Quote:
Originally Posted by
LittleFuzzy
Cattle are not Bundy's only assets. Can't be. "Seizure" isn't limited to assets with four hooves and a tail. And the BLM wasn't seizing the cattle to pay the debt either (if they were, then even a rough approximation says they were attempting to take twice as many "assets" as they should have been) they were seizing them to prevent further trespassing.
BLM was following the court's mandate -- round up the cattle trespassing (using private contractors) and sell them to cover Bundy's fees and fines. The ruling didn't apply to cows on Bundy's own property, or other "assets" like vehicles/buildings or bank accounts. Presumably because the goal wasn't to put him out of business force him into bankruptcy....but to stop just the illegal grazing AND collect legal fines/fees.
Quote:
No they're not. It may be possible to end up in contempt or court for non-payment (I kind of doubt it but I can't rule it out) but there is no criminal statute being violated. You aren't listening to me and I can't prove a negative so why don't you use that extensive lack of any knowledge about actual law and provide the statute Bundy would get charged with?
You said yourself the grazing fees could be seen as a "tax"....and plenty of people have been jailed for "tax evasion" (from mobsters to Wesley Snipes). IIRC, Bundy wasn't prosecuted for "tax evasion" because that falls outside BLM purview and onto other agencies, like the IRS.
Quote:
Some trespassing can be criminal. This wasn't. The federal statute for criminal trespass is for buildings, not open land. More generally, public land available for grazing (even if it requires paying a fee) cannot even be civil trespass, which requires public signage prohibiting trespass. Bundy violated a court order saying he and his cattle specifically no longer had permission to use the land but that's not the same thing. He could be held in contempt for it (specifically, it would be indirect civil contempt as it arises from civil proceedings and is occurring out of view of the court) and could even be held indefinitely in jail for that, but it still would not be criminal.
BLM had fencing and signage marking federal land boundaries, and Bundy had plenty of notification about modifications. He not only ignored new restricted grazing perimeters, but continued to violate court orders to pay up. Since he could be held in jail indefinitely for contempt-of-court....whether this is 'criminal' or 'civil' is a technicality over which agency should have sued Bundy, but there's no question he broke laws, aka committing crimes.
Quote:
You're actually getting closer, you gave an actual charge this time but I'm looking at the federal text. Obstruction of proceedings applies to investigations and proceedings in court, not the enforcement of rulings. Picketing and parading can be obstruction but it has to be aimed at "judge, juror, witness, or court officer" and only applies in or near the physical buildings housing the court or a building or residence occupied by one of those figures.
Obstruction of justice is about interfering in active or pending investigations of proceedings, GGT. Once a ruling is made, interference pretty much ceases to be obstruction as it is legally defined. Sorry. Maybe some state laws are written more broadly, but the federal criminal code doesn't appear to be.
And obstruction of justice can extend to mean 'interfering with law enforcement agents in active line of duty' (paraphrased).
Quote:
edit: Ah, found it. *Ok, you are right in a minimal way*. There is a sub-statute for court orders and it is a fineable misdemeanor to interfere with or otherwise impede the performance of duties under a court order.
And grounds for arrest. IMO, the BLM was being cautious and lenient, almost to a fault, because they knew the climate surrounding the issue was contentious, a powder keg they didn't want to explode.
Quote:
Cited statute? The closest behavior I've seen actually cited have been declarations that they'd open fire if force was used against them. And that goes to what I've said about Brandenburg and Hess and what speech can be criminalized.
"Shouting fire" is a specific hypothetical example laid out in 1919 in Schenck. That ruling is no longer controlling precedent. It has been modified and limited by the other cases I've cited above. I know those cases weren't taught to you in high school, I doubt they were taught to your kids, but their rulings still happened and are still the governing jurisprudence on what dangerous speech may be criminalized.
Not according to the real modern jurisprudence.
The "real" modern legal environment is post-Ruby Ridge, Waco, McVeigh bombing a federal building....post-9/11, Dept. Homeland Security, all manners of 'terrorism'....along with rising numbers of extreme fringe groups (including anti-government militia groups)....political polarization....and 300 million legal guns in circulation.
Quote:
Because unlike you, I've actually done research rather than relying on assumptions based on how I choose to interpret media bytes. Something being "quite serious" does not mean it is criminal. And I told you how I can dismiss them as non-imminent threats. I can do so because the Supreme Court ruled that those sorts of conditional statements, "threats" which themselves are dependent on actions which law enforcement have the option of not taking, do not meet their understanding of "imminent."
SCOTUS also says that (some) speech can be prosecuted as Hate Crimes, and (some) speech can be 'imminent' threats when arms are involved. You can do all the research, and cite all sorts of statutes and precedents...but so can computers. The larger contexts are just as important...especially when they have political or cultural undertones.
This "debate" isn't just about the Rule of Law, or how govt' agencies interpret law...but the dance between laws and justice, and how people view them. The media is part of the waltz, but you're wrong to imply my viewpoint is based on 'media bytes'....and you're stuck in an academic bubble of arrogance and denial if you can't/don't recognize the seriousness of this particular scenario.
