While I don't see him and his kin as heroic, its astonishing to see the judge dismiss the charges due to "flagrant prosecutorial misconduct." In few weeks, the judge is holding a hearing on whether to dismiss the charges with prejudice. Given the evidence was "willfully" withheld due to "flagrant prosecutorial misconduct" there is a good chance they walk free.

Update
Per www.azcentral.com/ the charges were dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. Bundy, et al cannot be retried on these charges. The fed.gov people investigating and prosecuting this case really screwed the pooch.

quote:

Foxnews.com: Charges against rancher Cliven Bundy, three others are dismissed

A federal judge dismissed all charges against rancher Cliven Bundy, his two sons and another man on Monday.

U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro cited "flagrant prosecutorial misconduct" in her decision to dismiss all charges against the Nevada rancher and three others.

Navarro on Dec. 20 declared a mistrial in the high-profile Bundy case. It was only the latest, stunning development in the saga of the Nevada rancher, and served as a repudiation of the federal government. Navarro accused prosecutors of willfully withholding evidence from Bundy’s lawyers, in violation of the federal Brady rule.

< snip >

Bundy, along with others seen as leaders of the standoff, including sons Ammon and Ryan, were charged with numerous felonies, including conspiracy, assault on a federal officer and using a firearm in a violent crime. They faced many years in prison.

The Bundy case finally began in late October, 2017. But just two months later, it ended with Navarro angry, the feds humiliated and Bundy – at least to his supporters – vindicated.

In fact, Navarro had suspended the trial earlier and warned of a mistrial when prosecutors released information after a discovery deadline. Overall, the government was late in handing over more than 3,300 pages of documents. Further, some defense requests for information that ultimately came to light had been ridiculed by prosecutors as “fantastical” and a “fishing expedition.”

ROSAL

So we have "flagrant prosecutorial misconduct" in a high profile case where the charges get dismissed and flagrant government misconduct in a series of national security cases where charges were not brought. Can these dopes get anything right?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sig2340,

There was a lot of wrong on both sides of this process. But, largely on the fed's side. The Obama land grab exacerbated this problem.

RMD

I’m glad to see this. It is long past time for federal prosecutors to come to Jesus on the Brady Rule.

The rule requires that the prosecution must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defendant before trial in a criminal case. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that might exonerate the defendant.

There have been a disgraceful number of abuses, leading to appalling miscarriages of justice.

The DOJ is suppose to seek justice, but prosecutors enhance their careers by getting convictions. Guess which goal they pay attention to.

The story is misleading in one point. Judges do not “accuse.” Judges decide and rule. This judge decided that prosecutors violated the Brady requirements and so ruled.

good

so now what happens to the prosecutors?

Well, you can bet that they won’t be drawn and quartered nor will they be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

Truth be told, Bundy was likely out of line grazing on Federal lands for years without paying any grazing fees and he probably should have been convicted of that, but the government made such a hash of things that his original misdeeds were a pimple on an elephant’s rump. Sigh...

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
Well, you can bet that they won’t be drawn and quartered nor will they be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

Truth be told, Bundy was likely out of line grazing on Federal lands for years without paying any grazing fees and he probably should have been convicted of that, but the government made such a hash of things that his original misdeeds were a pimple on an elephant’s rump. Sigh...

Maybe.

If the AUSAs handling the case had even pretended to comply with the well known requirements to deliver Brady materials to the defense, whatever exoneration/favorable info could have been evaluated, presented if pertinent and a proper decision reached upon all the evidence.

The judge doesn’t dismiss for some trifling informality or piddling lapse in compliance. You have to really mess up, intentionally, to draw that kind of sanction.

I would hope the DOJ to come down hard on the responsible bozos, if the circumstances warrant. I, of course, have no insight into that, other than judges are usualy more understanding and this indicates a gross violation. We’ll see.

Update: Just about what I thought it might be, in magnitude.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JALLEN,

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
Well, you can bet that they won’t be drawn and quartered nor will they be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

Truth be told, Bundy was likely out of line grazing on Federal lands for years without paying any grazing fees and he probably should have been convicted of that, but the government made such a hash of things that his original misdeeds were a pimple on an elephant’s rump. Sigh...

Maybe.

If the AUSAs handling the case had even pretended to comply with the well known requirements to deliver Brady materials to the defense, whatever exoneration/favorable info could have been evaluated, presented if pertinent and a proper decision reached upon all the evidence.

The judge doesn’t dismiss for some trifling informality or piddling lapse in compliance. You have to really mess up, intentionally, to draw that kind of sanction.

I would hope the DOJ to come down hard on the responsible bozos, if the circumstances warrant. I, of course, have no insight into that, other than judges are usualy more understanding and this indicates a gross violation. We’ll see.

And to be totally clear, I was not suggesting that just the AUSAs (who clearly screwed the pooch) screwed up. It is possible that some of their problem was attempting (unsuccessfully) to cover up the cluster functions created by other government agents before the case got to them. Who knows, but nobody on either side of that mess comes out looking like a good guy.

quote:

Originally posted by rduckwor:
There was a lot of wrong on both sides of this process. But, largely on the fed's side. The Obama land grab exacerbated this problem.

