4 ms·

Let's go into the Bundy case here. His family has had grazing rights over this land in Nevada for generations. Then in 1993 the federal government restricted ac

Let's go into the Bundy case here. His family has had grazing rights over this land in Nevada for generations. Then in 1993 the federal government restricted access to much of that land to protect an endangered species. They seized the land but he refused to sell, continued grazing, and stopped paying his grazing fees. He could have challenged the seizure in court, but he did not. He could have kept paying his grazing fees, but instead he went to court and tried to argue he should be allowed to graze for free. When he lost, he continued grazing his cattle there and refused to pay for it, at which point the government took his grazing rights for lack of payment. Whether or not grazing fees count as private property is actually irrelevant. He lost his grazing rights by refusing to pay for them. If he had kept paying, and actually challenged the seizure and sued, that would be an interesting case, but he did not. There are interesting argument here, but Bundy is not the one making them. He doesn't even acknowledge the authority of the federal government, and instead fell into the crazy Sovereign citizen crowd. (Also, even if grazing land is considered private property, the federal government could seize the land: https://www.fws.gov/refuges/realty/faq.html https://www.fws.gov/refuges/realty/faq.html )

nkurz 9y ago
He lost his grazing rights by refusing to pay for them. I've read the filings for Hage, but I'm not as familiar with the details of of the Bundy case. So I presume you are right, that their behavior seems indefensible, but I also presume that "the choice of starting point" has a large effect on the narrative. I'd wager that the Bundy's feel the story starts somewhere earlier, in a way that makes their response seem more reasonable. Here's an update from a couple months ago on the upcoming 3rd retrial of the defendants there: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2017/08/23/prosecutors-retry-bundy-ranch-standoff-defendants-third-time/594842001/ http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigat... I think the tendency so far for juries to repeatedly fail to return guilty verdicts is a pretty good defense of the "unsettled law" theory. Or worse, as the mother/wife in the first video linked suggests, maybe it's a sign that the government treats the legal system itself as part of the punishment rather than a dispassionate means of adjudication. The narrative that actually interests me is most is the extreme conflict between the district and circuit courts. Nominally, they are both "federal" courts, but at least in the Western US, the local district courts are all about states rights and the San Francisco based circuit courts tend to lean heavily in the opposite direction.
- openasocket 9y ago
  Those people are being tried for taking up arms against the government, who were trying to seize Bundy's cattle to pay for his $1M fines for illegally grazing. That trial has exactly nothing to do with whether grazing rights are private property. What exactly is the "unsettled law" part? Are you implying an armed standoff with federal officials carrying out a court order is "unsettled law"?
  - nkurz 9y ago
    I'm strongly in favor of arresting people for violent crimes. One would think it would be an easy "guilty" verdict if the situation was as you (and most of the media) describe it. Oddly, though, there have been multiple trials of the participants where multiple defendants have been declared "not guilty" on all charges[1]. Either the jury trial system in America is extremely unreliable (certainly possible) or there is more to the case than the summary you offer. I wasn't there, and haven't read the court records, so I don't know what happened in the courtroom, much less what happened in the real world. My guess would be that unsettled law was not a reason for the (lack of) verdict, but that it goes a long way to explain how the situation came about. I'd also guess that they story being reported in the media misses a lot of important details. The video interview with Carol Bundy in the earlier link I gave you describes a different view of the situation. I don't have specific reason to trust her, but I think she comes across as fairly trustworthy. In her view, they were terrorized by corrupt government officials who brazenly lied about what happened. This clearly isn't the whole story, but might explain why they get the popular support the do. It also might be relevant that there are several ongoing parallel cases that involve the BLM and FBI agents. The BLM agent in charge of the Bundy ranch raid was found guilty of "ethical misconduct" with regard to Burning Man[3], then later sacked after another OIG investigation cited him for "official misconduct"[4]. The FBI agent who fired two of the first shots in the killing of Lavoy Finicum was indicted for obstruction of justice by claiming he had not fired his gun.[5] The camera video filmed by a passenger in Finicum's car tell at different story than most of the media coverage[6]. I think it's worth watching, at least to see the other side of the story. But as I said, I haven't been following the details of the Bundy case. Maybe they did things that are horribly wrong. I don't assume, though, that hearing the national news coverage gives me insight into what actually happened. So I'll ask you instead: If these are open and shut cases, why is it so hard for the federal government to get the verdicts they are seeking? Separately, thank you for participating civilly in a discussion even though we seem to disagree. [1] http://thehill.com/homenews/news/347611-cliven-bundy-followers-found-not-guilty-in-armed-standoff-case http://thehill.com/homenews/news/347611-cliven-bundy-followe... [2] http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/06/fbi_agents_indictment_resulted.html http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/06/fbi_agents... [3] https://www.doioig.gov/reports/investigation-ethical-misconduct-and-violations-blm-supervisory-agent https://www.doioig.gov/reports/investigation-ethical-miscond... [4] http://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2017/09/25/interior-boss-blasts-fired-utah-blm-law-enforcement-agent/ http://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2017/09/25/interior-b... [5] http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/29/fbi-agent-indicted-for-lying-to-investig http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/29/fbi-agent-indicted-for-lyi... [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEswP_HSFV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEswP_HSFV4

