FBI

Wave of Arrests Yesterday Over 14 New Indictments Over 2014 Bundy Ranch Standoff

|

Some more context on my reporting yesterday on the arrest of Jerry DeLemus, husband of New Hampshire state Rep. Susan DeLemus, over his role as part of the "armed militia" in the 2014 standoff on Cliven Bundy's Nevada ranch. His arrest was just a small part of a larger wave of such arrests that happened yesterday over 14 new indictments over the old incident.

Gage Skidmore via Foter.com / CC BY-SA

The Idaho Statesman has more:

Eric James Parker, the Hailey electrician whose photograph aiming his rifle at federal agents near the Bundy Ranch in Nevada went worldwide in 2014, was arrested with three other Idaho men Thursday as part of a nationwide roundup.

Parker, 32, and Steve Arthur Stewart, 36, both of Hailey, O. Scott Drexler, 44, of Challis and Todd Engel, 48, of Boundary County were taken into custody on charges stemming from the standoff ….

The others arrested are Melvin D. Bundy, 41, of Round Mountain, Nev.; David H. Bundy, 39, of Delta, Utah; Brian D. Cavalier, 44, of Bunkerville, Nev.; Blaine Cooper, 36, of Humboldt, Ariz.; Gerald A. DeLemus, 61, of Rochester, N.H.; Richard R. Lovelien, 52, of Westville, Okla.; Gregory P. Burleson, 52, of Phoenix, Ariz.; Joseph D. O'Shaughnessy, 43, of Cottonwood, Ariz.; and Micah L. McGuire, 31, and Jason D. Woods, 30, both of Chandler, Ariz.

The wheels of police investigations can grind slow, apparently:

"This investigation began the day after the assault against federal law enforcement officers and continues to this day," U.S. Attorney for Nevada Daniel Bogden said in a news release. "We will continue to work to identify the assaulters and their role in the assault and the aftermath, in order to ensure that justice is served."

The charges:

The newly added defendants are charged with one count of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer. They're also charged with at least one count of using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, assault on a federal officer, threatening a federal law enforcement officer, obstruction of the due administration of justice, interference with interstate commerce by extortion and interstate travel in aid of extortion.

The indictment also alleges five counts of criminal forfeiture, which upon conviction would require forfeiture of property derived from the proceeds of the crimes totaling at least $3 million, as well as the firearms and ammunition possessed and used on April 12, 2014.

And it's not just about the law. It's about messaging, which perhaps seemed more relevant to the Feds after the Oregon Malheur National Wildlife Center standoff:

"These indictments and subsequent arrests send an irrefutable message to the American people that our determination remains steadfast to protect them and pursue individuals who participate in violent acts of this nature," said Special Agent in Charge Laura Bucheit.

I wouldn't dream of trying to refute you, Special Agent in Charge Bucheit!

The story goes on to detail how Mr. Parker specifically had gone on to make a mini-career out of challenging federal agents in various scenarios.

Some earlier reporting and commentary on the Bundy standoff as it happened in 2014.

NEXT: No constitutional right to engage in consensual BDSM sex

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Thanks, Brian. This needs all the attention it can get.

  2. Revenge is a dish best served cold, eh, Leviathan?

  3. conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States

    What the fuck is this shit.

    1. This the fuck is government, Hugh. You do NOT hunt the King’s deer.

    2. You dare question your betters, comrade?

    3. That shit doesn’t make me feel safer, that’s for sure.

      1. Come on Crusty, they know what’s best for you.

      2. You’re in no danger at all as long as you don’t commit or even think about committing an offense against the United States.

        1. “as long as you don’t commit or even think about committing an offense against the United States.”

          Technically, that includes, “Resisting when the US is committing an offense against *you*”

    4. Isn’t that just… conspiracy?

  4. So does Harry Reid and son get to sell the place to the Chinese now?

  5. “”These indictments and subsequent arrests send an irrefutable message to the American people”

    OPPOSITION IS FUTILE

    1. These indictments and subsequent arrests send an irrefutable message to the American people that resistance will be crushed.

      FTFY.

    2. As someone remarked the other day, stomping out militias with the government’s almighty hand really works, just like how the British really stomped out those pesky militias at Lexington and Concord, yessirree.

      1. Especially when the government invariably pushes for 50+ year sentences for these guys while offering 5 year sentences on a minimal number of charges for people like Leland Yee.

        1. while offering 5 year sentences on a minimal number of charges for people like Leland Yee.

          Who, let’s be reminded, was trying to gunrun rocket launchers, SAMs, and belt fed machine guns to choir boys like Abu Sayef in the Philippines

  6. Seems to me that they waited until their political-roundup of the opposition wouldn’t seem *quite* so Authoritarian. Because Malheur provided the right context to ensure that no one has the slightest sympathy for these ‘anti-government’ types.

    1. Seems to me that they waited until their political-roundup of the opposition wouldn’t seem *quite* so Authoritarian.

      I’m unsure why they’d be so concerned about this; the small sampling of people I’ve talked to about the issue would have probably cheered wildly if the Feds had just gone in and massacred them all.

