Cliven Bundy Vows to Fight DOJ Appeal of Dismissal in Standoff Trial Case

Photo of Chris White By CHRIS WHITE, Energy Reporter

The Nevada rancher who led a standoff with the federal government nearly four years ago is vowing to fight the Department of Justice’s move to appeal a judge’s decision to dismiss an indictment against the man.

Larry Klayman, legal counsel for Cliven Bundy, issued a statement on behalf of Bundy vowing to fight the DOJ’s attempt to retry his client for his role in the 2014 standoff. Klayman is the founder of Judicial Watch and is a former prosecutor.

“My client and friend Cliven Bundy is confident that the Ninth Circuit will affirm Judge Navarro’s dismissal,” Larry Klayman, legal counsel for Bundy, said in a press statement Thursday. The government’s case was “based on prosecutorial misconduct,” he noted.

“That the prosecutors who committed and furthered this gross prosecutorial misconduct would now seek to file a notice of appeal underscores that my once proud alma mater, the U.S. Department of Justice, has become the Department of Injustice,” he added.

U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro dismissed conspiracy charges against Bundy, his two sons and Ryan Payne in January after finding prosecutors acted “with prejudice” throughout the trial. Prosecutors violated federal law and failed to share evidence favorable to the defendant’s case with the court. (RELATED: Bundy Case Dismissed, Judge Orders Rancher Released)

A federal judge rejected prosecutors’ request Tuesday to reconsider her dismissal of the case against Bundy. The prosecutors plan on appealing the case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

 Follow Chris White on Facebook and Twitter.

Get Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

3 Responses to Cliven Bundy Vows to Fight DOJ Appeal of Dismissal in Standoff Trial Case

  1. Bruce Boyer August 8, 2018 at 3:35 pm

    The Judge dismissed because it was proven that the prosecution engaged in discriminatory prosecution. The std. to prove this is higher than beyond high. The fact that it was proven means that the prosecution did engage in discriminatory prosecution. This be what justice should start to look like

  2. Miguel Espinosa August 3, 2018 at 9:30 am

    Wasn’t this case based upon Bundy and his friends’ illegal use of government property for the purpose of grazing their cattle? They took advantage of unprotected land for their own personal, financial benefit. That land belonged to the government, which is us, the people.

    • Citizen Reporter August 3, 2018 at 10:29 am

      You need to do your homework on this one, Mr. Espinosa.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *