2 Bundy Ranch Standoff Defendants Slated to Plead Guilty

"DeLemus and Cooper each pleaded not guilty in March to 11 counts including conspiracy, obstruction, weapon possession and use, threatening and assaulting federal officers, and interstate extortion. If convicted of the charges, the men could face decades in prison."

Link.

And here I thought no one was charged in the Bundy standoff.

How sick and twisted our nation has become.

"The two men will be the first among 19 defendants to enter pleas in Nevada in the case that involves Cliven Bundy, four of his adult sons and 14 other men being held in custody following their arrests earlier this year."
http://www.sltrib.com/home/4266613-155/2-nevada-defendants-slated-to-plead

Background for those not up to speed:
http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2016/03/cliven_bundy_refuses_to_enter.html

Grapeshot said:

Background for those not up to speed:
http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2016/03/cliven_bundy_refuses_to_enter.html

Click to expand...

The extended Bundy family lives in the same area I grew up in. They are fairly well known as probably not being entirely blameless in anything they are involved in. Shall we just say that a "Hey, hold my beer and watch this...." kind of sentiment is not uncommon. It is a shame Clive is taking the whole "federal government has no authority" approach. I suspect he'd do better, and make a much stronger case to show where the feds have systematically violated their own rules/laws and repeatedly broken promises to the ranchers and other rural residents of Western States.

That said, media bias manifests in some rather interesting ways.

So far as I know, not a single shot was fired in the Southern Nevada incident in which the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) seized a bunch of Bundy cattle and was then more or less obligated to turn them back over to the family. I don't recall anyone being injured. I don't think any property was damaged.

Yet media reports constantly emphasize that this was "an armed standoff".

Notice, in contrast how the media reports on inner city riots that result in many injuries, some deaths, and a lot of property damage, both public and private. Words like "unrest" or "protests" probably get used more often than even "riot", and almost never any focus on the weapons (rocks, various incendiaries, etc) used by the rioters.

Charles

Nightmare said:

A public body should not have more property than that essential to its proper mission.

Click to expand...

A reasonable standard. Our federal constitution actually lists the reasons for which the feds can legitimately hold land within the borders of a semi-sovereign State.

But, let us not forget that one mission (improper as it may be) of the Bos/Wash/LeftCoast-controlled Congress is to keep the Intermountain Western States in a state of economic and thus political subjection.

Nightmare said:

I just noticed the alliteration of proper in property.

Click to expand...

Same origin and etymology.

Middle English propre proper, own, from Anglo-French, from Latin proprius own.

Grapeshot said:

"The two men will be the first among 19 defendants to enter pleas in Nevada in the case that involves Cliven Bundy, four of his adult sons and 14 other men being held in custody following their arrests earlier this year."
http://www.sltrib.com/home/4266613-155/2-nevada-defendants-slated-to-plead

Background for those not up to speed:
http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2016/03/cliven_bundy_refuses_to_enter.html

Click to expand...

After several minutes of confusion about whether Bundy had a lawyer, U.S. Magistrate Judge Carl Hoffman entered a not guilty plea on Bundy's behalf and scheduled a detention hearing March 17.....Hansen said Bundy's refusal to enter a plea was a statement that he couldn't have done anything wrong because federal law doesn't apply....

Appears as if Mr. Bundy had stated a motion to dismiss .... the court should have recognized this and had a hearing on this issue rather then to just enter a plea of not guilty as, if the court has no jurisdiction, the court would not have the legal authority to do anything.

But there is no need to follow laws ... well, for .govs anyway.

Cliven got what he wanted.
Cliven will be occupying Federal land.
And there will be no grazing fees.
You Win, Cliven!

Others who choose to act similarly will take note .. maybe not "surrender" so easily. And maybe they will have atomic weapons (early 1900's technology ya know).

So the .govs maybe 100% right ... and still lose in the end. The law of unintended consequences....and human nature.

Gotta look at this stuff as a long heavy-weight bout IMO.

I don't feel safer because of the .govs actions ... do you?

beebobby said:

Cliven got what he wanted.
Cliven will be occupying Federal land.
And there will be no grazing fees.
You Win, Cliven!

Click to expand...

Kind of like the Occupy Wall Street crowd, eh?

Progressives and their hypocrisy.

The Bundy's and other ranchers OWN grazing rights just like someone might own water rights or mineral rights here in the West. Ranchers pay grazing fees to the BLM to cover the maintenance and upgrades the BLM does to support ranching.

The Bundy's stopped paying grazing fees after the BLM stopped engaging in maintenance work on the land where Bundy holds grazing rights.

The BLM/feds have systematically run out of business most of Bundy's colleagues in that part of Southern Nevada. Some have suggested this was for the express purpose of being able to sell off federal land to Chinese investors. Regardless of the reason, yhy is it that violating contracts with ranchers and breaking promises to Western residents is of so much less concern to Progs than breaking treaties with AmerIndian tribes?

davidmcbeth said:

Appears as if Mr. Bundy had stated a motion to dismiss .... the court should have recognized this and had a hearing on this issue rather then to just enter a plea of not guilty as, if the court has no jurisdiction, the court would not have the legal authority to do anything.

But there is no need to follow laws ... well, for .govs anyway.

Click to expand...

If Mr. Bundy intended to state a motion to dismiss, he should have done so. And presented solid data/evidence to back up that motion. Refusing to recognize authority is different than explicitly moving that the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Mr. Bundy and his family have some very legit grievances regarding government conduct on Western lands, and the way ranchers have been systematically run out of business. His chosen path of conduct in court, and his family's decision to rush to Oregon where they lacked the popular support they had in Southern Nevada are huge errors that will undermine or even erase whatever good he accomplished in Nevada.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

Kind of like the Occupy Wall Street crowd, eh?

