Partial verdict reached in Bundy Nevada Ranch standoff

tyroneweaver

Platinum Member
Mar 3, 2012
25,677
10,982
940
Burley, Idaho
Partial verdict reached in Bundy ranch standoff trial in Nevada

Partial verdict reached in Bundy ranch standoff trial in Nevada

nevada-trialjpg-1a7829fe14638eaa.jpg

Nine-year-old Paylynn Lawrimore holds up a sign in support of defendants on trial in federal court, Wednesday, April 12, 2017, in Las Vegas. A federal jury in Las Vegas heard closing arguments in the trial of six men accused of wielding weapons to stop federal agents from rounding up cattle near Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy's property in 2014. (AP Photo/John Locher) (John Locher/The Associated Press)
Email
By The Associated Press
Follow on Twitter
on April 24, 2017 at 10:24 AM, updated April 24, 2017 at 5:12 PM





LAS VEGAS -- A federal jury in Las Vegas found two men guilty Monday in an armed standoff that stopped government agents from rounding up cattle near Cliven Bundy's Nevada ranch in 2014, but then deadlocked on federal charges against four others.

The six men were the first to be tried in the standoff, which was hailed as a victory by states' rights advocates who want vast stretches of federal land in the U.S. West put under local control.

Their case was seen as a preview for an upcoming trial for Bundy; his eldest sons, Ammon and Ryan Bundy; and two others who prosecutors have characterized as leaders of a conspiracy to defy the government with guns.

The judge declared a mistrial for Richard Lovelien, Scott Drexler, Eric Parker and Steven Stewart and scheduled a new trial for June 26, the same day the Bundys are set to be tried.

Earlier, the same jury convicted Gregory Burleson, 53, of Phoenix, of eight charges, including threatening and assaulting a federal officer. He faces a minimum of 57 years in prison at sentencing July 26.

Todd Engel, 49, of Boundary County, Idaho, was found guilty of obstruction and traveling across state lines in aid of extortion. Engel could face up to 30 years at sentencing July 27.

The Bundys have become symbols in the long-running fight over government-owned land. The sons also were accused of leading a 41-day armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon last year. They were acquitted of all charges but kept behind bars to face trial in the earlier standoff near their father's ranch.

Jurors in Las Vegas deliberated for six days and indicated last week they were having trouble reaching verdicts on charges of conspiracy. No one was convicted of conspiracy, mirroring the Oregon case.

About 30 supporters gathered outside court, where Cliven Bundy's wife, Carol, said before the mistrial was declared that the jury saw weakness in the government's case.

"If they can't decide, there's doubt. If there's doubt, there's innocence," she said.

The six defendants answered a Bundy family call-to-arms three years ago in Bunkerville, Nevada, making them co-conspirators in a plan to commit a federal offense and impede or injure federal officers, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors also characterized them as the least culpable of the 17 to be tried in the case.

Jurors heard testimony and saw photos of each defendant with an assault-style rifle during the tense standoff where more than 100 protesters shouted for heavily armed federal agents to release nearly 400 cows.

The government was enforcing court orders to get Bundy cattle off public lands for his refusal to pay grazing fees.

No shots were fired. But it is illegal to brandish assault-style weapons against federal agents, Acting Nevada U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre said.

The defendants argued they came to Nevada to exercise constitutional rights of free speech and weapon possession after seeing accounts of Bundy family members met with police dogs, knocked down, stun-gunned and arrested in earlier scuffles with federal agents.

A third trial for six others charged in the standoff is expected in the fall.

-- The Associated Press
 
I feel for those guys, but you can't take up arms against the Feds without repercussions.

I'd feel for them if it was their land, but it wasn't. They were illegally grazing on land that wasn't their's and not paying for it. Basically, they were no different than a welfare recipient.
 
That sign is correct. Patriot Political Prisoners. I hope the rest escape persecution unharmed...the ones that are wrongly convicted are martyrs....especially looking at their ages and the idiotic time they face.
 
I feel for those guys, but you can't take up arms against the Feds without repercussions.

I'd feel for them if it was their land, but it wasn't. They were illegally grazing on land that wasn't their's and not paying for it. Basically, they were no different than a welfare recipient.

You clearly have read a different history of what brought this to this point than I have.
 
The Bundy's had not paid grazing fees for many years. And they were grazing more cattle on the land than would be allowable, in any case. That is thievery. What should have happened is that the Bundy's should have been given a couple of weeks to get those cows off BLM land, and then any found on that land should have been shot.
 
