Bundys off the hook.

[ex-khobar Andy]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... d-standoff

All charges dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct.

While I agree with the "Better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted" basic concept it seems to me that there was no prosecutorial misconduct which shaded, in any way, their guilt or innocence both in Nevada and Oregon. Ar we now going to see lawsuits for wrongful imprisonment or even wrongful death?

[RayThom]

And on Robert "LaVoy" Finicum's grave stone the epitaph reads: "I Told You I Was Right."

[Crackpot]

I thought this was going to be about Ted or Al. Either one would have been better (But only because Ted is dead and he ain’t coming back)

[BoSoxGal]

Fucking unethical prosecutors! Have a fucking open file policy, period, and Brady violations would NEVER be an issue! There’s no reason not to share all evidence with the defense; if the case isn’t strong enough for a reasonable expectation of overcoming reasonable doubt in light of all investigative results, it shouldn’t be charged. The only thing worse than an unethical cop is an unethical prosecutor.

[liberty]

Fucking unethical prosecutors! Have a fucking open file policy, period, and Brady violations would NEVER be an issue! There’s no reason not to share all evidence with the defense; if the case isn’t strong enough for a reasonable expectation of overcoming reasonable doubt in light of all investigative results, it shouldn’t be charged. The only thing worse than an unethical cop is an unethical prosecutor.

While I agree with what you say in this case. You had better watch it you don't want to get thrown out of the liberal party. Be careful what you say or better still check with your unit leader for approval before you say it. Remember the truth is that which aids the party everything else is a lie.

[Big RR]

What "Liberal Party" are you referring to Liberty?

BSG, did you ever join the Liberal Party (and any facsimile thereof)?

I recall voting for liberal party candidates a few times, but never recall any organized political party by that name, let alone one with that level of influence over its members.

[Econoline]

Liberal Party of New York

[Econoline]

From Charlie Pierce's blog:

• There is one king irony to this whole thing: Cliven Bundy and his family and his spavined cattle are all free now because the system he was so hell-bent on defying actually works. I think the cattle will understand this before he does.

[Big RR]

I have no doubt that it's true; however, let's not forget he was in jail for quite some time without being convicted of anything, and perhaps because the prosecutor was railroading him (if I recall, he was offered a chance for house arrest and declined it, so some of that was his own fault), so he may not see the system of having worked as well as it actually did.

[Jarlaxle]

Fucking unethical prosecutors! Have a fucking open file policy, period, and Brady violations would NEVER be an issue! There’s no reason not to share all evidence with the defense; if the case isn’t strong enough for a reasonable expectation of overcoming reasonable doubt in light of all investigative results, it shouldn’t be charged. The only thing worse than an unethical cop is an unethical prosecutor.

Prosecutorial misconduct should be a Federal felony with mandatory prison time and mandatory disbarment.

[BoSoxGal]

For once I have no objection whatsoever to one of your proposals for draconian consequences; prosecutors owe the highest duty to the public trust placed in them with the granting of power sufficient to destroy and even take a life, and they are all educated sufficiently to know right from wrong - so they deserve none of the compassion I would normally extend to other kinds of thugs.

[Scooter]

Fucking unethical prosecutors! Have a fucking open file policy, period, and Brady violations would NEVER be an issue! There’s no reason not to share all evidence with the defense; if the case isn’t strong enough for a reasonable expectation of overcoming reasonable doubt in light of all investigative results, it shouldn’t be charged. The only thing worse than an unethical cop is an unethical prosecutor.

While I agree with what you say in this case. You had better watch it you don't want to get thrown out of the liberal party.

Just because I found myself with some unexpected time to kill...

Care to explain how the statement you highlighted or any other part of BSG's post would be viewed negatively by this "liberal party" you speak of? Safeguarding the civil rights of criminal defendants against police and prosecutorial misconduct is a cause that has fallen overwhelmingly to "liberals" (deterring and punishing violations of constitutional rights by police and prosecutors is not something that most "conservative" civil liberties advocates have embraced).

[ex-khobar Andy]

From Slate:

'Speaking from the bench on Monday, Navarro, an Obama appointee, declared that “a universal sense of justice has been violated” in the prosecution of the Bundys. She’s absolutely right. What the family did was awful; what the government did next was, in many ways, just as bad. Our criminal justice system cannot operate equitably unless prosecutors respect constitutional checks on their authority. When they flout those limitations, they show no more respect for the rule of the law than the criminals whom they seek to put behind bars.'

