Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

Pompeed
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:27 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#726

Post by Pompeed » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:50 pm

Maybenaut wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:18 pm
NMgirl wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:39 am
Maybenaut wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:29 am
:snippity:

Well, it is not acceptable to lie in court. A lawyer has a duty of “candor to the tribunal.”

But when the facts are subject to interpretation, then it’s probably not a lie. For example, if the government seeks to prove that the defendant intended X, and the lawyer gets up and says no, the defendant intended Y, that’s not a lie, I don’t think.
The specific instance we are talking about here are Whipple's statement(s) about the history of Bundy Ranch. Those statements, presented to the jury, are demonstrably, indisputably, false. The Bundys bought the land in 1947, not 1877. That is just one example of Whipple's mischaracterization, to put it politely, of the history of the Bundys in Bunkerville.
Can you say, with absolute certainty, that the Bundys were not related in any way to the people they bought the land from?


If I am not mistaken, Bundy has already admitted in his public statements that the people who owned the property and sold it to his parents in the 1946-47 time frame were NOT relatives or family friends.

And let us say that the point is not even worth making an argument. Right to use the water on the land doesn't mean right to use land at will to which the title is vested in another -- namely, the citizens of the United States -- without whatever compensation or conditions are required to use it. The landowner has full discretion to allow or prohibit use.

Seems to me that the best argument to make is: he paid for his use of our land for twenty years without complaint or objection. We (collectively and though an agent) decided the land would not support our other property -- wildlife -- with as many cattle on it as he had been running. Cut the herd running on our property and pay the bill for those which are permitted to remain.

Bundy doesn't get to tell us how to use our land.

To me, this is not a complicated case: tenant has a hissy fit at landlord's agents when presented with new lease terms and threatens to murder landlord's agents.



NMgirl
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#727

Post by NMgirl » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:54 pm

Vanessa:
Bundy began by showing photo of his family w/ wife, 6 daughters & 2 sons: "This is who I really am." Said he and his family are not violent

Bundy: "Government is our servant. We are their master. Not the other way around." He stressed gov't overreach & urged jurors to take stand

Ryan Bundy delivered his opening statement: "I am not afraid of the truth. The truth will set me free." He's representing himself
Off Topic
Aside on Bundy genealogy: Someone on Twitter (think it might have been @alean?), who is a Mormon, did an exhaustive genealogy as well and discovered that she, herself, had a Bundy connection way back in the 1600's, iirc.



NMgirl
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#728

Post by NMgirl » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:02 pm

Query for attorneys: Why are Payne's attorneys deferring their opening statement until after the government has presented its case :?: What is the strategy here :?: Payne's attorneys have very good reps, all are Fed Public Defenders.



User avatar
maydijo
Posts: 2593
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:23 pm
Location: where women glow and men plunder
Occupation: harassing marsupials

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#729

Post by maydijo » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:02 pm

Maybenaut wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:31 pm
maydijo wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:26 pm
Maybenaut wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:18 pm

Can you say, with absolute certainty, that the Bundys were not related in any way to the people they bought the land from?
Yes. However, Bundy's maternal grandparents did own a ranch in nearby Mesquite. I believe this is the basis of their claim that they've ranched there for 100+ years.
Well, I meant the actual people they bought the ranch from. In the context of a "lie" told by an attorney in an opening statement, this doesn't strike me as something that's easily proven to be false without engaging in a significant genealogical research. I doubt any court or bar would fault an attorney for taking his client's word for something like that.
It is demonstrably true that Bundy's maternal grandmother, Christena Jensen, was born in Nevada in 1901, and had a homestead in Mesquite. Her parents both came from Utah. It is demonstrably true that Bundy's parents bought the 160 acres from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt in 1948. I'm trying to access my ancestry.com account but I need to reset my password, and they're taking their sweet time sending it the reset link to me.

