I didn't follow the situation when it was unfolding, nor was I much aware of the criminal proceedings.
I did read the NYTimes version of these most recent events and that's all I'd be able to natter on about.
The Feds thought they had the defendants roped and corralled.
During the process of 'sharing' their evidence with the defense, the prosecution felt justified in withholding the names of witnesses who'd provided information, but were not going to be called testify. The defense said that this was horrible violation of the rules of evidence, and despite the protestations of the prosecutors to the contrary, The Supremes, in an unsigned ruling, upheld a prior appellate court finding. Conservative Supremes took the trouble to write and sign a minority opinion.
The feelings of my cat and I, one of whom has been drinking, are that ghawd protects his children.
It's the same as them stealing something from a government facility.
A few years ago, someone built a (log) home without a permit in a very rural-isolated part of Snohomish County; when discovered, he whined LOUDLY so the county council passed an ordinance allowing that home without a permit, a one-of-a-kind exemption...
Yup, that's destroying confidence in government, buoys & gulls.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2018 10:29PM by GNPE.
The criminal charges were dropped. I know that at the time of the standoff, a lien was placed on the cattle. Presumably that means the money has already been collected, unless he is letting the cattle die of old age. The criminal charges had to do th the standoff, not the money.
It'd be nice if a reporter would look into that, instead of all the breathless posturing on both sides.