nkurz 9y ago

He lost his grazing rights by refusing to pay for them. I've read the filings for Hage, but I'm not as familiar with the details of of the Bundy case. So I presume you are right, that their behavior seems indefensible, but I also presume that "the choice of starting point" has a large effect on the narrative. I'd wager that the Bundy's feel the story starts somewhere earlier, in a way that makes their response seem more reasonable. Here's an update from a couple months ago on the upcoming 3rd retrial of the defendants there: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2017/08/23/prosecutors-retry-bundy-ranch-standoff-defendants-third-time/594842001/ http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigat... I think the tendency so far for juries to repeatedly fail to return guilty verdicts is a pretty good defense of the "unsettled law" theory. Or worse, as the mother/wife in the first video linked suggests, maybe it's a sign that the government treats the legal system itself as part of the punishment rather than a dispassionate means of adjudication. The narrative that actually interests me is most is the extreme conflict between the district and circuit courts. Nominally, they are both "federal" courts, but at least in the Western US, the local district courts are all about states rights and the San Francisco based circuit courts tend to lean heavily in the opposite direction.

openasocket 9y ago
Those people are being tried for taking up arms against the government, who were trying to seize Bundy's cattle to pay for his $1M fines for illegally grazing. That trial has exactly nothing to do with whether grazing rights are private property. What exactly is the "unsettled law" part? Are you implying an armed standoff with federal officials carrying out a court order is "unsettled law"?
- nkurz 9y ago
  I'm strongly in favor of arresting people for violent crimes. One would think it would be an easy "guilty" verdict if the situation was as you (and most of the media) describe it. Oddly, though, there have been multiple trials of the participants where multiple defendants have been declared "not guilty" on all charges[1]. Either the jury trial system in America is extremely unreliable (certainly possible) or there is more to the case than the summary you offer. I wasn't there, and haven't read the court records, so I don't know what happened in the courtroom, much less what happened in the real world. My guess would be that unsettled law was not a reason for the (lack of) verdict, but that it goes a long way to explain how the situation came about. I'd also guess that they story being reported in the media misses a lot of important details. The video interview with Carol Bundy in the earlier link I gave you describes a different view of the situation. I don't have specific reason to trust her, but I think she comes across as fairly trustworthy. In her view, they were terrorized by corrupt government officials who brazenly lied about what happened. This clearly isn't the whole story, but might explain why they get the popular support the do. It also might be relevant that there are several ongoing parallel cases that involve the BLM and FBI agents. The BLM agent in charge of the Bundy ranch raid was found guilty of "ethical misconduct" with regard to Burning Man[3], then later sacked after another OIG investigation cited him for "official misconduct"[4]. The FBI agent who fired two of the first shots in the killing of Lavoy Finicum was indicted for obstruction of justice by claiming he had not fired his gun.[5] The camera video filmed by a passenger in Finicum's car tell at different story than most of the media coverage[6]. I think it's worth watching, at least to see the other side of the story. But as I said, I haven't been following the details of the Bundy case. Maybe they did things that are horribly wrong. I don't assume, though, that hearing the national news coverage gives me insight into what actually happened. So I'll ask you instead: If these are open and shut cases, why is it so hard for the federal government to get the verdicts they are seeking? Separately, thank you for participating civilly in a discussion even though we seem to disagree. [1] http://thehill.com/homenews/news/347611-cliven-bundy-followers-found-not-guilty-in-armed-standoff-case http://thehill.com/homenews/news/347611-cliven-bundy-followe... [2] http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/06/fbi_agents_indictment_resulted.html http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/06/fbi_agents... [3] https://www.doioig.gov/reports/investigation-ethical-misconduct-and-violations-blm-supervisory-agent https://www.doioig.gov/reports/investigation-ethical-miscond... [4] http://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2017/09/25/interior-boss-blasts-fired-utah-blm-law-enforcement-agent/ http://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2017/09/25/interior-b... [5] http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/29/fbi-agent-indicted-for-lying-to-investig http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/29/fbi-agent-indicted-for-lyi... [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEswP_HSFV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEswP_HSFV4