I have not been able to find a copy of the full ruling. But it seems to me that this should be prosecution 101, not least because I want guys like the Bundys to pay the price. I believe (based on accounts in the media) them to be guilty of stealing public resources (i.e., grazing their cattle on public land which you would think that the majority of beef farmers who do it perfectly legally would be first in line to condemn) an then threatening federal agents who, at least on the face of it and according to the MSM, were trying to get the public back the money they -i.e., you and me - were owed. As it is they walk free and will presumably keep on doing it; and maybe those other ranchers who do obey the law will say - why the fuck should I pay for feed? The irony that a Latina Obama appointee seems to have a grasp of the Constitution will of course be lost on these assholes. If it was a deliberate action by the prosecution and not an honest mistake then jail time and loss of pension. No excuses.

And yes yes yes to Scooter's post above.

[Jarlaxle]

For once I have no objection whatsoever to one of your proposals for draconian consequences; prosecutors owe the highest duty to the public trust placed in them with the granting of power sufficient to destroy and even take a life, and they are all educated sufficiently to know right from wrong - so they deserve none of the compassion I would normally extend to other kinds of thugs.

At this point, I would support the death penalty only for bad cops and corrupt public officials.

[rubato]

They need to send out rangers across the Federal grazing lands and shoot every goddamn Bundy cow or steer they find. .

He is a lowlife crook.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Scooter--my guess is that lib's making the assumption that "liberal party members" (whatever that may be) will pick and choose the individuals whose rights they defend, and that Bundy is not someone who the liberals would embrace or deem worthy of their care or support. Now I have no doubt there may be some on the left side of the spectrum who would take that position (just as I have no doubt that there are some law and order types on the right who are cheering the dismissal even though they would usually stand up for the prosecutor no matter what), but it is far from a universal position on either side. And so far as I have ever seen, there has never been a "liberal" (or left leaning or whatever) party that embraces the mantra "the truth is that which aids the party everything else is a lie"; I'm sure every party has some misguided (or delusional) zealots who believe that (look at the alt right and Trump supporters, e.g.), but I have never seen it as anything approaching what Lib has suggested.

[ex-khobar Andy]

And to illustrate BigRR's point - Exhibit A should be the ACLU representation of the American Nazi Party's right to march in Skokie IL in 1977. I think I'm a good liberal; I hope I would have had the courage to stand up and support the ACLU action; but it's possible I would have found it necessary to wash my hair that day.

[Big RR]

And that goes to show that civil libertarians need not be on the right or the left politically, only persons interested in protecting our civil liberties as a paramount concern. As I recall, the ACLU lost some members because of that representation, but many others stood with it, however repugnant they found the organization whose rights they were defending.

[Scooter]

Showing contempt for prosecutors who behave unethically, as BSG has done, and proposing a means of avoiding disclosure violations in the first place, does not imply support or sympathy, or their absence, for any particular defendant.

Let's assume that the village idiot is correct, and that the overwhelming majority of those he would define as "liberals" hold Bundy in such contempt that they wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire. They have probably already decided that he is guilty, and are angry that he will never have to answer for his crimes. But I can't imagine that more than an isolated few believe that that their distaste for the man should give prosecutors license to intentionally bury any evidence standing in the way of a guilty verdict.

A reform such as BSG proposes to prevent disclosure violations would serve both the "liberal" and "law and order" agenda. Defendants would not be denied their right to disclosure in the first place. And convictions would not be rendered unsafe if and when the undisclosed evidence comes to light.

[Scooter]

And to illustrate BigRR's point - Exhibit A should be the ACLU representation of the American Nazi Party's right to march in Skokie IL in 1977. I think I'm a good liberal; I hope I would have had the courage to stand up and support the ACLU action; but it's possible I would have found it necessary to wash my hair that day.

They also filed a brief to quash the charges against Oliver North and his co-defendants, claiming their immunized testimony to Congress was being used against them. Don't recall how that went.

The ACLU defended the Nazis because they saw the big picture - if the First Amendment does not protect speech that is widely seen as grossly offensive, then it provides no real protection at all. I don't see any of that insight from the right wing groups I am familiar with, who do not appear to look beyond their blinkered focus to see how taking on some "leftie" cases could serve to advance their own agendas. The NRA had the perfect opportunity with that guy who was legally carrying a gun in his car and was killed by the cops who pulled him over. It would have been the perfect case to assert the right to carry, which should not be seen by police as cause to summarily execute someone who has violated no laws. But they barely brought themselves to write a noncommittal news release. And you know it was because they were not going to take the side of a black man against the cops.