https://www.npr.org/2024/06/20/nx-s1-4966725/a-decade-after-armed-standoff-the-bundys-appear-to-be-above-the-law

Why isn't the Government going after this jerk.
If it was anyone else we would be dead meat.

The government isn't going after this 'jerk' (and I agree with the wording), because there are a lot of other 'jerks' like him who will vote against the government for its actions against this 'jerk' come November.

Look. It is all about how one frames the issues. Mr. Bundy and his sons have gotten away with their behaviors not because they are Mormons but because of 'white privlege.'

I’m pretty sure the other jerks just like him are already voting against the gummint. What the FBI doesn’t want is another Ruby Ridge.

I believe the government has a lien on his ranch and herd.

Found something in the NY Times on this from 2023.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/27/opinion/bundy-battle-federal-government.html

It has a paywall, but here are some excerpts -

"But you won't get an answer from the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the land that Mr. Bundy's cattle continue to graze illegally. The agency won't discuss why Mr. Bundy has been allowed to run roughshod over rules other ranchers follow or how much he owes in fees and fines to federal taxpayers."

"The militias at Bunkerville and Malheur included two groups involved in the January 2021 attack on the Capitol: the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters, some of whom wore T-shirts emblazoned with an image similar to a photograph of Eric Parker, who became known as the 'Bundy ranch sniper,' lying prone on a highway overpass at Bunkerville aiming his semiautomatic rifle at bureau officers."

"…a former bureau employee, has proposed ways to handle the clan and their errant cows. The government could place a lien on Cliven Bundy's property and seize his cattle when they go to auction. (Astonishingly, the bureau has not done this.) Federal agents could use a bench warrant to arrest Mr. Bundy, quickly and without fanfare, in a Walmart parking lot."

"'You could be creative about finding ways that he's not going to be able to alert the militia and have 300 people there with bulletproof vests and assault rifles,' [the BLM employee] told Boise State Public Radio last year."

IMO this was one of the Obama administration's biggest mistakes - letting Cliven go free *after* he threatened the lives of federal agents by training snipers on them. Caving on this incident showed glaring weakness, and emboldened far-right domestic terrorists into thinking they could get away with practically anything.

Bundy could become productive if someone would teach him how to pick cotton.

Bam! Good one, for those that get it.

Somebody is hiding him, somehow he gets food & water..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2024 02:21AM by GNPE.

Idaho hasn't requested extradition, so Utah hasn't attempted it. The man is probably not hiding at all.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Idaho hasn't requested extradition, so Utah hasn't
> attempted it. The man is probably not hiding at
> all.

While you are essentially correct, the report makes it quite clear that Mr. Bundy, with the assistance of his followers, is granting interviews only to 'friendly' media, and that didn't include NPR. Support of this stance becomes a lot easier when the supporter doesn't allow oponents (or even neutral bystanders) to question him/her about it.

Edited to change the last sentence in the above paragraph to the third person when I realized that Lot's wife believed I was criticizing her point of view. I wasn't and I apologize for the error.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2024 09:47PM by blindguy.

My point is simply that Utah could find him easily enough.

Is the extradition thing a matter of public records?
I’m curious as to how anyone other than officers would factually ‘know’…

Why do you keep assuming the Idaho governor has issued an extradition request when you have zero evidence that that has happened?

Since extradition status is routinely part of news stories where extradition would be relevant, and due process is involved, it seems reasonable to me that it is public record.

Yes, but Idaho hasn't requested extradition. They're smarter than Utah. They don't want him back.

What’s your source of information to support your statement that Idaho hasn’t requested extradition?

Ok, I looked up the process. For starters, Idaho would have to issue an out-of-state arrest warrant, registered at the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). That is not a public database, but arrest warrants themselves are public record. Presumably the court that issued the original warrant for Ammon Bundy’s arrest would also issue the out-of-state warrant.

If the individual is arrested under the oos warrant, the governor of Idaho would issue a governor’s warrant, requesting extradition. And the process goes from there.

So the first question is: was an out-of-state arrest warrant issued? If not, that’s the end of the trail. Search the warrant records for the relevant court (Ada County?)

Edit to add: Ada County Sheriff’s Office has one warrant for Bundy arrest, bond of $250,000. No indication whether an oos warrant has been issued.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2024 01:09PM by Brother Of Jerry.

What is your source of information to support your belief that Idaho HAS issued an extradition request and Utah is ignoring it?

I know how to use the internet for more than visiting RfM.

Guessing here-

IDK how much (If any) choice in this matter the courts have, but all things being the same (cerertis paribus), the court would want some conformity in the process to signal others that taking a step over a state border (there are different ranges of extradition, 'nationwide' and other), won't defeat justice...

justice is what's important if not paramount, Right?

