Cliven Bundy to stay in jail


A federal grand jury yesterday indicted Cliven Bundy and four others (including his two sons Ammon and Ryan) on 16 felony charges dating back to the 2014 standoff.

All were charged with conspiracy, carrying a firearm in relation to a violent crime, obstruction of justice, extortion, and assault and threats against federal law enforcement.

The charge of assault on a federal law enforcement officer carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. If convicted, the defendants would also have to forfeit at least $3 million worth of property secured through the crimes, the statement said

To no one’s surprise, Cliven Bundy was denied bail by the district judge in Portland, Oregon during his court hearing, the judge citing his past behavior as sufficient reason to keep him in custody until his trial.

In court on Tuesday, the 69-year-old Bundy wore the same light-blue prison jumpsuit and faded pink undershirt that the former occupiers of the Malheur national wildlife refuge in south-eastern Oregon have worn at their hearings.

“If he’s released and goes back to his ranch, that’s likely the last the court will see of him,” judge Janice Stewart said, finding Bundy a danger to the community and a flight risk. She said that despite his lack of a criminal history, his refusal to pay grazing fees going back nearly two decades and his fomenting of the armed standoff made it clear that Bundy has little interest in complying with federal court orders.

In support of the government’s case that Bundy should not be released on bail ahead of his trial, [Nevada federal prosecutor Steven] Myhre argued that Bundy’s “actions and deeds show his violent nature” and that many of the people who came to the standoff at the ranch two years ago were still at large and still “pledged” to support the rancher.

Bundy’s next court date is Friday in Las Vegas, where a preliminary hearing will take place on the six federal charges against him.

I remain utterly mystified at Bundy’s lack of foresight in leaving his ranch and going to Oregon. This lack of basic smarts seems to have been shared by Nevada state representative Michele Fiore, a big fan of his. She seems to be an even dimmer bulb that him, not realizing that the authorities were using her to get their hands on him. She seems to feel aggrieved, that this was not playing by the rules and that Bundy should be given a Mulligan.

Bundy’s attorney said on Tuesday that Bundy and Nevada state representative Michele Fiore, who was instrumental as an intermediary between the FBI and the remaining occupiers last week, were supposed to fly together to Oregon, but that Bundy missed that earlier flight.

He said Fiore was then supposed to pick up Bundy at the airport, but she headed to the refuge once she received word the situation was escalating. “She didn’t know the FBI, as it enlisted her services [as a go-between], was intending to arrest her friend,” Grefenson told the court.

Stewart said: “I fail to see how this is relevant.”

Bundy and Fiore seem to have fallen victim to their own grandiose delusions and been under the impression that the government would let him waltz around the country freely supporting armed insurrections.

Comments

  1. Numenaster says

    I’m not even sure what Fiore’s argument is supposed to be here. Is she accusing the FBI of not playing fair?

  2. machintelligence says

    I believe that I read somewhere that Bundy had some “no fly list” problems but was later allowed to board a plane. Perhaps that was to prevent them from travelling together. Or perhaps it was to stall for time to assemble the “welcoming committee” in Oregon. Who knows?

  3. lorn says

    IMHO the whole freeman/militia movement is based upon the assertion that there is a sub-Rosa, hidden, legal structure that under-girds all legal action, the structure of the US constitution and the relationship of the citizen to the state, the state to the nation, and the nation to the community of nations and to nature and, assuming they exist, one or more divine presence/s. That by pointing out the flaws in the manifestations of this order, like the use an ‘Admiralty flag’ in a court, or by capitalizing their names idiosyncratically, the ‘freeman’ show that the manifest authorities have not played by the sub-Rosa rules or that the ‘freemen’ are not subject to their authority.

    It is like they have listened to their select legal ‘experts’, spelled c-h-a-r-l-a-t-a-n-s, so closely and often that they really believe that they could march into a federal court under serious charges, shout ‘look an Admiralty flag’ and the judge would declare ‘well played’ … ‘this court lacks jurisdiction’ and tells the bailiff to let the prisoner go.

    Essentially what they are referencing is the legal logic of shamanism. Wherein the practitioner, after entering into an altered mental state, and making certain sacrifices, gains an understanding of, and the ability to control powerful unseen forces through the use of spells and incantations, and, perhaps, a bit of interpretative dance.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

    If you doubt my assertion of their entering into an altered state of consciousness I suggest you watch the videos listed at the bottom of the web page:
    http://freedom.fmotl.com/

    After a couple of hours of videos notice the peculiar shift in mental state. But, be warned, don’t go too far. It is like stepping into Narnia. A whole other world. Slamming your fingers in a door seems to cure most of the early effects but, sadly, repeated exposure may cause a permanent mental derangement , a fascination with firearms, and a tragic tendency babble incoherently about admiralty fringes and perform interpretative dances in federal court.

  4. sonofrojblake says

    I’ve had a few online conversations with UK manifestions of the FMotL. The question I always ask first, and which has so far stumped them, is this: can you give the date and location of a court case where this stuff has worked? As in, stop telling me why it should work, who sold it to you, what the basis of the argument is, when the crucial shift in jurisprudence occurred, which Masonic lodge you need to be in/not be in to get preferential treatment or whatever. Just one clear reference to someone pulling that shit in a court and having it work. Because so far, every time it’s been tried the result is humiliating defeat – and often not merely that. Often enough, a person in court for something minor that could be cleared up by paying a fine spins the “I don’t recognise the authority of this court” line, and ends up with a custodial sentence for contempt. I feel a tiny bit sorry for the dupes who fall for it. Just a tiny bit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *