We must stand, and stand together. These thieves covet our public lands, and if we don’t want them more, they will be stolen from under our feet.”

This verdict will only embolden them.

 

[Beendare]

...... an armed seizure of a federal facility (for over a month!!!) and they get off scott free- WTF?

Well there is much more than just that to the story- obviously....but for sure its not that simple. I'm not saying the ranchers are without blame....ho does anyone know when the facts are being hidden.

I hope all of the history and facts of this case come out. As I understand it these ranchers have been pushed, and pushed and pushed some more...seems the jury agrees....even when the Feds, and the court system is obviously biased against them.

 

[Ray]

I dont think its illegal to be armed in a wildlife refuge, also dont think there is a limit to how much ammo you have on you either.

Unless you are a federal law enforcement officer or a federal employee with specific work related task that requires a firearm, you cannot be armed inside any federal building. There were several members of the public, who were captured on video to be armed inside federal work offices. That is a felony.

Target shooting is typically restricted at federal refuges. You can hunt and shoot during open season and open areas, but no target shooting. These guys were target shooting at a boat ramp.

 

[Shrek]

Sounds to me like Jury nullification. The government rules by the consent of the people. Sounds like local people have had enough of the federal government being heavy handed in their community and the jury represented that. I see a bunch of urbanites upset and the front page of Pravda , aka New York Times , has a piece on the front page above the fold on Trump supporters looking to revolution if Trump doesn't win. Their not wringing their hands for nothing. Cuckservitive internet ragg PJ media has a crybaby piece about armed resistance also. The justification for mass weapons confiscation is being laid now and the onrush to civil war is going full steam.

 

[gelton]

Unless you are a federal law enforcement officer or a federal employee with specific work related task that requires a firearm, you cannot be armed inside any federal building. There were several members of the public, who were captured on video to be armed inside federal work offices. That is a felony.

Target shooting is typically restricted at federal refuges. You can hunt and shoot during open season and open areas, but no target shooting. These guys were target shooting at a boat ramp.

"Sounds to me like Jury nullification. The government rules by the consent of the people. Sounds like local people have had enough of the federal government being heavy handed in their community and the jury represented that."

Although I am a strong supporter of jury nullification, I dont think that is what happened here...this article explains it best IMO:

As we are now discovering, jury nullification didn’t play a role in the verdict, but clear directions to the jury from the judge on how to deliberate over each charge did.

The judge, prosecutors and defense lawyers haggled for hours over how to word instructions to the jury about interpreting the law to guide their verdict in the Oregon standoff trial.

The instructions explain how the law defines a conspiracy, for instance, and what kind of behavior might amount to intimidation.

The jury of nine women and three men returned not guilty verdicts after five hours of deliberations on Thursday in the high-profile case that riveted the state and drew national and international attention to the federal bird sanctuary in rural eastern Oregon.

Here are some of the key issues covered in more than 30 pages of instructions that U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown read to jurors and what they used to reach their decision.

CONSPIRACY CHARGE

“A conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership – an agreement of two or more persons to engage in illegal conduct.”

“It is not enough that they simply met, discussed matters of common interest, acted in similar ways or perhaps helped one another.”

CONSPIRACY TO IMPEDE OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES

— The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an agreement between two or more persons to prevent officers of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and/or U.S. Bureau of Land Management from discharging the duties of their office by force, intimidation or threat.

— The government must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular defendant became a member of such conspiracy “knowing of its illegal object” and “specifically intending” to help accomplish that illegal object, regardless whether the defendant or other individuals may have also had other, lawful reasons for their conduct.

A person can become a member of a conspiracy by “willfully participating” in the unlawful plan with the “specific intent to advance or further some unlawful object or purpose of the conspiracy,” even though the person doesn’t have full knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy.

One who willfully joins an existing conspiracy “is as responsible for it as the originators,” the judge told jurors.

On the other hand, “one who has knowledge of a conspiracy, but happens to act in a way which furthers some object or purpose of the conspiracy, does not thereby become a conspirator.” Similarly, someone doesn’t become a conspirator “merely by associating” with one or more people who are conspirators, nor merely “by knowing that a conspiracy exists.”
The article continues on (in mind-numbing detail) explaining how jurors were to regard not just the conspiracy charges brought by the government, but the role of informants (there were 15), the role of the First and Second Amendments in the case, the possession of firearms in federal facilities, and the theft of government property.

The judge made clear that the Second Amendment wasn’t on trial in this case, and that the only relevance firearms had in the standoff is whether they were used to intimidate or threaten government employees, or whether they used firearms in a criminal conspiracy.

As the jury determined that the evidence didn’t support the basic conspiracy charges, then there was no possibility of a conviction on the weapons charges.