TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:The justice system isn't about justice, it is about conviction rates.

I won't necessarily agree that it's ALL about conviction rates. But at trial, it certainly isn't all about truth either. The adversarial system is about winning. Prosecutors and defense attorneys often hide and suppress the truth in order to win. They argue all the time with judges to suppress key evidence that would be damning to their side of the argument, regardless of whether or not that evidence was true and factual. For this reason, IMHO, many innocents get convicted and many guilty go free.

Charges against rancher Cliven Bundy, three others are dismissed | Fox News - www.foxnews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/08/ch ... gn_id=A100

Charges dismissed.

Prosecutors withheld evidence favorable to the defense. Judge had no choice. There was a time when prosecutors actually adhered to legal ethics.

OK They got a mistrial. Just on the criminal charges. He still owes a million in fines and penalties. He and his friends spent two years in prison, He is 71 years old, and I assume at this point pretty broke.

The Opposing side got to sleep in their own bed or at a nice fancy government hotel at night. Have well paid jobs, with wonderful retirement benefits, and may get to retry this case all over again.

Who were the winners today?

I have no sympathy for Bundy. Ranchers should pay for their grass leases. That is well-accepted--at least in Texas. Bundy thinks he is entitled to a free grass-lease on the tax-payer's dime. Just a free-loader in my eyes.

dlh wrote:I have no sympathy for Bundy. Ranchers should pay for their grass leases. That is well-accepted--at least in Texas. Bundy thinks he is entitled to a free grass-lease on the tax-payer's dime. Just a free-loader in my eyes.

IMO, turn the land over to the state to manage or sell/give the land to the ranchers and let them maintain it and pay taxes. Lots of ways to go that are likely better than having large tracts of the US controlled by a federal agency.

dlh wrote:I have no sympathy for Bundy. Ranchers should pay for their grass leases. That is well-accepted--at least in Texas. Bundy thinks he is entitled to a free grass-lease on the tax-payer's dime. Just a free-loader in my eyes.

I bet we pay A LOT MORE for the feds to manage it than we lose for a pennies/acre grass lease. They are probably saving us millions by grazing it... imagine the gov't contracts involved in keeping thousands of acres cut or controlled burned.

Been a while since I read up on that one but...

I believe that land was originally "taken" (some say confiscated) by the gov't and part of the agreement was that they (the ranchers) could graze it... fast forward some years and the gov't changed it's mind. (against the original written agreement without cause or compensation)

That's a far cry from a cattle lease here in TX. This would be more in line with the State taking your land for flood control or elevated highway and allowing you to continue hay production and grazing (as compensation for the land) when not flooded... and then one day locking you out of land you had legal permission to use.

As with most feds vs ____ cases, rest assured there is way more to the story that we have heard/read.

Lynyrd wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:The justice system isn't about justice, it is about conviction rates.

I won't necessarily agree that it's ALL about conviction rates. But at trial, it certainly isn't all about truth either. The adversarial system is about winning. Prosecutors and defense attorneys often hide and suppress the truth in order to win. They argue all the time with judges to suppress key evidence that would be damning to their side of the argument, regardless of whether or not that evidence was true and factual. For this reason, IMHO, many innocents get convicted and many guilty go free.

Buddy's family has been grazing that land for over 100yrs, the Bundy's were paying the State for grazing rights, the BLM didn't exist until the 1960s

dlh wrote:I have no sympathy for Bundy. Ranchers should pay for their grass leases. That is well-accepted--at least in Texas. Bundy thinks he is entitled to a free grass-lease on the tax-payer's dime. Just a free-loader in my eyes.

Weren't they kicked off of the land so that it could be "developed" by a Chinese firm in a deal that would have netted (former) Democrat Senator Harry Reid's son big bucks?

MechAg94 wrote:

dlh wrote:I have no sympathy for Bundy. Ranchers should pay for their grass leases. That is well-accepted--at least in Texas. Bundy thinks he is entitled to a free grass-lease on the tax-payer's dime. Just a free-loader in my eyes.

IMO, turn the land over to the state to manage or sell/give the land to the ranchers and let them maintain it and pay taxes. Lots of ways to go that are likely better than having large tracts of the US controlled by a federal agency.

Bundy signed contracts for leasing rights, whether they were state or federal. He did not live up to the term of those agreements.

cedarparkdad987 wrote:Bundy signed contracts for leasing rights, whether they were state or federal. He did not live up to the term of those agreements.

From what I've read, BLM kept jacking up the fees while reducing the amount of land he could use. Also, they quit doing the maintenance they were supposed to... clearing brush, repairing roads, repairing fences, etc.

From what (admittedly little) I know, BLM is the one that broke the agreement so he quit paying.

Liberty wrote:OK They got a mistrial.

Charges were dismissed "with prejudice". Not a mistrial... Cannot be retried unless there is a new crime alleged.

Pawpaw wrote:

cedarparkdad987 wrote:Bundy signed contracts for leasing rights, whether they were state or federal. He did not live up to the term of those agreements.

From what I've read, BLM kept jacking up the fees while reducing the amount of land he could use. Also, they quit doing the maintenance they were supposed to... clearing brush, repairing roads, repairing fences, etc.

From what (admittedly little) I know, BLM is the one that broke the agreement so he quit paying.

Thats not how contracts work. If the lease terms change beyond what you like you don't get to use the lease for free. Thats conversion and frankly criminal trespass.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Liberty wrote:OK They got a mistrial.

Charges were dismissed "with prejudice". Not a mistrial... Cannot be retried unless there is a new crime alleged.

Then why has a new trial date been set?

WTR wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

Liberty wrote:OK They got a mistrial.

Charges were dismissed "with prejudice". Not a mistrial... Cannot be retried unless there is a new crime alleged.

Then why has a new trial date been set?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 013685001/

U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro said a new trial would not be sufficient to address the problems in the case and would provide the prosecution with an unfair advantage going forward. She dismissed the charges against the four men "with prejudice," meaning they cannot face trial again.