RMD

My sentiments exactly. Bundy is not necessarily in the right, but this whole situation was jackbooted, to say the least.

All that stuff may have been the Brady material they couldn’t bring themselves to hand over to the defendants, but they couldn’t convince the higher ups to drop the case.

Lawyering is a funny business. When you are in a situation with boss/supervisors, you are under pressure to obey their directions, but have a duty, more pronounced than some other occupations, to assure compliance with laws, procedures, etc., as to which there may be, and often is, disagreement, differing judgments, gray areas, which generate inappropriate temptations sometimes. I’ve experienced those, and you have to figure out what you think is right and do that, or accept consequences.

Not to beat a dead horse, but that was the Obama era, too. It may have been lower level bosses, it may have been higher level bosses who figured they answered only to Mother Gaea or some other "higher" authority.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
While I don't see him and his kin as heroic.
. .

Well, many of us here in the west, particularly those of us engaged in ranching on family ranches dating back into the nineteenth century, do see the Bundys in a heroic light.

The truth is that the Obama Administration, at the behest of Harry Reid, who in turn was catering to fat cat political movers and shakers, made an egregious land grab. The Bundys stood up to it. And that is heroic.

I knew a PI that withheld evidence in a trial and it got him 5 years hard.

Bundy did nothing wrong. Nothing.

In the case against Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, the prosectorial misdeeds were so profound, pervasive,that the judge ordered a special investigator to look into the whole mess.

One AUSA commited suicide. AG Holder was forced to dismiss the case after verdict but before a judgment of guilty was entered, but Stevens had lost the election for another term.

Another Obama JV team - seems there's a lot of them going around in .gov these days. Blinded by their own arrogance.

Bundy may pursue the government for damages. Glad to see it and hope he prevails, this abusive nonsense has to stop.

https://www.washingtontimes.co...SGZ2aVk4dEE5dFJoNSJ9

Cliven Bundy may sue federal government for malicious prosecution, civil-rights abuses

Rancher Cliven Bundy no longer faces federal charges in the 2014 Nevada standoff, but that doesn’t mean his legal fight with the Justice Department is over.

Attorney Larry Klayman said Mr. Bundy is considering filing lawsuits for malicious prosecution and civil-rights violations stemming from the court battle that ended Monday with a federal judge dismissing all charges against him over “flagrant prosecutorial misconduct.”

Mr. Klayman, a conservative activist and former Justice Department lawyer who has represented Mr. Bundy on other matters, said the newly freed 71-year-old rancher may also file ethics complaints against federal prosecutors.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Gloria Navarro “didn’t dismiss this matter out of the goodness of her heart. It was like rats fleeing a sinking ship,” Mr. Klayman said.

“But what she said was extremely strong against prosecutors and against the FBI in particular,” he said. “This is yet the latest FBI scandal. [She] accused them of lying and hiding evidence, calling it ‘outrageous.’ “

Indeed, Judge Navarro didn’t hold back, blasting prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Nevada for willfully withholding potentially exculpatory evidence from the defense, including FBI surveillance and sniper records from the April 2014 confrontation at the Bundy ranch near Bunkerville, Nevada.

“The court finds that the universal sense of justice has been violated,” Judge Navarrosaid, as quoted in the Arizona Republic. “The government conduct in this case was, indeed, outrageous.”

Federal prosecutors had argued that their failure to turn over evidence was “inadvertent” and “regrettable,” but she dismissed all charges against Mr. Bundy, his sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy, and Ryan Payne of Montana.

The prosecution promptly came under fire for bungling what once looked like an open-and-shut case against the four defendants, billed as the ringleaders of the standoff with the Bureau of Land Management over Cliven Bundy’s longstanding refusal to pay grazing fees in a protest against federal lands policy.

Hundreds of the family’s supporters, some of them armed, descended on the area after BLM agents tried to impound 400 head of Bundy cattle, forcing them to cancel the operation.

“The case shines a bright light on the perils of the federal bureaucracy’s confrontational approach to those who live and work on or near the vast tracts of public land that constitute much of the rural West, particularly in Nevada,” said the Las Vegas Review-Journal in a Monday editorial, describing the failed prosecution as “a casualty of federal hubris.”

Mr. Bundy is also weighing a lawsuit to settle the beef over who owns the ranch property by “filing for declaratory relief that the land is Nevada land, not federal land,” Mr. Klayman said.

The notoriously litigious founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, Mr. Klayman had previously filed complaints on behalf of Mr. Bundy asking the Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility and Office of the Inspector General to probe allegations of misconduct.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that he had ordered an expert review of the case shortly after Judge Navarro declared a mistrial on Dec. 20.

“So now there’s real teeth for the OPR investigation and IG investigation that I requested in a complaint, and Sessions should be looking into all of that,” Mr. Klayman said. “These prosecutors will most likely wind up not just being disciplined by the Department of Justice, but they could lose their licenses. It’s that bad.”

Adding to the Justice Department’s woes is a newly released Nov. 27 memo from BLM investigator Larry C. Wooten, who faulted BLM agents for “unacceptable bias” against the Bundys, including hostility to Mormons, and accused federal prosecutors of attempting to cover up the misconduct.

