Quatloos!

notorial dissent wrote:Included is one unintentionally true, hilarious and factual document declaring officially to the court that he 'is an idiot and an incompetent..."

Fixed it for you...

The Observer wrote:
I am not too impressed by the "sheriff-is-supreme" theory. After all, the Sheriff of Nottingham came off always looking like a weak idiot when running up against Robin Hood. So perhaps we should consider that Robin Hood is probably the ultimate sovrun citizen. Hopefully our sovruns out there will take up this new theory, put on their tights of Lincoln green, grab their yew bows and head to the nearest National Forest and set up shop.

Switch out the tights for militia fatigues, swap the yew bows for AR-15s, trade the National Forest for a wildlife preserve, and this is exactly what happened!

Sorry to drag up a quote from so far back in the thread; I'm reading it through and couldn't help but be struck by this. Edited to add bolding.

Cliven Bundy's probably going to get a new attorney:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/09/2 ... thdraw.htm

"I have health problems which will make it very difficult for me to withstand the rigors of a long jury trial of this case."

Not to mention having to deal with a ... well, never mind.

Judge Roy Bean wrote:Not to mention having to deal with a ... well, never mind.

A two-legged hemorrhoid?

Snork!!

Get ready for things to get exciting around Bunkerville. President Obama set aside land near the Bundy ranch as a national mounment and the Bundians are not happy.

Cliven Bundy and his co-defendants' trial started yesterday. This will be interesting to see if prosecutors learned anything from the Malheur trial and avoid the pitfall of allowing the accused to come off as being persecuted by the government as well as keep the fake issue of public lands not belonging to the federal government out of the courtroom. All of this is critical since there are another 19 defendants from the Bunkerville standoff awaiting trial in the future for similar charges.

The other event this week is the preparation and jury selection for the second set of defendants facing misdemeanor charges in the Malheur standoff. Some of the statements made by dismissed potential jurors are quite interesting which would seem to suggest that, this time around, the defense may have a harder time getting acquittals.

This articlepoints out the defense team's claim of abuse of power by a BLM agent over the years in his supervision of BLM lands in Nevada and Utah. They are positing that this BLM agent was responsible for causing the Bunkerville standoff to escalate beyond the Bundy supporters' intent of a "peaceful protest."

Early in this thread, I had stated that it appeared that BLM had mismanaged the seizure of the cattle and this probably contributed to the standoff gaining steam. While this new claim appears to support my view, it does nothing to support the protesters using firearms as part of their protest despite their claim that they had no plan or intent to shoot at federal employees.

The Observer wrote:This articlepoints out the defense team's claim of abuse of power by a BLM agent over the years in his supervision of BLM lands in Nevada and Utah. They are positing that this BLM agent was responsible for causing the Bunkerville standoff to escalate beyond the Bundy supporters' intent of a "peaceful protest."

Early in this thread, I had stated that it appeared that BLM had mismanaged the seizure of the cattle and this probably contributed to the standoff gaining steam. While this new claim appears to support my view, it does nothing to support the protesters using firearms as part of their protest despite their claim that they had no plan or intent to shoot at federal employees.

if the old man had paid his more than reasonable fees and not deliberately let his cattle roam on land they weren't suppose to be on as well as building structures on Federal land, I might agree but then none of this would have happen to begin with. these are kings of it's always someone elses fault.

Chaos wrote:if the old man had paid his more than reasonable fees and not deliberately let his cattle roam on land they weren't suppose to be on as well as building structures on Federal land, I might agree but then none of this would have happen to begin with. these are kings of it's always someone elses fault.

Regardless of whether Bundy should have not put cattle on the land, the government still has a duty to ensure that seizure or forfeiture actions that have to be taken are not made worse by incompetence or malfeasance on their part. I am not excusing any of the protestors regarding their behavior that day since they had choices as well in how to protest. But BLM could have approached this situation in a smarter way that would have ended with the removal of the cattle and left the Bundys looking stupid.

You mind clarifying your position there? The "abusive agent" the Bundy clan is complaining about used his power to get preferential treatment at a concert:
https://www.doioig.gov/reports/investig ... sory-agent

Nothing in that report could be construed as having any negative impact on ranchers or constituted an escalation.

