Replies

""If he is released and he goes back to his ranch, that is likely the last the government will see of him," Stewart said. "

The judge is implying, perhaps, that Bundy will dig a hole to China and escape his ranch? Why would the judge care if he's on his own ranch, unless perhaps, the government considers the ranch government property?

There's several legal problems here. First, the judge is clearly prejudicial in his rulings. Attorneys for the defense need to petition for both a change of venue and a new judge. The judge has already made openingly hostile statements towards the defendents in his communications. He's not impartial.

Second, there's an 8th Amendment problem here (maybe 14th amendment too). The government can't use one standard for group of citizens and a different one for others. If you're a conservative and own a gun, throw him in jail until his trial comes up in 4 years. If you're an illegal immigrant, or in a protected progressive class of citizens, you get bail at $100 if you've killed and raped little girls. See the problem? The judge must treat Bundy's accused crime and flight risk just like any other charged citizen, under the Constitution.

"Witnesses have described the level of threatened violence as so intense that something as innocent as the backfire of (a) vehicle, or someone lighting a firecracker, would have set off a firefight".

Were these witnesses also BLM and other government employees with a personal, vested interest in the Bundy's land? Does their testimony conflict with the estimated 300 citizens, plus media who were at the original Bundy ranch stand-off?

The government has won this kind of crap case before. They shoot, arrest, intimidate, confiscate, and to hell with the U.S. Constitution. The only way a "demonstration" such as the Bundy's Wildlife Refuge occupation wins is if they have 10,000 armed "minute men" ready to back them up. The FBI and OSP can shoot an unarmed grandfather (i.e. Lavoy didn't own a 9MM handgun, and left all of his weapons at the Refuge before he left) with impunity on an open road, take kids away from families, and roust protesters using MRAP's if the protesting citizens are alone. After the Fed's kill 500 or a 1000, and lose some of their own, then it's going to be kind of hard for the President and Oregon Governor to cover up the evidence and sweep it under the rug.

That's the dedication it would take to force the Federal Government to comply with the U.S. Constitution, to the basic law of the land. The time is not ripe now, and hopefully, the country can turn back the clock before citizens HAVE to bear arms against their own sworn peace officers. But right now, these protest guys are screwed.

On another note, I wouldn't want to be a BLM employee staying at that Refuge in government housing any time soon. No matter how many security guards are deployed, it only takes one trained, angry man who doesn't give a *** to make that place the most dangerous BLM site in the country. That's my real worry. Once the government runs security operations like outlaws, then citizens will become outlaws, taking the law into their own hands. There are good people in the BLM, FBI, and OSP, and I worry for their safety, as much as I'm concerned for the rights of our citizens.

If the government doesn't start acting honestly,and within the law, then this could get nasty. First off, there needs to be an outside investigation of both the Finicum shooting and conduct of the FBI and OSP throughout the standoff. Maybe deploy organizations with good reputations such a the Texas Rangers and California CHP, led by a special prosecutor with the authority to seat a grand jury and issue subpoenas. Capture and preserve ALL the evidence, depose the officers involved, and get the facts out to the American people quickly.

FReegards.