I agree with our president on VERY LITTLE, but I have to agree with him that
the Justice Department and FBI are not doing a good job. My perspective comes
from a very different set of data than his, but is is very clear to me that
neither Justice as a whole nor the FBI (and you can throw in ATF too) have
displayed the requisite professionalism and respect for due process, here in
the west.
The ongoing saga of the FBI shots fired during the LaVoy Finicum attempted
arrest will provide a sad, sad coda to this whole sick episode. The fact that
the FBI agents on the scene were OK with lying to the state law enforcement
investigators about their actions reveals a disturbing level of arrogance and
corruption.
It is really frustrating that the DOJ seems so incapable of learning from their
past mistakes. Way back in 1973 DOJ lost its trial of Daniel Ellsburg for way
too similar reasons: for a variety of prosecutorial misconduct. That case was
similar in that the defendent (Ellsburg) did something obviously illegal for
political reasons, but the case was decided based in govt misconduct, and the
political issues at the heart of it never got a full hearing in court.
Illegal activities by Nixon's contract burglars certainly played a role in that
dismissal with prejudice, but failure to comply with the judge's direct orders
regarding complying with discovery was a final straw. That was one of the
highest-profile prosecutions of the 1970s, and a lasting stain on DOJ. I would
have expected them to clean up their act and develop internal rules to prevent
such an embarrassment ever happening again.
In both the Oregon and Nevada Bundy cases, the prosecution failed to
acknowledge undercover and surveillance activities that should have been
disclosed. In Nevada this led to dismissal with prejudice. In Portland, I
believe that the failure to acknowledge informants within the occupation during
presentation of the prosecution case was critical to the acquittal. When that
information emerged late in the defense, I think it led jurors to believe
(understand?) the prosecution was playing games with the evidence, and was not
to be trusted.
In both cases, a reasoning public would have expected the FBI and other
agencies to be conducting vigorous surveillance and information gathering. I
can understand protecting informants' names, but hiding their existence does
not make sense. IMO it would make more sense to acknowledge surveillance, and
highlight information gained by it in the trials. If the government had video
camera(s) deployed watching the Bundy Ranch, that information should have been
highlighted, not hidden. In think jurors would have been very prepared to
accept that the attempt to stop illegal activity included surveillance, and
might even have expected it.
So, where do we go from here? We should be thinking about how to forestall
future attempts to privatize public lands. One thought is to explore what
changes might be made in state statutes to make it easier to protect public
lands and prosecute those who vandalize and try to appropriate them. Some
possible examples: Could some violations of (Federal) rules for public lands
grazing be prosecutable in state court as degradation of wildlife habitat? The
feds do give the state jurisdiction over game management... Could beefed-up
vandalism laws provide a nexus for state jurisdiction? Could interference with
specified wildlife management activities be state-prosecutable even if they
happened on federal land? The Malheur NWR occupation greatly interfered with
carp management, and I think an argument could be made that that had
consequences to state interests.
Wayne
justice lost
On 1/8/2018 11:25:16 AM, Mary Garrard <springazure1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sickening.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2018/01/08/cliven-bundy-ranch-standoff-case-retried-federal-court-ruling/1008051001/
POST: Send email to boo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
HELP: Contact boo-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
