{"id":4280,"date":"2017-04-16T18:00:08","date_gmt":"2017-04-17T00:00:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/gemstatepatriot.com\/blog\/?p=4280"},"modified":"2024-09-23T22:47:58","modified_gmt":"2024-09-24T04:47:58","slug":"trial-cliven-bundy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gemstatepatriot.com\/blog\/trial-cliven-bundy\/","title":{"rendered":"The trial of Cliven Bundy: A travesty of justice"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u2014 Published with Permission of AmericanThinker.com \u2014<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

This week, a group of men who stood face to face with government agents and refused to back down will find out how many more years of their lives that decision will cost them, as a verdict is expected in their federal trial in Las Vegas. It is the case of\u00a0United States v. Cliven Bundy, et al.<\/em><\/p>\n

Here’s a brief look at how it all began.<\/p>\n

“Are you really going to shoot these people if they move forward? Yes or no?”<\/p>\n

Dennis Michael Lynch, a documentary filmmaker, yelled this pivotal question to government agents at a ranch outside Bunkerville, Nevada two years ago this month. As Lynch\u00a0explained to Megyn Kelly later<\/a>, he ran ahead of a group of ranchers and their supporters as they approached federal officials. The group planned to retrieve cattle the agents had taken from rancher Cliven Bundy, by force if necessary. Federal agents, you may remember, held that the land on which the cattle were grazing belonged to the government. Lynch’s purpose was to bring some reason to the rapidly escalating situation. The ranchers were “willing to die,” he said \u2013 not over some taxes and fees, but over the core belief that the federal government has limits.<\/p>\n

Lynch may have ended a potential m\u00eal\u00e9e of men with guns ready to use them. It is difficult to view the video of the blunt New Yorker, without a weapon and arms in the air, calling to the heavily armed agents to stop “before there’s bloodshed.” The simple question, posed by an unarmed man, may have managed to impress upon the federal agents that they were about to fire on their own countrymen\u00a0en masse<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The federal government did not shoot anyone that day, but the damage had already been done. Video footage of what led up to the tense moments Lynch witnessed made its way to the American public; agents were seen knocking a woman to the ground and tazing Cliven Bundy’s son over and over after he kicked a police dog that attacked him. A grisly video of dead cattle, killed in the standoff, stunned viewers. Government snipers trained their rifles on the Bundys’ supporters day and night; in response, the citizens did likewise.<\/p>\n

Some who were there that day say it was a miracle that the standoff ended without bloodshed. Ultimately, Cliven Bundy got his cattle back \u2013 at least what was left of them.<\/p>\n

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)\u00a0wasted no time<\/a>\u00a0in calling the citizens involved in the stand-off “domestic terrorists.” But Lynch \u2013 an\u00a0experienced filmmaker<\/a>\u00a0who has recorded drug cartels on the southern border \u2013 told The Blaze that “if there was any act of terrorism, it was perpetuated by the government, not the supporters.” The citizens defended themselves \u2013 and, some say, the greater ideals of individual liberty.<\/p>\n

And so we come to today, as the six-week trial of Bundy, et al. is likely to come to an end. But the questions regarding individual liberty and the American justice system seem to be magnified because of just how this case went down. Here are some of the reasons why.<\/p>\n

In toto, only\u00a0two days<\/a>\u00a0were spent on the defense. Out of that, the jury was permitted to be in the courtroom for\u00a0fifteen minutes<\/a>. The prosecution, on the other hand, consumed over five weeks of courtroom time to make their case. And that is only part of what looks, smells, and feels like a case of injustice \u2013 perhaps with prosecutorial and judicial misconduct added in for good measure.<\/p>\n

Court spectators such as John Lamb, an unrelated party who traveled from Montana to watch the trial, spoke each day on a live Facebook video, after proceedings had adjourned, with notes in hand. Every afternoon, Lamb’s recounting of the trial day became more disturbing as he reported that even the most basic rights were ignored in the federal courtroom in Las Vegas. Judge Gloria Navarro told one defendant he had only three rights in her courtroom: to plead guilty, to testify on his own behalf, and to appeal his conviction, according to\u00a0Lamb<\/a>. Meanwhile, witnesses for the prosecution \u2013 most of them government agents \u2013 could remain in the courtroom before their own testimony. Defense witnesses were told to leave.<\/p>\n

Other spectators confirmed Lamb’s account and more. Many of those in the courtroom carried pocket-sized Constitutions; Judge Navarro subsequently ruled that the Constitution was not allowed in the courtroom unless it was turned face-down. On April 10, a man named Neil Wampler was escorted out of the courtroom and his things collected by a U.S. marshal because he had a copy of the U.S. Constitution in his pocket that was visible to the judge.<\/p>\n

Maureen Peltier, another trial watcher,\u00a0took to Facebook April 10<\/a>\u00a0after a long day in court to warn others that according to remarks made by prosecutors, “to hit ‘like’ on comments or posts or give a ‘thumbs up’ can be considered evidence to criminalize you.”<\/p>\n

Other abuses reported by Lamb, Peltier,\u00a0and others<\/a>\u00a0who attended the last six weeks of the trial include the following:<\/p>\n