Jeffrey wrote:You mind clarifying your position there? The "abusive agent" the Bundy clan is complaining about used his power to get preferential treatment at a concert:
https://www.doioig.gov/reports/investig ... sory-agent

Nothing in that report could be construed as having any negative impact on ranchers or constituted an escalation.

But defendants have long argued that Love is responsible for escalating the standoff. They say his actions were hyper-aggressive and made them fear for their safety. They argue Love has a long history of clashes with law-enforcement officials and ranchers in Utah.

That is what I am focusing on. If the claim is true that Love was clashing with other law-enforcement officials during the course of their duties or his, it shows that he had a problem with not being able to work well with others, regardless of their authority. Throwing into the mix the accusations that he was using his position to get special treatment for himself and others only seems to reinforce the image of a guy who let his badge go to his head.

You don't need that kind of person overseeing something as difficult and sensitive as a seizure or a forfeiture. These situations always present the problem of someone (usually the owner of the property) losing control and trying to take matters into their own hands. If I have the choice of being to able to take property in a quiet and sedate manner and the owner in a position to not respond, that is the plan I would be putting into effect. Putting one cowboy in charge of taking on another bunch of cowboys is only going to start a range war.

Other than the accusation by the farmers is there any actual evidence of escalation by that specific agent? Does it even make sense that one agent made all the decisions?

The way I remember events, it was the ranchers and Bundy that escalated first. BLM was enforcing a lawful court order, they're allowed to escalate in response to people attempting to block it. Bundy was trying to block the court order, he's not allowed to escalate. And the accusation of a "rogue agent" makes even less sense once you remember that the rogue agent presumably also called for withdrawing entirely and gave up on enforcing the court order. That defense makes no sense.

Jeffrey wrote:You mind clarifying your position there? The "abusive agent" the Bundy clan is complaining about used his power to get preferential treatment at a concert:
https://www.doioig.gov/reports/investig ... sory-agent

Nothing in that report could be construed as having any negative impact on ranchers or constituted an escalation.

True, but it shows him to be an arrogant and reckless character

Jeffrey wrote:Other than the accusation by the farmers is there any actual evidence of escalation by that specific agent? Does it even make sense that one agent made all the decisions?

If he was responsible for planning and leading the seizure, then it would make sense that he made the critical decisions and planning. Given the reporting in this article, it would appear that Love had some real problems in using his authority responsibly and correctly. If that is the case, then why should we not keep our minds open to the possibility that the same recklessness happened in the standoff in Bunkerville?

The way I remember events, it was the ranchers and Bundy that escalated first. BLM was enforcing a lawful court order, they're allowed to escalate in response to people attempting to block it. Bundy was trying to block the court order, he's not allowed to escalate. And the accusation of a "rogue agent" makes even less sense once you remember that the rogue agent presumably also called for withdrawing entirely and gave up on enforcing the court order. That defense makes no sense.

And you probably remember correctly, as that is how it was reported. But what we don't know is if BLM could have planned this whole situation so the protesters would be marginalized and muted. If Love left BLM open to a situation where the LEOs' lives were placed on the line unnecessarily, then it was a bad plan from the get go.

Again, I am not excusing the Bundys and their militant supporters. They need to face the music and do the time. But Love may have a lot to answer for as well if he was incompetent, reckless and indifferent to the legal requirements that went with his badge.

It's important to remember that BLM staff are not trained law enforcement officers.

From day one, both the Bundy farm affair and the park occupation should have been turned over to the Marshals, ATF, and/or the FBI.

That might not have resolved the problems immediately, but it would have been better than what transpired.

AndyK wrote:

It's important to remember that BLM staff are not trained law enforcement officers.

Except that Love is described as a special agent of BLM, and BLM job descriptions for special agents leave no doubt that Love was an LEO for BLM.

From day one, both the Bundy farm affair and the park occupation should have been turned over to the Marshals, ATF, and/or the FBI.

That might not have resolved the problems immediately, but it would have been better than what transpired.

And that is an excellent point. BLM should have recognized that this may have gone beyond their resources to handle and consulted with the sources you listed for assistance and involvement.