
Cliven Bundy standoff case thrown out in another stunning blow to government - kyleblarson
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2018/01/cliven_bundy_standoff_case_thr.html
======
mikestew
I haven't been following the case all that closely, but one person quoted
mirrors my feelings, and that is that the government case was a "slam dunk".
Seemed clear to me: these are the rules, Bundy blatantly broke those rules
(almost baiting the government, IMO), so it's just a matter of doing the
paperwork.

So why, oh why, does the prosecution screw this up? Habit? Incompetence? It
was not as "slam dunk" as we amateurs thought? I'm trying to give the
prosecution the benefit of the doubt, but I'm having a really hard time of it.

~~~
bronson
Did you read the linked article? [http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-
standoff/2017/12/rebuke_of_...](http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-
standoff/2017/12/rebuke_of_federal_us_attorneys.html)

"In the meantime, the dissection has begun: How could prosecutors have lost
sight of due process, one of the basic tenets of the legal system."

Near as I can tell, the prosecution committed malpractice. Turning over Brady
material is such a basic part of criminal law that the prosecution can't claim
it did it out of ignorance. It makes no sense. For now, like so many things in
the gigantic federal government, it's a mildly concerning mystery.

~~~
mikestew
_Did you read the linked article?_

More than that, I even quoted from the linked article. :-) But I think you're
just restating what this IANAL said: I dunno, seems like a horrible oversight
(to put it mildly), and I'm as mystified as you are. But I, too, would like an
answer as to how this doesn't get you fired on the spot. I'm not a lawyer, but
the law is not a complete mystery to me, and it sounds like this prosecutor is
either massively incompetent (you mean to tell me you had no clue that this
might get a case thrown out?), or willfully obstructing justice.

~~~
valuearb
Prosecutors willfully obstruct justice all the time, because they never get
fired or punished for anything.

------
dpc_pw
So my understanding is that government officials did a bunch of illegal stuff,
maybe the whole thing was illegal and corrupted in its core, so they decided
to rather withhold the evidence of their wrongdoings and loose than expose the
amount of corruption.

I am simply amazed by the whole thing. No matter what is the actual "legal"
and "illegal" here, and who's right and wrong: to stand up against the Federal
government as an individual is extraordinary. An to actually win...
unthinkable.

~~~
notyourday
He won this stage of a fight because the prosecution acted like drunken
sailors in a dive bar, except that it was not a dive bar but Eleven Madison
Park. It is unclear and highly debatable if, should the government appeal the
order, the order would stand

What we do have here, however, is a yet another example why it is important
for _both_ sides not to be so convinced that the other side does not have a
chance - we saw it with Democrats being absolutely convinced that Trump would
be destroyed in the general election and now we see this.

~~~
sounds
The case was dismissed with prejudice.

An appeal should only be granted if the plaintiff can show grounds for an
appeal, which would require extraordinary evidence of judicial misconduct.

------
rdiddly
I'm no fan of these spoiled rotten ranchers (since I'm not enjoying any free
goddamn grazing rights myself), lecturing everybody about the Constitution and
so forth, but when the government prosecutors cheat like this, it makes me
start to think maybe their grievances were legitimate all along.