Progressives and their hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

Except for the fact that one group wasn't armed. That group had quite a bit of popular support. The armed militia group didn't. So, they were only alike in that they both protested against the govt.

beebobby said:

Except for the fact that one group wasn't armed. That group had quite a bit of popular support. The armed militia group didn't. So, they were only alike in that they both protested against the govt.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, and completely predictably for those not suffering from hoplophobia, there was no violence, no injuries, no sexual assaults among the armed group. This is true for both the police and the protestors. Nobody got shot among the southern Nevada Bundy protesters. No cops were assault. No protestors were unjustly shot.

In stark contrast, among the "unarmed" group, there were multiple reports of sexual assaults, other violence, and injuries.

The fact that you focus on the armed vs unarmed, rather than whether anyone was subjected to violence against persons, loss of personal property, or other such crimes reveals the fundamental problem with Progs.

Progs don't care about reality. They are too focused on their failed ideology.

An armed society is a polite society.

Many tens of thousands of unarmed protesters involved with the OWS protest and out of those thousands of protesters, most who were arrested were not convicted and the ones who were were found guilty of minor crimes. Dangerous stuff like marching without a permit.
"Of the 2,812 arrests recorded by the National Lawyers Guild in New York, 49 were convicted of minor crimes, or, less than two percent."
http://www.takepart.com/article/201...-were-arrested-how-many-were-guilty-any-crime
Many of them successfully sued for false arrest.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/06/10/a637c954-f0dd-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html

Of the dozens of armed Bundyville residents, 19 are charged with serious felonies as explained in the original post.

beebobby, ye have started down a long slippery path, fraught with degradation, insults, and the like...my best to you on your sojourn...

ipse

solus said:

beebobby, ye have started down a long slippery path, fraught with degradation, insults, and the like...my best to you on your sojourn...

ipse

Click to expand...

I think this is going to be another dead horse that I will stop beating now. Facts will never trump ideology with some.

beebobby said:

Many tens of thousands of unarmed protesters involved with the OWS protest and out of those thousands of protesters, most who were arrested were not convicted and the ones who were were found guilty of minor crimes. Dangerous stuff like marching without a permit.

Click to expand...

"It if prevents even one rape/assault." "One rape is too many." Right, Prog?

beebobby said:

Of the dozens of armed Bundyville residents, 19 are charged with serious felonies as explained in the original post.

Click to expand...

All felonies are presumed serious. That is the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor.

But the whole thing kind of begs the question. You argue the Bundy's engaged in serious criminal conduct because they were armed when they protested. You back that up by pointing out they've been charged with felonies for....wait for it...being armed while protesting.

Your problem is that they were armed. That is your entire problem....well armed, and being hardworking redneck republicans rather than hippy dippy liberal tree hugger socialist welfare scum.

Not a single person was physically or sexually assaulted during the Bundy's southern Nevada protest. Nobody OD'd on illegal drugs. Not one.

There were sexual and physical assaults among your beloved OWS protestors. There were drug over doses.

Nobody was robbed, except the Bundy's who had cattle stolen by the BLM. The BLM decided to release the cattle rather than shoot peaceful protestors who showed up to reclaim the stolen property.

It is interesting that you point out false arrests among the OWS hippies. Doubtless you have sympathies for Black Lives Matter and are deeply concerned about police brutality and about police profiling of racial minorities.

But then you turn around and presume that the federal government has not abused the rights of the Bundys at all.

Why is that? Is it because your bigotries are directed only towards red-necks or those who dare to actually carry guns in public?

Hypocritical Progs.

Charles

Peaceful protesters?
http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-investigate-cliven-bundy-2014-5

beebobby said:

Peaceful protesters?

Click to expand...

How many persons were injured? How many shots fired?

Were guns pointed "at" officers?

If they were, are these private citizen providing cover to their fellows any less "peaceful" than were the police sharpshooters providing cover to their fellow officers at the same time?

Are you willing to say that police sharpshooters on the scene were anything other than peaceful based on the fact that they may have had a private citizen in their scope at some point?

Again, more hypocrisy typical of Progs.

Is there sufficient evidence to actually convict anyone at the southern Nevada Bundy protests of threatening police officers with guns? Has anyone been convicted of that crime yet? Do you believe in "Innocent until proven guilty"? Or only for long-haired, pot smoking, welfare Progs sucking on the hind tit of society?

Far more have been convicted of assault with the "unarmed" OWS protests than have been convicted of assault at the Bundy protests.

More importantly, there are FAR more victims with real harm done (whether anyone is every convicted or not) at the OWS trespassing events than in the southern Nevada Bundy protests. So far as I'm aware, not a single person was injured from any sort of criminal conduct at the southern Nevada Bundy protests.

You are engaging in typical Prog circular logic: Having guns is bad so we must impose criminal penalties. Since criminal charges have been brought, it is obvious that having guns is bad.

Congrats. This has all the intellectual honesty of the radical right wing religious nuts who said the same thing about homosexual conduct for decades. Sodomy is bad so it must be criminalized. The fact that sodomy is criminalized is evidence that it is bad.

Give it up. The facts are clear.

NOBODY injured by criminal conduct at the armed (oh, scary guns) southern Nevada Bundy protest.

Rapes, other sexual assaults, theft, physical assaults, illegal drug use, and drug over doses at the (allegedly) "unarmed" OWS protest.

Charles