Cliven Bundy and his family have
been in the national news since 2014 when they faced federal authorities over a
dispute of land. The government alleges that Bundy was grazing his cattle on
federal land since 1993 without the required BLM permit and did not pay the
required fees. Authorities allege that Bundy allowed his cattle to graze on
public land even though there were court orders in 1998, 1999, and 2013 telling
him to remove his cattle.
According to Warren Henry, the BLM and its contractors attempted to impound Bundy cattle in April 2014.
Bundy and his sons said that they would do “whatever it takes” to keep their
property and took up arms. They were joined by “dozens of armed followers and
militiamen who had learned of the confrontation.” The BLM stopped the operation
after a week before any one was injured or killed, but they did not stop the
case.
Bundy, his sons, and other people
were arrested, and cases were tried and retried. Cases were declared mistrials,
but the government continued in its quest. Henry explains further.
The federal indictment of Bundy and his
codefendants alleges that they engaged in a conspiracy to thwart the
impoundment of the cattle. One of the alleged methods of the conspiracy was the
use of “deceit and deception” to recruit followers and militiamen, including
falsely claiming that the BLM had surrounded the Bundy ranch with snipers. The
defendants were also charged with assault, threats against the government, firearms
offenses, and obstruction of justice.
As the case went trial, there was new
evidence that “raises serious questions about the Bureau of Land Management’s
(BLM) use of FBI surveillance and snipers to confront ranchers who were deemed
nonviolent by several government agencies, and whose original offenses were
alleged trespassing on federal land and nonpayment of grazing fees.” Just as jury
selection started in Bundy’s case, events turned in his favor.
During a pretrial hearing, a National
Park Service ranger testified that the FBI had set up at least one surveillance
camera on the ranch, a fact the government had previously denied. At the same
hearing, Dan Love, the special agent in charge of the BLM operation at the
ranch, testified that there had been snipers deployed at the ranch. Love also
testified that the government had commissioned threat assessment reports on the
Bundys – reports the government had not provided in response to defense
requests…
On November 27, 2017, Larry Wooten, a
BLM investigator assigned to assess the government’s handling of the Bundy
standoff, filed a whistleblower complaint with the Justice Department, alleging
he was removed from the investigation after raising concerns about misconduct, including
by Love.
Jarrett Stepman of The Daily Signal compares the actions by the BLM with the Bundy’s to those of the IRS that
targeted Tea Party groups. He writes that “Governments are prone to abuse,
especially when unchecked.” He explains that in the Bundy case, the government
overstepped its bounds.
A federal judge ruled December 20 that
she was throwing out the Bureau of Land Management’s case against Nevada
rancher Cliven Bundy because the prosecution withheld key facts. On Monday
[January 8, 2018], the same judge ruled that the case could not be tried again
due to the actions of the prosecution, which she said had been “outrageous” and
“violated due process rights,” according to azcentral.com.
Stepman says that the actions of
government officials raised too many questions and “damaged the credibility of
the case.” He continues with his article.
What is particularly worrisome is that
the Bureau of Land Management appears to have acted punitively against
political and religious groups they simply didn’t like…
The agents called Bundy and his
supporters “deplorables,” “rednecks,” and “idiots” among many other worse
names, Wooten said. They also insulted the Bundy family’s Mormon beliefs.
Their behavior showed clear prejudice
toward “the defendants, their supporters, and Mormons,” Wooten wrote.
As Stepman emphasizes, we do not
have to believe that the Bundys were in the right in order to recognize that
the government overstepped its boundaries. In this case, the government and/or
its agents were out of control and needed to be reined in. We should be
grateful that a federal judge was willing to recognize this need.
No comments:
Post a Comment