    Based on my limited powers of observation, public officeholders, both appointees and elected, favor keeping their jobs, so they often do (or don't do) what they feel is the more popular action/inaction.

    I can easily see how public officeholders in Idaho would be happy to have Cliven-wore-his-war-wounds-like-a-crown Bundy residing in another state and would NOT want his porky butt back in Idaho.

    He is a fugitive from the state for refusing to comply with a civil court order, and the winners of that civil court action against him are in the process of making their maximum likely recovery based on winning the court action.

    It makes sense to sensible people that there is no upside to Cliven's forced return to Idaho; he's the fuse to a powder keg, and no one wants to have him over for dinner.

>justice is what's important if not paramount, Right?

Oh, fergodssake. It's not that important, and certainly not paramount.

Get a grip. The arrest warrant is for a contempt of court violation. Actually, multiple contempt of court violations for not showing up, but still, it is a minor misdemeanor.

Looked up the punishment for contempt of court in ID - max $100 fine and max 15 days in jail.

He was out on $10,000 bail for the first contempt arrest. That has been forfeited and the state took the money. Bond is set at $250,000 this time, so if he does set foot in ID and gets his ass arrested, he will not likely be able to make bail, and will cool his heels in jail until his trial on the charge.

Since bail is so high he just can't walk away from it and forfeit the money, he is not going to set foot in Idaho. Being rid of Bundy is a lot more valuable to the state of Idaho than locking him up for 60 days and fining him $400, or whatever. As long as that warrant is on the books, he will not come back to the state. That's a win for Idaho. A huge win.

He's lost the harassment case for $52 million. The contempt charge has nothing to do with that. There is no way Idaho is going to extradite for a nickel and dime case that will cause them a massive amount of grief if Bundy is arrested and jailed.

Does everyone else comfort in Bundy (or anyone) in defiance of laws?

Laws are to serve everyone on a basis of the public benefit, not shaped around a specific individual;
this is turning things upside down.

> Laws are to serve everyone on a basis of the
> public benefit, not shaped around a specific
> individual. . .

That is the point you don't seem to grasp.

Everyone from prosecutors to judges and ultimately to justices is expected to exercise political discretion when making decisions. That is the system established by the constitution/s and by the common law.

    I'm currently 'observing' an event going on in the State of Washington, and perhaps you know of it, GNPE.  I am referring to the "Belltown Hellcat."

    I understand that the young man driving the Belltown Hellcat has an online account with around 700,000 'followers,' which results in an economic windfall sufficient for him to support his upscale lifestyle and pay the recent $80,000+ judgment levied against him.

    He didn't have to purchase the vehicle; it is his mother's property.  A couple of months ago, when it was towed from a handicapped parking space, she had it 'bailed out' within a couple of hours.

    The young man is 'supporting' himself by ignoring/breaking public laws...  While a costly verdict was entered against him, neither it nor other findings against him have stopped him from continuing to flaunt Washington laws.  He literally stands to lose a substantial income if he does obey the law!

    There is substantial local animus against him; there is no question but that having the vehicle restored to stock condition and then being forced to comply with all applicable local motoring laws is the more popular sentiment regarding the young man.

    I am curious about your thoughts on the "Belltown Hellcat" and its driver's rights, powers, and privileges regarding the young man's desire to live the life he chooses.







    (Personally, given the young's history with his mother, I think she bought him the car and insured his life for millions of dollars and is hoping to get paid off ASAP.)

    

Bundy is a GIANT FU to the legal system, some others of his ilk also wish to see it fail when the outcomes displease them.

What 'system' would survive if some / any / a few could ruin it at will?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2024 05:02PM by GNPE.

Idaho doesn't care! Half the people love that guy. It's not like he tried to organize a pride parade or anything. Now THAT would require justice around here!

I see you still don't get it. In your mind there can be nothing more important than an arrest warrant, and it must be carried out. In the real world, there are frequently many things more important than an arrest warrant.

Idaho certainly does not share your opinion that they must arrest Bundy and bring him back. Nobody here seems to share your opinion either. When nobody agrees with you, it is worth asking what are you missing.


This from the Findlaw.com article on interstate extradition:
The original state may request the fugitive's return, also known as a requisition, but they only sometimes do so. If the crime is a misdemeanor or something other than a felony, there may be no request for a return.


Contempt of court is a misdemeanor. In fact, it is a class C misdemeanor (in Idaho), less than 30 days maximum sentence. It is often just not worth the trouble and expense to extradite. There's paperwork that has to go back and forth, if the person wants a hearing, then the state would have to send a lawyer to the hearing, and once the extradition is approved, transportation escorted by a police officer from Idaho in this case would have to be arranged.