Generally speaking however, that entire region was settled by Mormons, and most Mormons who can trace their ancestry back that far are related somewhere along the line, although it's often very distant (e.g. "My cousin married your uncle!" - no direct relationship at all.) As well, in an area as sparsely settled as Mesquite/Bunkerville, even if the Bundys weren't distantly related to the Leavitts, there's a good chance they intermarried somewhere along the line.

The Bundys themselves did not own the land until 1948. But there are family ties to the area in the form of his maternal grandparents. I don't think it's highly relevant to prove the 160 acres of land he owns has not been in the family since 1877, except to demonstrate he's a liar, because nobody is trying to take that 160 acres away from them. I'm not sure it's worth going to a great deal of effort to prove that his maternal grandparents never grazed in that exact area of land that is under contest - for one thing I'm not sure you could prove it, and for another, even if it's true, what does it show? They were likely grazing in the same general area, on lands that are now federal land, from around the time he claims, give or take 20 years.



Pompeed
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:27 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#730

Post by Pompeed » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:10 pm

The issue is not who owned the 160 acres -- a quarter section -- and sold it to Bundy's parents.

The only issue is who owns -- and has owned since a treaty was signed with Mexico to end a war -- the land on which he was given permission to graze his cattle and, for many years, paid the fees to use the land without protest or objection or claim of "government overreach" or "loss of liberty" or any such as to himself or as to his mob of offspring and their mob of offspring.

Since when has it been legal and justified to retain possession of property one does not own, against a claim of right by the true owner, by means of the business end of a firearm?



Pompeed
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:27 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#731

Post by Pompeed » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:14 pm

NMgirl wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:02 pm
Query for attorneys: Why are Payne's attorneys deferring their opening statement until after the government has presented its case :?: What is the strategy here :?: Payne's attorneys have very good reps, all are Fed Public Defenders.


After the close of the Government's case, will he need to put on a case at all? No need to open now if he's down the food chain and, at the end of the US case, the assessment is: there's insufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty as charged.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 23547
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#732

Post by bob » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:23 pm

NMgirl wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:02 pm
Why are Payne's attorneys deferring their opening statement until after the government has presented its case :?: What is the strategy here :?: Payne's attorneys have very good reps, all are Fed Public Defenders.
It is a common-enough tactic for the "two-cases" strategy. The prosecution will prevent its case; the defense, rather than rebutting the prosecution's case, will open with its view of what the "real case" is. So the defense not opening at the beginning is a tactic to not show the cards.

Think Law & Order, when the DA presents a straightforward case of (say) abortion-clinic bombing, and the defense is ... how powerful joooooosss! secretly control the media. (And then the jury deadlocks, and the L&O team does the pensive walk down a darkened hallway.)

Pompeed wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:14 pm
After the close of the Government's case, will he need to put on a case at all? No need to open now if he's down the food chain and, at the end of the US case, the assessment is: there's insufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty as charged.
I assume, at the close of the government's case, there will be perfunctory motions for a directed defense verdict. Those will be denied.

Then the various defendants can decide whether to challenge the government's case, or simply argue to the jury insufficient proof.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

NMgirl
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#733

Post by NMgirl » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:32 pm

Bob, Madijo, Pompeed: :thumbs:

Leah's article for WaPo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 62a4ac70b4

Edited to add Maxine's Oregonian article.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-stando ... ement.html



NMgirl
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#734

Post by NMgirl » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:40 pm

@hecktow

The jury (who I am horrible at reading) seemed to relate to Bundy at times, but other times they seemed confused. One juror seemed to be intently listening to him, but looked turned off when he criticized the military and their action around the world.


Max:
At one point , jurors passed a bowl of candies to each other as Ryan Bundy gave his opening statements
Does everybody remember the Poot outrage that Judge Navarro didn't provide candy to the audience as well as the jury? That was a good one.



NMgirl
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#735

Post by NMgirl » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:45 pm

CORRECTION! :oops: It is Ammo's legal team who are deferring their opening statement according to Leah.



