Presumably, it did not sit well with the jury that paid FBI informants and agents provocateur outnumbered the protesters by a factor of two to one.
The Kooks are Back
- Thread starter SGaynor
- Start date
Presumably, it did not sit well with the jury that paid FBI informants and agents provocateur outnumbered the protesters by a factor of two to one.
No in other words they have multiple cases, the jury doesn't advocate their actions, it's far from over, and they still don't get to wear their god given cowboy hats in court.
You sure about that?
It's soon to be a Supreme Court case and I believe this is exactly what the Bundy's want even if that means spending a long time in jail for their actions to get this case to the Supreme Court. This whole pipeline mess in North Dakota is only adding fuel to the Bundy fire and will probably benefit the Bundy's in the long run. There's a bigger picture here and it's not based on how someone looks.
Dan, the acquittal was not about jury nullification or some broader anti-government agenda on the part of the jurors. It was simply about the government's inability to prove the conspiracy charge. An interview with one of the jurors confirms this. See oregonlive.com for details. They're a Portland newspaper but have stayed mostly objective through the trial.
I don't think the Supreme Court is in this case's future.
I wouldn't be surprised, however, if the government drops the charges against Santilli and the rest of the group that was set to be tried after this group. The Nevada case is far more serious and they have a good chance at seeing lengthy prison terms from that one.
I don't think the Supreme Court is in this case's future.
I wouldn't be surprised, however, if the government drops the charges against Santilli and the rest of the group that was set to be tried after this group. The Nevada case is far more serious and they have a good chance at seeing lengthy prison terms from that one.
Really? It was "paid FBI informants and agents provocateur" that caused these people to drive to Oregon, break in, take over, and refuse to leave the BLM office, all while posting videos on the internet about how they would fight and die to the last man against the evil feds?
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
I fully understand this. No matter how you twist it or turn it, it's still win #1 for the Bundy's.
I agree the NV case has much more merit. They broke the law. Odds are someone is going to jail for thair actions. However, if the Fed's push the grazing rights issue it could get messy and this case will go on for years.
I would not be so sure. The last time the insular cases were challenged in court was a long time ago. During this time the opinion included:
-Democracy and colonialism are "fully compatible".
-There is "nothing wrong when a democracy such as the United States engages in the business of governing other" subjects that have not participated in their democratic election process.
-People are not created equal, some races being superior to others.
-It is the "burden of the superior peoples, the white man's burden, to bring up others in their image, except to the extent that the nation which possesses them should in due time determine"
Falling under the same umbrella the Bundy's are facing are folks from Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Norther Marianas. Their argument is to have the same constitutional rights as those born in the United States.
From the Washington Post, "Residents of America's island territories can't vote because the Supreme Court found in a series of early 20th century decisions that they belonged to the United States but were "not a part" of the United States. The decisions also found the territories were inhabited by "alien races" who might not be able to understand Anglo-Saxon laws, so the U.S. Constitution didn't have to apply. The lead decision in one of the rulings was written by the justice who wrote the "separate but equal" decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Henry Billings Brown, and was intended to be temporary. "
All of this falls under Article Four of the United States Constitution - Clause 2: Property Clause, and what's considered insular areas. The land the Bundys were grazing cattle on was an insular area, defined in 1901 as "territories belonged to, but were not part of the United States. Therefore, under the Territorial clause Congress had the power to determine which parts of the Constitution applied to the territories."
It's not just the Bundy's here. The Bundy's are only one small piece of the pie. But the Bundy's seem to have a legitimate argument over these BLM managed properties. I'm not saying they'll win the criminal case in court coming up in Nevada - they'll most certainly lose - but the bigger scope of the big picture here is interesting if they can get to the Supreme Court. It may not even be the Bundy's who get the case to the Supreme Court, but it would absolutely affect the future of the BLM and 80% of Nevada including the livestock, mining, and timber industries.
WTF?
So your argument is that somehow, land that is within the contiguous 48 states (and AK, HI), is somehow not part of the states, but is a territory? So, GW National Forrest is not part of VA but is a territory?
Good luck with that legal argument.
It's not my argument. It's the Supreme Courts opinion.
The GW in VA is not controlled by the state or the county the land lies in. They have no control over it.
BLM land is not "territories." It is part of a state, controlled/administered by the feds.
Very different than Guam.
Seems to me, it is you that are equating territories to BLM lands (or at least buying the argument).
Problem is, an "insular area" is one that is "A jurisdiction that is neither a part of one of the several States nor a Federal district." (https://www.doi.gov/oia/islands/politicatypes).
BLM land IS a part of "one of the several States."
Argument fails.
The argument as to why Bundy was charged for ranching cattle falls under the 4th amendment. The same amendment insular land falls under. This is not me making this up, this was upheld in the 1st Court of Appeals in the Bundy trials. It's the property clause that will be challenged at some point. Maybe by Bundy, maybe someone else. I'm not a lawyer so I cannot speak lawyer talk, but this is what the Bundy's are fight for (mostly) state rights.
Citation please.
ETA: Bundy's case never went to appeals - it was in US District court. And 1st Circuit Court of Appeals is basically New England (and Puerto Rico).
So, I'm really confused by what you are saying.
(I assumed you meant Article IV, not 4th Amendment, right?)
Yes, Article 4, Clause 2.
I'll post some links when I get back to a computer.
I'm not saying, at all, that the Bundy's will win in the high court. But I do think they (or whoever challenges this) have a case.
I'll post some links when I get back to a computer.
I'm not saying, at all, that the Bundy's will win in the high court. But I do think they (or whoever challenges this) have a case.
It seems the judge's allowing for the defense to use the defendants "state of mind" really allowed the jury to say that the defendants weren't that bad.
From what i've seen about Juror #4, it seems he really wanted to find a reason not to convict, ie, there was no written conspiracy (even though instructions were that written was not necessary); or that the one defendent "didn't mean to take the federal truck - he "thought" it was county and therefore property of everyone in the county.