When Ryan Bundy walked to the podium on the morning
of Wednesday Nov. 15, he wore a black suit and tie and carried a yellow
legal pad. “I feel that it’s important if you’re here to judge me, that
you get to know me,” he said to the jury
seated in front of him, at the start of an emotional monologue that
lasted over an hour in which he nearly broke into tears several times.
Bundy displayed a photo of himself with his wife, six daughters and two
sons, projected on screens throughout the courtroom. “This is my ID,” he
said. More than a driver’s license or other government-issued
identification, “this is who I am.”
...Ryan Bundy’s statements focused on the federal government’s involvement in Western land management and echoed long-standing movements to wrest public lands from federal control. “(Prosecutors) want to say the government owns the land,” he said. “Right there is the crux of the issue.” In several Western states, lawmakers have pushed to transfer federal land to state control — a movement known as the Sagebrush Rebellion that began in the 1970s, which has reemerged in recent years. In Bundy’s West, true public land would be owned by the state of Nevada, not the United States. The Bundys say the 2014 standoff was a peaceful protest in response to the federal government trying to control land that doesn’t belong to them.
For Bundy, this trial is not about the alleged threats of violence, but about property rights. “There’s a big difference between a right and a privilege,” Bundy explained in court. “(The government) wants to say it’s only a privilege to graze (livestock).” With this, he kicked at an age-old Western debate over how grazing permits should be defined: whether they are inalienable rights or privileges bestowed by government that can be legally curtailed against ranchers’ wishes. This debate has long been a flashpoint of Western anger. Part of the argument for equating public land grazing permits to rights is that for decades ranchers have used permits as capital or collateral for loans and improving the value of real estate. Proponents say that makes them similar to personal property, akin to rights, rather than a mere license that can be revoked. The standoff stemmed from the government retiring the Bundys’ grazing permit, which was an affront to the defendants’ worldview. “These (grazing) rights are real property,” Bundy argued. “They belong to us.”
Wiles also walks us through the prosecutor's problems
But the prosecutors also grappled with allegations that they have withheld evidence related to government conduct during the standoff. It recently surfaced that the government used a surveillance camera to monitor the Bundy residence and surrounding areas, and may have had an FBI SWAT team on hand during the impoundment. The government first told the court it did not acquire recordings of defendants speaking with their attorneys from jail. Later, they revealed the prosecution did in fact have recordings of a co-defendant. (That defendant, Blaine Cooper of Arizona, has already pled guilty and is not one of the four in the current trial.) These and other equivocations by the government are grounds for dismissal or mistrial, defense lawyers say. More questions around the government’s conduct during the impoundment, as well as what information they may be withholding related to this case, will continue to plague prosecutors in weeks to come.
...Ryan Bundy’s statements focused on the federal government’s involvement in Western land management and echoed long-standing movements to wrest public lands from federal control. “(Prosecutors) want to say the government owns the land,” he said. “Right there is the crux of the issue.” In several Western states, lawmakers have pushed to transfer federal land to state control — a movement known as the Sagebrush Rebellion that began in the 1970s, which has reemerged in recent years. In Bundy’s West, true public land would be owned by the state of Nevada, not the United States. The Bundys say the 2014 standoff was a peaceful protest in response to the federal government trying to control land that doesn’t belong to them.
For Bundy, this trial is not about the alleged threats of violence, but about property rights. “There’s a big difference between a right and a privilege,” Bundy explained in court. “(The government) wants to say it’s only a privilege to graze (livestock).” With this, he kicked at an age-old Western debate over how grazing permits should be defined: whether they are inalienable rights or privileges bestowed by government that can be legally curtailed against ranchers’ wishes. This debate has long been a flashpoint of Western anger. Part of the argument for equating public land grazing permits to rights is that for decades ranchers have used permits as capital or collateral for loans and improving the value of real estate. Proponents say that makes them similar to personal property, akin to rights, rather than a mere license that can be revoked. The standoff stemmed from the government retiring the Bundys’ grazing permit, which was an affront to the defendants’ worldview. “These (grazing) rights are real property,” Bundy argued. “They belong to us.”
But the prosecutors also grappled with allegations that they have withheld evidence related to government conduct during the standoff. It recently surfaced that the government used a surveillance camera to monitor the Bundy residence and surrounding areas, and may have had an FBI SWAT team on hand during the impoundment. The government first told the court it did not acquire recordings of defendants speaking with their attorneys from jail. Later, they revealed the prosecution did in fact have recordings of a co-defendant. (That defendant, Blaine Cooper of Arizona, has already pled guilty and is not one of the four in the current trial.) These and other equivocations by the government are grounds for dismissal or mistrial, defense lawyers say. More questions around the government’s conduct during the impoundment, as well as what information they may be withholding related to this case, will continue to plague prosecutors in weeks to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment