Iceland's attempts to replant its forests

I wasn't there, and haven't read the court records, so I don't know what happened in the courtroom, much less what happened in the real world. My guess would be that unsettled law was not a reason for the (lack of) verdict, but that it goes a long way to explain how the situation came about. I'd also guess that they story being reported in the media misses a lot of important details.

The video interview with Carol Bundy in the earlier link I gave you describes a different view of the situation. I don't have specific reason to trust her, but I think she comes across as fairly trustworthy. In her view, they were terrorized by corrupt government officials who brazenly lied about what happened. This clearly isn't the whole story, but might explain why they get the popular support the do.

It also might be relevant that there are several ongoing parallel cases that involve the BLM and FBI agents. The BLM agent in charge of the Bundy ranch raid was found guilty of "ethical misconduct" with regard to Burning Man[3], then later sacked after another OIG investigation cited him for "official misconduct"[4].

The FBI agent who fired two of the first shots in the killing of Lavoy Finicum was indicted for obstruction of justice by claiming he had not fired his gun.[5] The camera video filmed by a passenger in Finicum's car tell at different story than most of the media coverage[6]. I think it's worth watching, at least to see the other side of the story.

But as I said, I haven't been following the details of the Bundy case. Maybe they did things that are horribly wrong. I don't assume, though, that hearing the national news coverage gives me insight into what actually happened. So I'll ask you instead: If these are open and shut cases, why is it so hard for the federal government to get the verdicts they are seeking? Separately, thank you for participating civilly in a discussion even though we seem to disagree.

[1] http://thehill.com/homenews/news/347611-cliven-bundy-followe...

[2] http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/06/fbi_agents...

[3] https://www.doioig.gov/reports/investigation-ethical-miscond...

[4] http://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2017/09/25/interior-b...

[5] http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/29/fbi-agent-indicted-for-lyi...

[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEswP_HSFV4

To date, 2 of the 19 people arrested have been found not guilty on all counts by the courts. 2 (Scott Drexler and Eric Parker) were found not guilty on most charges, but the jury was unable to reach a decision of some of the charges, and so they are being retried. Note that all of the charges carry a penalty of at least 5 years in prison, so both of them can still face decades in prison if found guilty on the remaining charges. 2 have been found guilty in court, 2 plead guilty.

Gregory Burleson sentenced to 68 years. Todd Engel was found guilty of obstruction of justice and interstate travel in aid of extortion, sentencing pending but he faces up to 30 years. Gerald "Jerry" DeLemus plead guilty, sentenced to 7 years. Peter Santilli pled guilty to conspiracy to injure or impede federal officers, sentencing coming next year.

Cliven Bundy, Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, and Ryan Payne, the ringleaders of the whole standoff, start trial Oct 30th.

Possibly, although not intentionally. I read the links I sent you for the first time yesterday, and think I summarized them reasonably. Other articles make claims that I think are compatible: http://www.hcn.org/articles/cliven-bundy-why-the-bundy-crowd.... Clearly there are other points of view, many from more reputable sources, although I'm not sure if their reputation means they are less biased, or just differently biased. Some of those reputable sources point out that Burleson's conviction may have been an outlier, since in addition to his overt racism, as a former FBI informant the jury may have been particularly less sympathetic.

Ironically, Burleson's conviction was obtained in part through footage provided by a fake documentary team that was actually the FBI: https://theintercept.com/2017/05/16/the-bizarre-story-behind.... That article claims that as of May there have actually been 7 acquittals vs 6 convictions, but I didn't track down whether that had changed. I think we should ignore the number of those who "plead guilty", since that's often a tactical decision rather than an actual admission of guilt.

My point though is not that there have not been eventual convictions (I appreciate the details) but that the path to getting them seems to involve more hung juries and retrials than one would expect for an "open and shut" case. My larger point is that there is extreme antagonism between certain Western district court judges and the federal government, with the San Francisco 7th Circuit siding fairly consistently with the Feds and reversing local decisions. Judge Jones's Finding of Fact for the Hage trial (decision overturned by the Circuit) is long and dense, but a surprisingly fun read and a good introduction to the debate regarding Western water rights: http://www.inversecondemnation.com/files/usa-v-hage-findings....

I thought that Jones's Finding was extremely well argued, but the 9th Circuit disagreed and vacated and overturned his decision: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/1.... To my reading, the Circuit willfully misinterpreted Jones's reasing, and then burnt the straw man. The Circuit also took the unusual step of declaring Jones to be too biased against the federal government to be involved in any subsequent proceedings. Locally, many think this the greater example of judicial bias: https://sparkstrib.com/2016/09/15/one-persons-bias-is-anothe....

I'll bow out now, but will happily read any further responses you have or links you think I should look it.