This could easily cost somewhere in the five figure range. All to collect a fine probably under $1,000, and put Bundy in jail for a few weeks. Oh, there would also be security costs for dealing with the protesters. That might put the cost in the six figure range. Or more.

Usually, extradition is not done because it is just not worth the trouble. In this particular case, it is more than just not worth the trouble. This is actually the preferred outcome.

If Bundy is arrested, pays his small fine ($100 max for each contempt violation) and spends a few weeks in jail, he is then free to move back to Idaho. As it stands right now, he has felt forced to move out of state, and will not return as long as there is an outstanding warrant for his arrest. So it is in Idaho's interest to keep the warrant outstanding, and not arrest him, but have the threat of arrest dangling over his head.

They have no reason to end the standoff. It works to the state's advantage. You don't believe that, but Idaho sure does, and I agree.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2024 10:28PM by Brother Of Jerry.

There's a gorilla in the room, and I don't mean Wasasquatch.

In addition to everything BoJ has said, the states are probably concerned about the possibility of violence. If Bundy returns to Idaho, his followers are likely to assemble and challenge the police and/or the courts.

At least one moron, LaVay Finicum (IIRC), has already gone to that government feeding trough in the sky, and neither Utah nor Idaho have any interest in seeing another sprout splattered wings.

The world does not need more Randy Weavers, martyrs for the cause of a weaker America. It would therefore be better for all concerned to, in Lincoln's apt metaphor, plow around the log this time.

Is LW suggesting that Bundy doesn't have any supporters in Utah?

Perhaps she thinks the Utah supporters are more docile (?)

LW is thinking neither state has an interest in arresting the man over a misdemeanor either financially or in terms of public safety.

And the state constitutions fully anticipate such situations by leaving extradition to the discretion of the judicial officers themselves.

I wish Bundy wasn't experiencing special privileges

It's not really that he's getting special privileges; if you or I were to commit a Class C misdemeanor and move to another state, no one would do anything about it. He's the equivalent of someone who failed to pay a dozen parking tickets and moved across the country.

It would be a waste of scarce state money to pursue him. There are bigger fish to fry.

Special privileges from whom?

Utah? Utah has no basis for arresting him. He hasn't committed any crime in Utah, and Idaho hasn't requested extradition. Therefore, Utah has no reason to arrest him. Utah is therefore treating him the same way they treat all other residents.

Idaho? As noted below Idaho frequently does not request extradition - even for felonies, much less misdemeanors. So Idaho is treating Bundy like they do a majority of people with warrants, and thus no special treatment.


https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/idaho-offers-no-out-of-state-pick-up-on-33-of-felony-suspects/277-273602457

"Every day, warrants go out for suspects of crimes from theft to murder. Some of those suspects will never be brought back to face their crimes if they flee the state - sometimes simply the county.

Nationwide, KTVB's partners at USA Today found around one out of six felony warrants nationwide has an instruction not to extradite or bring a suspect back if they're caught in another state. Here in Idaho, KTVB found numbers are closer to one out of three"

To further emphasize what BoJ and LW said

From the same link

"Prosecutors and sheriffs in Idaho say they look at each case to decide how far they'll pursue a suspect based on societal and monetary costs.

We look at each case individually to make sure that we are assessing public safety and the cost to the taxpayer and making that balance and deciding whether or not to extradite, said Jan Bennetts, Ada County Prosecutor's Office Chief of Staff.

What kind of case is it? Is there a victim? Is there restitution? Is there a high bond? Bennetts said. We look at criminal history of the person and the type of violent nature of the crime. We kind of balance public protection with how much is it going to cost to bring this person back.

Former Idaho Attorney General Dave Leroy says while Idaho's numbers for no-extradite warrants are higher than the national average, they aren't necessarily alarming because there are overall fewer cases, lower crime rates and more case-by-case decisions made than you'd see elsewhere.

For the most part, the public's interest is protected in these decisions. They're simply made on a case by case basis, often in rural counties with few resources, Leroy said.

Leroy also echoes the cost-benefit analysis made by prosecutors and police for each and every case, saying sometimes it's simply not worth the cost (either to society or in terms of money) to bring someone back.

It's probably not politic to say so, but sometimes it's in the best interest of the public not to bring a criminal back to a remote location, or to any location whatsoever, Leroy said. In fact, there have been stories nationally about jurisdictions that export their problems. When I practiced law in New York City, we could often get a very favorable plea bargain if the prosecutor would make us an agreement that my client, who'd committed a felony, would simply be in New Jersey by 5:00 p.m. and never come back to New York."