      1. There would have been some wailing from people labeled as “rightwing nutjobs” and some hand-waving, then it would all be swept under the rug and shortly afterwards cheered by progressives. Instead, they’re just going to be black-bagged and no one will ever think of it again.

      2. “the small sampling of people I’ve talked to about the issue would have probably cheered wildly if the Feds had just gone in and massacred them all.”

        Well, here’s another theory =

        They timed it so it would provide fodder for the news media to help ease the bitter-pill of Hillary’s eventual nomination.

        Because liberals need to be constantly reminded that there are hordes of armed yokels out there ready to “take back” America unless they elect a Iron Fisted Liberal leader to keep them at bay.

        1. Possibly. I mean, hard to say how much the timing of this specific story may be deliberate, but I don’t doubt that the Democrats will try to use the specter of “right-wing extremists” as a prominent campaign theme, since it dovetails so nicely with the need to make Hillary seem tough and authoritative.

          That they will do this while reassuring themselves that it’s only the nasty Republicans who campaign by exploiting people’s fears and prejudices will be amusing to watch.

        2. Well, here’s another theory =

          They timed it so it would provide fodder for the news media to help ease the bitter-pill of Hillary’s eventual nomination.

          They timed it because the nitwits at Malheur overplayed their hand. The feds almost certainly thought they couldn’t get convictions following l’Affaire Bundy in 2014.

          The events in Oregon changed the overall mood enough that they thought it wasn’t impossible now.

          1. “They timed it because the nitwits at Malheur overplayed their hand. The feds almost certainly thought they couldn’t get convictions following l’Affaire Bundy in 2014.”

            well, that was my first proposal, so back to square 1

          2. “The events in Oregon changed the overall mood enough that they thought it wasn’t impossible now.”

            exactly what happened. plus, as could have been anticipated, some of the people involved in Oregon were also involved with the ranch standoff. they get some they know they can get convictions on, and get to associate the rest of them with that group directly. the Oregon group doomed them all, but it was only a matter of time until one of them took it a step too far… and that was what the feds were waiting for.

      3. the people who would have had a big negative reaction tend to be the type that own guns. the people who would have cheered tend to be those who hate guns. most people would have more mixed feelings between the balance of letting someone break the “law” and giving the government a pass on massacre.

    2. Thieves, trespassers, and treasoners should be grateful for any sympathy at all. If they weren’t white people they’d long ago be stains on the ground.

      1. And in at the buzzer, it’s Tony with the boot-lick! Get that thing shiny, Tony!

        1. C’mon X….who are you to criticize Tonys Tom of Finland domination fantasies?

      2. Could you describe OWS? Or holders activities at that ROTC office?

        1. It’s amazing how I can go from not knowing what the hell you’re talking about to understanding it as a hoax in less than two minutes. What’s your excuse? Is there a right-wing search engine you’re using that doesn’t make these things quite as clear as Google does?

          1. Occupy wasn’t a hoax. And I know there were weapons on several locations they protested. They also blocked the road during protests.
            And I still think they’re ok.
            Consistency is hard.

          2. Yea you complaining about the bundys and trying to justify occupy appears a bit absurd

          3. Holder’s occupation of an ROTC office wasn’t a hoax either. He just didn’t carry a gun at the time.

          4. Tony’s post is a hoax. Simple enough to click his link and find “WHAT’S TRUE: Former Attorney General Eric Holder participated in a peaceful sit-in at a Columbia University residence hall ROTC lounge in 1970.”
            It’s similar to the peaceful sit-in at Malheur. (well, peaceful until the FBI extra-judicial execution)

      3. Try not to let the mask slip next time. So it would be ok if they were stains on the ground cause equality?

        Yikes…you sound like angry individual. Perhaps a control freak

        1. It would be OK *to you* if they were stains on the ground if they were Muslims. I don’t want anybody shot.

          1. I don’t want anybody shot.

            Liar.

          2. Nope. where did you get that? i never said anything about muslims.

            curious why you jumped to that conclusion……..

            And you said they should be thankful for sympathy. Sounds like you wanted them shot

        2. Tornado, I don’t think I’ve seen you much here before, so I’m assuming you’re new. Tony is a statist shill who thinks that people who disagree with him and his proggie talking points ought to be lined up and shot, and he’s admitted as much before. To engage with him in any kind of reasonable discussion is pointless. Every time he comes around here, he gets intellectually pee-pee schwacked so hard that he disappears for a few weeks before inevitably returning for more of the same.

          1. Tony has explicitly said that he doesn’t think parents would take care of their children if the government didn’t force them to, for example.

            1. Yikes. I am wondering if that was his parents though

          2. He’s fairly new, at least as a commenter. But he is a rising star.

            Tornado, you are a “he”, right?