I feel for those guys, but you can't take up arms against the Feds without repercussions.

I'd feel for them if it was their land, but it wasn't. They were illegally grazing on land that wasn't their's and not paying for it. Basically, they were no different than a welfare recipient.


The Bundy family had grazing rights to that land LONG before the Federal "gubermint" stepped in and claimed that land as property of USA.INC, but here in lies the rub, the Federal "gubermint" only has jurisdiction within the District of Columbia per their own corporate charter constitution via the Act of 1871 that made our beloved "gubermint" a corporate entity with it's main shareholders being the international bankers. Bundy offered to pay "grazing fees" to Clark county in Nevada and they refused it even though he wasn't required. The BLM has been used to run people off of of their lands using environmental laws, intimidation and tying people up in courts that can't afford to keep paying legal bills...the BLM has deep pockets. This is what happened to the Hammond family and the injustice that happened to them made it clear to me that any faith that I had in the legal system was wiped away once and for all. This corporate entity operates under admiralty law, i.e the Uniform Commercial Code or as they like to say "statutory law" which is just another way of saying is that unless one understands "legalese" and can digest Black's Law dictionary? You don't have a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing. The attorneys work on behalf of the courts and "judges" are nothing but administrators working on behalf of the corporate owners of USA.INC.

Look at the U.N Agenda 21 Map and then compare it to the amount of land that "da gubnermint" claims to own and you will find the connection. President Theodore Roosevelt was worried that with the advancement of settlements and the buying up of land that some should be put into a "public trust" which meant that there were certain areas that would be "off limits" for the sake of national preservation. It was a great idea but unfortunately due to the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of 1933? The public trust was turned over to the international bankers as collateral as well as our "sweat equity" being made surety against the debt...thus all allodial rights to property was lost. Don't believe me? Check this out......Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17, 1933. "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership"is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."
 
Last edited:
They were acquitted of the armed takeover of the bird sanctuary? No consequences for that?! If that's true, I might go take over the local nature center for a few days and throw a couple parties. Cost of entry? Bring snacks! :laugh:
View attachment 123190
I know about a beautiful National Park here in Virginia that people love and millions of people enjoy every year. Want to grab a few beers, round up a posse, and scare people off and take it over for a few days?
 
I feel for those guys, but you can't take up arms against the Feds without repercussions.

There is something very backward about that.

It ought to be that the government cannot take up arms against the very people that it is supposed to represent and serve, without repercussions.

Oh I agree with your sentiment, but the reality is very different.
 
Ammon, Ryan, and daddy Cliven's charges fit into those of the two convicted.

Incitement and brandishing weapons will not help their defense.
 
I feel for those guys, but you can't take up arms against the Feds without repercussions.

I'd feel for them if it was their land, but it wasn't. They were illegally grazing on land that wasn't their's and not paying for it. Basically, they were no different than a welfare recipient.

You clearly have read a different history of what brought this to this point than I have.

Everybody has heard the story told by Bundy. It just doesn't match reality.
 
I feel for those guys, but you can't take up arms against the Feds without repercussions.

There is something very backward about that.

It ought to be that the government cannot take up arms against the very people that it is supposed to represent and serve, without repercussions.

Oh I agree with your sentiment, but the reality is very different.
The Reality should match up to the Constitution, that it dont is the problem.
 
When NV became a state it made binding contracts with the federal government on which lands belonged to the state and to the feds.

The feds govern the national land in our name.

The locals have no intrinsic property rights to federal lands that they lease and use.
 
Ammon, Ryan, and daddy Cliven's charges fit into those of the two convicted.

Incitement and brandishing weapons will not help their defense.
When NV became a state it made binding contracts with the federal government on which lands belonged to the state and to the feds.

The feds govern the national land in our name.

The locals have no intrinsic property rights to federal lands that they lease and use.


The "Feds" collected fees for "maintaining" nothing, It's akin to the mafia coming into your neighborhood telling you that you better give them so much per week or they will burn your business down...not a red klunt hair's difference between the two.

But I already know all I need to know about Jake Smarmy...if the Feds came in and claimed that his beloved (be it a he or she) was theirs and that they would be sexually assaulting his partner in front of him? Jake would bow, kneel and acquiesce with nary a whimper. The best he would do is toss them a pillow for comfort because after all "Its da gubermint and what they say goes!".......what a fucking cowardly sack of shit.
 

Forum List

Back
Top