User avatar
maydijo
Posts: 2593
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:23 pm
Location: where women glow and men plunder
Occupation: harassing marsupials

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#736

Post by maydijo » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:52 pm

NMgirl wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:32 pm
Bob, Madijo, Pompeed: :thumbs:

Leah's article for WaPo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 62a4ac70b4

Edited to add Maxine's Oregonian article.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-stando ... ement.html
Ryan's last quote in the WaPo article - that we aren't subject to the government and don't have to ask permission - runs contrary to LDS doctrine. 12th Article of Faith:

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrate, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.


I know this is nothing that hasn't been pointed out before, but the juxtaposition of what he said compared to what the AoF says was striking. Like all good Mormon kids I memorized those Articles of Faith, so as soon as he said "subject" that is immediately what came to mind. For him to stand up there and claim he's Mormon and claim his actions are righteous and just plain ignore the fact that a central tenant of our doctrine is to be subject to government - it just pisses me off.



User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 6154
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#737

Post by RVInit » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:56 pm

maydijo wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:52 pm
NMgirl wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:32 pm
Bob, Madijo, Pompeed: :thumbs:

Leah's article for WaPo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 62a4ac70b4

Edited to add Maxine's Oregonian article.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-stando ... ement.html
Ryan's last quote in the WaPo article - that we aren't subject to the government and don't have to ask permission - runs contrary to LDS doctrine. 12th Article of Faith:

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrate, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.


I know this is nothing that hasn't been pointed out before, but the juxtaposition of what he said compared to what the AoF says was striking. Like all good Mormon kids I memorized those Articles of Faith, so as soon as he said "subject" that is immediately what came to mind. For him to stand up there and claim he's Mormon and claim his actions are righteous and just plain ignore the fact that a central tenant of our doctrine is to be subject to government - it just pisses me off.
I am actually glad to hear that he admitted to having those beliefs in front of the jury.


"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
Skip Intro
Posts: 3190
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:12 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#738

Post by Skip Intro » Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:34 pm



In the Trump era anything is true if enough people believe it.

NMgirl
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#739

Post by NMgirl » Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:43 pm

Use your judgment. I didn't watch it, but it's probably the usual
Unknown-3.jpeg


Is that Roger “My Client Is Liberty!” Roots, Dean of the LiesandorBullshit School of Law?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34353
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#740

Post by realist » Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:45 pm

If you’re Talking about the guy in the yellow tie, that’s Whipple.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

NMgirl
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#741

Post by NMgirl » Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:51 pm

realist wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:45 pm
If you’re Talking about the guy in the yellow tie, that’s Whipple.
I'm sure you're right. Why is Whipple--a reasonably respectable attorney-- hanging out with cosmically ignorant John Lamb? I truly hope that Lamb is lecturing Whipple on the law. Lamb is a professor L&BULS. I'm still not gonna watch. :cantlook:



User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 3677
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#742

Post by DejaMoo » Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:57 pm

maydijo wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:52 pm

Ryan's last quote in the WaPo article - that we aren't subject to the government and don't have to ask permission - runs contrary to LDS doctrine. 12th Article of Faith:

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrate, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

I know this is nothing that hasn't been pointed out before, but the juxtaposition of what he said compared to what the AoF says was striking. Like all good Mormon kids I memorized those Articles of Faith, so as soon as he said "subject" that is immediately what came to mind. For him to stand up there and claim he's Mormon and claim his actions are righteous and just plain ignore the fact that a central tenant of our doctrine is to be subject to government - it just pisses me off.
Cliven and one of his neighbors got together and produced their own book of religious doctrine, called the Nay Book. It's a mixture of personal revelation, LDS teachings, John Birch Society ravings, and Skousen constitutional theory. He apparently indoctrinated his family in it, so the Bundys should probably be described as a splinter sect of Mormonism at this point. Or even a family cult, if you want to go that far.

See viewtopic.php?f=94&t=8839&p=814215&hili ... ok#p814215



NMgirl
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#743

Post by NMgirl » Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:01 pm

Thank you, DejaMoo.

The Bundy family official spokesperson also did a noon report. It's short, but I still couldn't bring myself to watch it.