What happens when the next Ner do Well wants to scam justice?

This is an example of cheating.

Well, they would have a bright future in politics probably.

No, it's an example of which State is smarter. Does Idaho want to extradite him and deal with the idiot protesters and possible rioters that support Bundy? Or do they want to sit back and watch Utah as Bundy keeps his head down until he pulls a Federal standoff? LE knows what he's doing and unless he does something that constitutes an arrest, they'll leave him alone. They know that he'll do something sooner than later that will constitute a charge that can put him behind bars for more than a month.

The number of ner do wells who have built up a following like Bundy is so small it doesn't matter. Bundy is a problem that Idaho prefers to go away. The wheel stopped squeaking by itself. No need for grease.

:) +1

Suppose you're an honest citizen or resident where Bundy is living now; you support laws, pay your taxes, maybe you're a sheriff, member of town or city council or perhaps a BP & and U know Bundy is a fugitive ...
a resident friend asks U 'Why are we sheltering a fugitive here?' What do U say??

'O, Idaho doesn't enforce their laws, so while we deport some people (immigrants) just for being here, we tolerate Idaho's fugitives!'

aka Kicking the can (in this case a criminal) down the road.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2024 11:41AM by GNPE.

Most of the sheriffs in rural Utah support Bundy and his merry band of grifters and insurrectionists.

Confidence in the legal system is essential to our society; without that confidence it's a very short tailspin to anarchy - chaos,

OR to a bully dictator...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2024 08:28PM by GNPE.

    I'm pretty sure most intelligent people understand that the foundation of modern American society is that money talks!

    ... And that the American justice system tilts noticeably towards favoring rich White people.  Were it not for surveillance and 'body cameras,' the scales of justice would not have tilted back as much as they have to some semblance of impartiality.

    Of course, I'm Brown, so what do I, or my thoughts, matter?

Just make sure you don't drive out of state with those CA license plates, my friend, or its life in maximum security for you!

Everyone but you recognizes that the legal system got what it wanted in this case. I think that inspires more confidence in the legal system than if they spent tens of thousands of dollars on a penny-ante misdemeanor charge.

It's not just what the "legal system" wants. It's the sort of judicial decision that was intentionally authorized constitutionally in order to safeguard society's interests.

Were sheriffs and prosecutors who chose not to enforce the slavery laws in the middle of the 19th century discrediting the legal system? How about prosecutors who opted not to prosecute people for having gay sex or marrying outside of their races in the 1950s and 1960s?

Of course not. A rigid enforcement of laws would then, and still will--watch the 1873 Comstock Law as a means of prohibiting the shipment of morning-after pills through the mail--discredit the legal system profoundly and in socially destructive ways.

Courts require wisdom; room for it is built into the judiciary at every stage. Police are expected to exercise discretion when deciding whether to arrest J-walkers and out-of-state drivers. Prosecutors are to exercise discretion when deciding whom to charge. Judges are expected to throw out dubious cases. jurors, of course, have the right to jury nullification. Then come the elected officials as the arbiters of pardon and commutation as means of rectifying unfair convictions--even if the decisions were strictly necessary in legal terms.

GNPE clearly doesn't understand how judicial systems work or what they are supposed to protect.

Philosophically, what will be the outcome/result/consequences if we turn society over to those who choose to disobey?


there are a number of excuses that some use as justification for harming others, among them:

* a 'bad' childhood

* dealing with otherwise out-of-control matters (family & others)

* Money

* 'fell in with a wrong crowd'

* seek power/authority over others

* 'attention whores'

I'm not a friend of CB, so therefore I don't support, excuse, or defend His Choices, the responsibility should be HIS, not to others; His examples are seen by many others, I would not choose as he has.

Do you really think that if Idaho requests extradition of Bundy, and Utah sends him back to Idaho to be fined $1000 and spend a few days in jail, that lawlessness (at least in Idaho and Utah) is going to suddenly end?

If yes, then you are delusional.

If no, then what exactly is your point?

I would venture to say that there are very few people who are going to decide how to act based on whether or not Ammon Bundy gets extradited. Those who do are likely hard core Bundy supporters, and the actions they take are not going to be beneficial to society. Most people simply don't care one way or the other. People who are going to commit crimes for any reason are not going to be dissuaded by what happens to Bundy.

'Funny' that others mentioned the license cheating situation here, but I know that word of lax, sometimes non-existent enforcement has widely spread here, followed by increasing non- compliance; it is definitely a case of anti-taxation, anti-government, anti-laws & regulations 'mentality'; Clearly Bundy & his ilk....

If anyone doesn't understand this phenomenon paradigm working around us today, they're much more delusional than I am.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2024 12:36AM by GNPE.