Cliven Bundy and Others Facing up to 96 Years in Prison:

Facing up to 96 Years in Prison: Nevada Federal Grand Jury Indicts Cliven Bundy and Four Others

A federal grand jury has indicted Cliven Bundy and four others for leading a 2014 standoff with unconstitutional federal agencies at the Bundy Ranch.

Bundy, along with his sons Ammon and Ryan, Ryan Payne and Pete Santilli are facing charges of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer, using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, assault on a federal officer, threatening a federal law enforcement officer, obstruction of the due administration of justice, interference with interstate commerce by extortion, and interstate travel in aid of extortion.

According to the DOJ release, the maximum penalties for the charges issued are:

Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the U.S. – 5 years, $250,000 fine

Conspiracy to Impede and Injure a Federal Law Enforcement Officer – 6 years, $250,000 fine

Assault on a Federal Law Enforcement Officer – 20 years, $250,000 fine

Threatening a Federal Law Enforcement Officer – 10 years, $250,000 fine

Use and Carry of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence – 5 years minimum and consecutive

Obstruction of the Due Administration of Justice – 10 years, $250,000 fine

Interference with Interstate Commerce by Extortion – 20 years, $250,000 fine

Interstate Travel in Aid of Extortion – 20 years, $250,000 fine

Editor’s Note: If convicted on all counts, these men could face up to 96 years in prison and/or up to $1.75 million in fines. Would a conviction on all counts and maximum sentence really surprise anyone?

www.dcclothesline.com...

Who used force? Who used violence? Did the court order demand that cattle be slaughtered? Did the court order that snipers be put into place and an army of hundreds of armed federal agents surround American citizens? Again, who was using force? Who committed acts of violence? Was it not the DC government acting in violation of the Constitution’s requirement regarding ownership and control of land? I think it was.

Yawn...
America has changed the channel. Until Bundy summons his flock for one last "peaceful demonstration" of entrenching themselves on the ranch and threatening to shoot anyone that tries to get them to face their punishment.

a reply to: Informer1958

Never say never... but I have a feeling they are over-charging as leverage to strike a deal with everyone involved. I don't believe for a minute that the feds want this to go to trial. They cannot afford discovery. It's just another bully tactic.

But never say never. We'll see.

All part of the ongoing psy-ops.

The stigmatizing and stereotyping will continue.

I still think most of this entire episode was achieved through clever infiltration and use of informants through blackmail.

A lot more at stake than they want us to automatically believe.

a reply to: Boadicea

Good point.

Plea bargains would keep the evidence out of the public eye.

They have a well orchestrated plan.

Are we referring to law enforcement snipers or the militia snipers? Just trying to keep it straight in my head.

The indictment answers, at least as far as the DOJ perspective goes, your questions pretty succinctly.

media.oregonlive.com...

originally posted by: xuenchen
All part of the ongoing psy-ops.

The stigmatizing and stereotyping will continue.

I still think most of this entire episode was achieved through clever infiltration and use of informants through blackmail.

A lot more at stake than they want us to automatically believe.

If Bundy was a democrat, would this all just be a psyop?

a reply to: Informer1958

Does the US actually give these sentences consecutively or concurrently? I don't know about sentencing in the US but in the UK consecutive sentences are very rare, if they still exist.

If they are concurrent of course then only the higher sentence is served, which is why I ask.

originally posted by: Informer1958
Who used force? Who used violence? Did the court order demand that cattle be slaughtered? Did the court order that snipers be put into place and an army of hundreds of armed federal agents surround American citizens? Again, who was using force? Who committed acts of violence?

What's this whining about court orders during the hold out? The courts aren't responsible for bringing lawbreakers to justice. The police are. The courts just determine guilt after the fact.

Was it not the DC government acting in violation of the Constitution’s requirement regarding ownership and control of land? I think it was.

I think you are wrong and misinformed about how the Constitution works.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Informer1958

Does the US actually give these sentences consecutively or concurrently? I don't know about sentencing in the US but in the UK consecutive sentences are very rare, if they still exist.

If they are concurrent of course then only the higher sentence is served, which is why I ask.

Of the listed sentences, this is the only one that appears to be consecutive (since it is specifically pointed out as such).

Use and Carry of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence – 5 years minimum and consecutive

I'm sure that the other sentences are up to the judge to decide.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Boadicea

Good point.
Plea bargains would keep the evidence out of the public eye.
They have a well orchestrated plan.

Including, no doubt, non-negotiable nondisclosure and nondispargement clauses as part of the agreement... which, no doubt, their court-appointed attorneys will vigorously and vehemently encourage them to accept -- not matter how awful a deal it really is -- because it's best they can get... and the alternative is even worse.

a reply to: Informer1958

I'm not going to feel sorry for hicks who don't seem to want to wise up and realize that you can't fight the government , or anything else for that matter, through the conventional means of the past.

When you conspire against the government, a business or a private individual, the first rule of thumb to be obeyed is that you don't let them know a conspiracy is afoot. Why in the HELL would anyone operate in that fashion and expect to be successful in their endeavors?

You go behind backs, you study their laws, their moral compass and their methods of operation, find loopholes and exploit them for your own purpose. If you're not smart, strong or confident enough, to go to that level of deception in order to do get what you need out of them.......sit down, shut up and let the real men TCOB.