User avatar
maydijo
Posts: 2593
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:23 pm
Location: where women glow and men plunder
Occupation: harassing marsupials

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#744

Post by maydijo » Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:30 pm

DejaMoo wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:57 pm
maydijo wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:52 pm

Ryan's last quote in the WaPo article - that we aren't subject to the government and don't have to ask permission - runs contrary to LDS doctrine. 12th Article of Faith:

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrate, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

I know this is nothing that hasn't been pointed out before, but the juxtaposition of what he said compared to what the AoF says was striking. Like all good Mormon kids I memorized those Articles of Faith, so as soon as he said "subject" that is immediately what came to mind. For him to stand up there and claim he's Mormon and claim his actions are righteous and just plain ignore the fact that a central tenant of our doctrine is to be subject to government - it just pisses me off.
Cliven and one of his neighbors got together and produced their own book of religious doctrine, called the Nay Book. It's a mixture of personal revelation, LDS teachings, John Birch Society ravings, and Skousen constitutional theory. He apparently indoctrinated his family in it, so the Bundys should probably be described as a splinter sect of Mormonism at this point. Or even a family cult, if you want to go that far.

See viewtopic.php?f=94&t=8839&p=814215&hili ... ok#p814215
I agree; but they are still (as far as I know) members in good standing, and Arden is currently serving a mission in Brazil. The LDS church should excommunicate them, because they are clearly apostate and leading others into apostasy. (Of course there is a possibility it has already happened, because the church rarely publicises disciplinary actions - I believe the only exception is if a General Authority has been excommunicated - and so, when these things become common knowledge, it's because the person or group that was excommunicated goes public with it.)

Edited to clarify: It's pretty obvious Arden is still a member in good standing because he's still serving a mission in Brazil. As for the rest of the group, my supposition is that they are still members in good standing, based on the things they put on Facebook - various quotes from prophets and general authorities; and in one recent video Lisa said she was taking her family to a temple open house.



NMgirl
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#745

Post by NMgirl » Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:19 pm

Long tweet storm from Max this afternoon.

Payne Opening. Bottom to top

Lawyer: Payne 'worked to keep people safe. KEeping people safe is not a crime.'

Payne wanted people to have guns at wash 'for same reason agents did-to be safe,' his lawyer said

Lawyer: Payne's goal, 'he wanted people to be able to protest. He wanted everyone to be safe.'

Operation Mutual Aid is a group he cofounded as means to defend people who couldn't protect themselves, Payne's lawyer said

Payne didn't know of Bundys until 4/7/14 when friend sent email,'have you seen this?' with story with hed: 'Armed Feds prepare for s
To Ryan, a gun is a tool to protect others, his lawyer said

Lawyer: Payne takes a gun with him everywhere, even to grocery store to buy milk

Payne is provocative but he sees guns as a 'tool,' his lawyer said

Payne also has tattoos of 4 skulls - for friends killed during service

Ryan Payne 's lawyer spoke of Payne's military service in Iraq and how he has tattoos on left arm w/ nickname :'Buddy Lee,' 'man of action'

Norwood: Payne came to Bunkerville to keep the Bundys safe 'and that's exactly what he did.'
Payne sincerely believed the Bundys were in trouble, attorney Ryan Norwood said

Ryan Payne's lawyer argued that Payne came from Montana to NV 'to stop' a fight not start one

First Government Witness. Bottom to top.

