SPARKS, Nev. — Cliven Bundy told about 100 attendees at the Independent American Party (IAP) of Nevada’s State convention in Sparks, NV., Friday that charges against him and his two sons were dismissed because “we would have embarrassed the government very much if it would have continued on for even two more hours.”[i]
Clark County, NV., District Court Las Vegas Federal judge Gloria Navarro did
dismiss the federal government’s criminal case against Bundy and two of his sons on the basis that the government was guilty of “flagrant misconduct” in the trial. Its conduct was so “outrageous” that “no lesser remedy” than dismissal with prejudice “is sufficient
According to Bundy, Judge Navarro did the U.S. government a favor last month when she threw out his criminal case stemming from an armed standoff with federal agents at his Bunkerville ranch in April 2014.
Bundy, 71, told the IAP convention attendees that he would have preferred the trial to continue because “he knows he would have been acquitted of any crimes.”
“Most people thought that was a great thing. But it would have been a greater thing if they’d let that jury find us not guilty,” he said. “Because that would have set a precedent and it would have lasted 100 years.”
Party chairman Joel Hansen, who earlier served as one of Bundy’s lawyers, said Bundy’s story is one of “tremendous courage and faith” standing up against federal “corruption and tyranny.” He likened Bundy and his wife, Carol, to the American patriots who fought the British in the Revolutionary War more than 200 years ago.[ii]
“They fought the battle of Bunker Hill, and he fought the battle of Bunkerville,” Hansen said. “The BLM was exposed as criminals.”
Andy Kerr, a longtime environmental activist, and consultant in Oregon
has a different view of Bundy.
Kerr feels that “The Bundy band represents both an existential threat and an existential opportunity for America’s public lands.”
Kerr points to a lawsuit filed by Bundy on January 25, 2018, as an example of Bundy’s misconstruing one clause of the Constitution and completely ignoring another.[iii]
Kerr examines Bundy’s legal theory in a Public Lands Blog post entitled The Constitutionality of Federal Public Lands.[iv]