This is 2016, Bundy. This isn't your fathers government. They don't give a s**t about you and they go behind your back as naturally as they breathe. Quit pretending this is a gentleman's fight that has rules and return the favor.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok thanks, in the UK it is also mostly at the judges discretion where seriousness is the main factor.

“This indictment sends a resounding message to those who wish to participate in violent acts that our resolve to pursue them and enforce the law remains unwavering,” said Special Agent in Charge Bucheit.

No, the indictment sends a message that DC is engaged in a tyrannical overthrow of the Constitution and will put men in jail on trumped up charges when all they were doing was seeking to expose the criminals and uphold the Constitution.

“Today marks a tremendous step toward ending more than 20 years of law breaking,” said Bureau of Land Management Director Neil Kornze. “The nation’s public lands belong to all Americans.”

Twenty years of lawbreaking? Mr. Kornze, law breaking continues under the current administration just as it has for well over 150 years in this country. When will you be prosecuting your own DOJ, whose Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has criminally engaged in the trafficking of thousands of weapons across the Mexican border and into the hands of Mexican cartels, which resulted in the deaths of two federal agents, hundreds of Mexicans and who knows how many others?

No, my friends, this is not about bringing law breaking to an end. It’s about those engaged in crime at the DC level attempting to silence those who are exposing their crimes.

At least one federal judge understood the law breaking of the Bureau of Land Management and in his opinion of United States v. Estate of Hage, U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones revealed the criminal actions of the BLM against Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage. Judge Jones held “government officials” in contempt and referred the issued to Eric Holder’s office. We all know what happened… nothing.

www.dcclothesline.com...

These phony charges are about the Bundy's exposing government corruption that go all the way to Congress.

These men are being made an example of, to send a very strong message and will put men in jail on trumped up charges when all they were doing was seeking to expose the criminals and uphold the Constitution.

This is not about bringing law breaking to an end. It’s about those engaged in crime at the DC level attempting to silence those who are exposing their crimes.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
originally posted by: xuenchen


If Bundy was a democrat, would this all just be a psyop?

even more so

a reply to: Jonjonj

Yea, in all likelihood even if they are found completely guilty with no plea bargain, they won't see all those years consecutively. The likelihood that all those sentences come back guilty AND consecutive is rather unlikely. Then there is always good behavior they can be released on once they are IN jail.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What's this whining about court orders during the hold out? The courts aren't responsible for bringing lawbreakers to justice. The police are. The courts just determine guilt after the fact.

I think you are wrong and misinformed about how the Constitution works.

No sir. It is you that does not understand the issue here or the Constitution.

The fact is, It is not up to police or the Feds to decide who is guilty of crimes. That is why we have Courts.

At least one federal judge understood the law breaking of the Bureau of Land Management and in his opinion of United States v. Estate of Hage, U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones revealed the criminal actions of the BLM against Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage. Judge Jones held “government officials” in contempt and referred the issued to Eric Holder’s office. We all know what happened… nothing.

For over 20 years, the Bureau of Land Management engaged in a “literal, intentional conspiracy” against Nevada ranchers to force them out of business, according to a federal judge whose court opinion exposes the BLM’s true intent against rancher Cliven Bundy.

BLM agents who impounded Cliven Bundy’s cattle.

“Based upon E. Wayne Hage’s declaration that he refused to waive his rights — a declaration that did not purport to change the substance of the grazing permit renewal for which he was applying, and which had no plausible legal effect other than to superfluously assert non-waiver of rights — the Government denied him a renewal grazing permit based upon its frankly nonsensical position that such an assertion of rights meant that the application had not been properly completed,” Judge Jones wrote. “After the BLM denied his renewal grazing permit for this reason by letter, the Hages indicated that they would take the issue to court, and they sued the Government in the CFC [Court of Federal Claims.]”

And at that point, Jones explained, the BLM refused to consider any further applications from Hage.

“The entire chain of events is the result of the Government’s arbitrary denial of E. Wayne Hage’s renewal permit for 1993–2003, and the effects of this due process violation are continuing,” he stated.

“This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order,”

It’s shocking because these men should have been upholding the law, but instead, turned against the American people and acted in a criminal fashion.

www.dcclothesline.com...

a reply to: Taupin Desciple

anything else for that matter, through the conventional means of the past.

This is 2016 Everybody. This isn't your fathers government.

Hoo boy. This seems to be a national dream, that we can protest and march and whatever like they did in the 60's.
"Ouu, if we only get enough people in front of the cameras, if only we get enough people to sit in. Those days are gone gone gone. The Establishment has had decades now to think and put in place counters to all of that. They did it piece by piece over time, each little piece garnering only minuscule and short lived resistance.
Now, the best most of us can do is to sit down, click into ATS and star and flag how we would vote.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What's this whining about court orders during the hold out? The courts aren't responsible for bringing lawbreakers to justice. The police are. The courts just determine guilt after the fact.

I think you are wrong and misinformed about how the Constitution works.

No sir. It is you that does not understand the issue here or the Constitution.

The fact is, It is not up to police or the Feds to decide who is guilty of crimes. That is why we have Courts.

I didn't read your external quote because at no point did I ever imply or say that the police or the feds determined guilt.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I didn't read your external quote because at no point did I ever imply or say that the police or the feds determined guilt.

What's this whining about court orders during the hold out? The courts aren't responsible for bringing lawbreakers to justice. The police are. The courts just determine guilt after the fact.

I rest my case.