BLM manager testified US has held title to the public lands since 1848 when Mexico ceded property to US
Prosecutor having BLM manager lead jurors thru pages of first federal order from 1993 for CB to remove cattle

On 1/24/99 BLM put notice on CBundy's dash. He threw decision on ground, son tore it up, BLM manager testified

Cliven Bundy sent BLM notices that they had no jurisdiction

He had no authorization to graze cattle after2/26/93

BLM had issued the Bundys grazing permits for 20 yrs prior, 1973-1993

Last fees Cliven Bundy paid were from 12/1/92 thru 2/28/93 , BLM manager said

Govt's Exhibit 1: original federal court order demanding Cliven Bundy remove cattle

BLM manager : 'probably would have allowed him same no of cows' but with seasonal restrictions to protect desert tortoise

Feb '93 Cliven Bundy's permit expired; BLM offered him a new 10yr permit to graze in Bunkerville Allotment -'he opted not to do so,'

So Clark Cty bought out grazing permits of ranchers in NE corner of county - Mr Bundy opted not to do that, she testified

Around 1990, USFW listed desert tortoise as endangered , threatened - 'a lot of Clark Cty is desert tortoise habitat.'

Rugwell testified that when she arrived she was briefed that Cliven Bundy was in 'continuous trespass'

Govt called 1st witness: Mary Jo Rugwell, BLM's District manager for southern district of NV from 4/2008 - 8/2012



NMgirl
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#746

Post by NMgirl » Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:24 pm

Leah:
We are now listening to former southern Nevada district manager for the BLM, Mary Jo Rugwell, read a 1998 court order about Bundys action. Which is making me feel like going to zzzzzzzz

Payne, says Norwood, knew as much about "ranching as he did the dark side of the moon." (Dude, Payne. It's a great album. Give it a shot)

Norwood said Payne didn't know the Bundys, but was moved to come to Nevada because of seeing the videos of Dave Bundys arrest and the presence of govt "snipers" around ranch

"... The reason you carry a gun is so you don't have to use one..."

Norwood said Payne always carried a gun during his life. Norwood: "we all know in this city how much damage someone can do with a gun... To Ryan, a gun isn't something that's good or bad. It's a tool..."

We heard openings from Ryan Payne's attorney, Ryan Norwood, who talked about Payne as someone looking to help protect people who needed it, like he had done during his military service in Iraq.



Hercule Parrot
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:58 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#747

Post by Hercule Parrot » Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:03 pm

RVInit wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:42 am
Prosecutors need to go through systematically and prove every single goddam lie that Ammon, Ryan, and their lawyers put forth. They need to paint the entire picture for the jury, not just the parts that go to charges. Ignoring Ammon's days and days and days on the stand telling lies did not work in Oregon and it's not going to work here either.
Absolutely right. Categoric error to ignore the defendant's defences. Every single claim has to be challenged and broken under oath. Anything less will guarantee no convictions.



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 7169
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#748

Post by Kendra » Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:09 pm

And here comes BJ with his opinions.


► Show Spoiler



User avatar
Dr. Blue
Posts: 847
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:01 am
Occupation: Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#749

Post by Dr. Blue » Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:37 pm

maydijo wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:02 pm

It is demonstrably true that Bundy's maternal grandmother, Christena Jensen, was born in Nevada in 1901, and had a homestead in Mesquite. Her parents both came from Utah. It is demonstrably true that Bundy's parents bought the 160 acres from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt in 1948. I'm trying to access my ancestry.com account but I need to reset my password, and they're taking their sweet time sending it the reset link to me.
:snippity:
There does appear to be a connection. A public tree is online that includes David Bundy (Cliven's father) and Margaret Bodel Jensen (Cliven's mother): http://nagelhistory.com/genealogy/getpe ... tree=tree1

Here's what we can see from that:
  • Cliven's maternal grandmother was Abigail Christina Jensen (born Abbott) as maydijo said above.
  • Abigail Christina Jensen's birthplace is listed as Bunkerville (in 1891)
  • Abigail Christina Abbott's parents were William Abbott and .... Mary Jane Leavitt
  • So the maiden name of Cliven's great grandmother was Leavitt - the same last name as the people his father bought the ranch from.
So there may in fact be something to Cliven's claim about a long family connection to that land.

Doesn't have anything to do with his legal arguments, however, which have been soundly rejected by the courts.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43178
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#750

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:41 pm

My grandfather lived on Waikiki Beach in the 1890s. All the hotels are belong to me!



Post Reply

Return to “Bundy Ranch/Malheur NWR”