Mr. Klayman was a familiar figure in the Las Vegas courtroom, appearing regularly and taking notes despite being prevented by Judge Navarro from sitting at the defense table with Bret Whipple, Cliven Bundy’s defense attorney.

Interim U.S. Attorney Dayle Elieson, who took over for Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre on Friday, issued a statement after the ruling saying that prosecutors “respect the court’s ruling and will make a determination about the next appropriate steps.”

The final phase in the three-tier standoff trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 26 with the remaining four defendants, who include Mr. Bundy’s sons David and Melvin.

Townhall.com
Bill Barr
January 10, 2018

There is an old Latin proverb, “Fiat justitia, ruat caelum,” which means, roughly translated, “Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall.” On Monday, January 8, 2018, the heavens fell on the United States Department of Justice. More specifically, on that day a United States District Court Judge, Gloria Navarro, dismissed the criminal charges that had been pending against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, two of his sons, and a third defendant, for nearly four years.

What made this action especially significant is not simply that the judge dismissed the charges, but that she did so with prejudice, meaning the federal government cannot later retry the defendants.

Such steps by a federal judge – dismissing charges and doing so with prejudice – are not routine, but they are unusual; not so significant, perhaps, as to warrant special attention by persons not directly involved. What happened in the Bundy case, however, is that important.

Monday’s announcement in the federal courtroom in Las Vegas should concern every American who carries with him or her an understanding of, and appreciation for, the rule of law. The judge’s findings should frighten every American. Why? Because they document and confirm how easily any one of us could wind up like Cliven Bundy -- the victim of overzealous, dishonest and vindictive government employees; including, most disturbing, those within the Department of Justice.

What makes the Judge’s ruling so important, are the reasons underlying the decision. In her ruling, Judge Navarro found that the government (including the United States Attorney’s office in Nevada and the FBI, among others) not only had withheld evidence from the defendants and their lawyers – evidence that was potentially exculpatory and could establish their innocence – but that it had done so repeatedly and willfully; that is, deliberately and maliciously.

A fair question might be posed, as to “why” the government had behaved in such a despicable manner; what was at stake that drove federal lawyers and law enforcement officers to engage in what the Judge noted was “outrageous” and “unconstitutional” behavior?

Was it money? After all, the federal Bureau of Land Management (a subsidiary of the Interior Department) was seeking over a million dollars from the Bundys; which, it claimed, was owed Uncle Sam because the ranchers’ cattle grazed on land claimed to be owned by the U.S. government. But is there a dollar amount beyond which the Bill of Rights does not apply?

Was it an egregious violation of the Endangered Species Act as claimed by the feds; grazing that threatened the very existence of a tortoise that inhabited this particular patch of sagebrush? But is a tortoise more important in the eyes of our Constitution, that human beings; does it, too, trump the Bill of Rights?

Was it because the government had conducted a fair and objective “threat analysis” of the Bundys and their activities leading up to the stand-off that took place (and ended peaceably) on April 12, 2014, and found credible evidence that the family and its supporters posed a clear and present threat to federal officials? Is it now impermissible to peaceably assemble on any plot of soil claimed by the government to belong to the government?

The Judge noted that the Bundys’ fear of federal surveillance and snipers, which preceded the 2014 stand-off, were in fact justified and well-founded; even though the government deliberately hid evidence of such actions and derided such assertions as fictions and “urban myths” conjured up by over-imaginative defendants.

The government claimed repeatedly that its agents “feared” for their lives in part because a “threat analysis” concluded that the Bundys and their supporters posed a very real and imminent danger of violent opposition. In fact, as the Judge found, the so-called “threat analyses” were based on nothing factual; and actually concluded just the opposite.

What appears to have been at the heart of the Justice Department’s unconscionable behavior was sheer hubris; the arrogance that comes from a superior sense of status and power, built on decades of legislative and judicial decisions concluding that the federal government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whoever it wants and that its actions are not to be questioned.

A thorough investigation of this sorry incident is due by the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Interior, the head of the FBI, and perhaps most important, by those in the Congress responsible for ensuring that our Constitution and laws are carried out with a far higher degree of integrity and respect than that which has been afforded the Bundy family. Moreover, unless those responsible are punished appropriately, surely other American citizens will find themselves the targets of future witch hunts.

And, incidentally, why is this case largely being downplayed, if not ignored, by most media outlets?

Link

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
There is an old Latin proverb, “Fiat justitia, ruat caelum,” which means, roughly translated, “Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall.”

I thought it translated to "Actually, Jim Garrison was a loon and didn't look one damn bit like Kevin Costner."

I heard there were some who pled guilty and were sentenced as such.

Do these people have any recourse?

(Those who pled may be frim the Oregon case, not sure)

quote:

“But what she said was extremely strong against prosecutors and against the FBI in particular,” he said. “This is yet the latest FBI scandal. [She] accused them of lying and hiding evidence, calling it ‘outrageous.’ “

Sounds like somebody's getting promoted.
Or is it going to be a lateral transfer?

It will be anything but what it should be --> FUCKING FIRED.