            1. Yea but Im really gender neutral since it is a social construct anyway.

      4. But these guys are total paranoid nuts for opposing a government that would do something like that.

    3. It’s also cooled off some people’s opposition to the FBI vis-a-vis unlocking iPhones.

      I liked watching a recent debate on fark.com where the commentariat orgasming was at firehose like levels.

      One person was asking why they were so glib and quick to mock Ryan (I think) Bundy’s suggestions that he wouldn’t get a fair trial while they had no problem believing Edward Snowden’s similar belief.

      The people responding couldn’t get out of the way of their own biases when they would claim that Snowden had a real fight or that he wasn’t unreasonable. No one could answer the question without invoking their opinion of the merits of the Bunkerville or Malheur incidents. No amount of questioning or commenting could anyone to budge from this idea that people who stage “stupid” fights have nothing to fear from the same people that give others everything to fear.

  7. I had no idea that this guy was the husband of the crazy lady CNN chose to showcase when they aired that focus group of NH Trump supporters.

    Anansi the Trickster is the one true god.

    1. Anansi the Trickster is the one true god.

      Eris would like a word…

    1. She looks almost exactly like a dude i knew in high school, including the hair.

        1. I haven’t seen him in 17 years. Odds are he’s dead, not that that’s a dealbreaker for you.

          1. I do like lifeless eyes, much like those possessed by special agent heartthrob.

        2. No, but I have it on good authority that she and her husband are swingers and would be open to a threesome with you. Something about you being the meat in a Crusty sandwich. I’m sure you will enjoy their double penetration.

  8. Funny, I don’t feel like protecting me was a big motivation in all of this. I do know I felt safer before hearing about it.

    1. See, dan, the Public is everyone but you. So when they say they do something to make the Public safer, they mean they did it for everyone but you. If you don’t feel safer, you’re not a part of the public!

      1. This explains the DMV.

  9. “These indictments and subsequent arrests send an irrefutable message to the American people that our determination remains steadfast to protect them and pursue individuals who participate in violent acts of this nature,” said Special Agent in Charge Laura Bucheit.

    Casualty count:

    Federal agents: 0

    Bundy refuge protesters: 1

  10. Who exactly were the feds protecting in this case? It is lost on me.

      1. Yep. which i get a kick out of them acting like they are protecting the public (when the public was never threatened).The are dishonest. We should praise them for doing the good deed!

        1. And they didn’t even protest in the wau of everyone’s day. Which is more noble than blocking highways and downtowns.

        2. But the progs I know, particularly one in the PNW, were shitting themselves daily, demanding that the feds “do something.” And they’re still whining that someone had to clean up some candy wrappers and miscellaneous trash at the site.

          1. Progs have a lust for for blood

            1. It is known!

  11. So above this tony character…strikes me as a violent and angry individual. What are your thoughts? Like an anakin skywalker ep3 if you will.

    1. Tony was a long-time troll here. I believe he disappeared for a while, but now he’s apparently back.

  12. Does tony hate muslims? I am not really into islamophobia

  13. We will continue to work to identify the assaulters,

    Ok, U.S. Attorney for Nevada Daniel Bogden, see those red squiggles under that last word there….

  14. I take it that tony must be a bernie sanders supporter

    1. Don’t know, don’t care. It’s a troll. Don’t. Feed. It.

    2. Which makes a lot of sense. Smart power… at its best.

    3. Dude, seriously, quit worrying about Tony. All you need to know is that he’s a sad, angry little man whose days are filled with bitterness and whose nights are cold.

      1. He’s a text-transcription device plugged into a fax machine which is connected to the DNC headquarters.

  15. Glad to see this get the attention it deserves.

    Reading some of those charges:

    “The newly added defendants are charged with one count of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and conspiracy to impede . . . a federal officer. They’re also charged with . . . obstruction of the due administration of justice, interference with interstate commerce . . . and interstate travel”.

    They sound totally bogus.

    “Interference with interstate commerce”?!

    Worst. Clause. Ever.

  16. The first rule of revolutions is that if you’re gonna start one, you have to win.

    1. Maybe. Maybe not.

      In 1859, everybody thought John Brown was an extremist. Within a couple of years, his views were pretty average for a guy from the North–burn it all down!

      The Beer Hall Putsch was in 1923. Hitler didn’t make Chancellor until 1932.

      I think it’s true that revolutionaries generally need to stay in power once they win.

  17. I could have sworn that the first Bundy ranch standoff was non-violent. No shots fired, no one hurt.

    Yet here we are looking at a bunch of indictments for violent crimes.

    1. Yeah, but the scary one is “interference with interstate commerce”.

      Jesus, doesn’t everything we do or don’t do interfere with interstate commerce in some way?

      1. Jesus, doesn’t everything we do or don’t do interfere with interstate commerce in some way?

        Yep. Which is what makes it so fun and easy to be a federal prosecutor.

    2. Waving a gun and threatening government officers makes it a violent crime, even if you don’t actually shoot somebody.

      1. Who was waving a gun?

      2. No one was waving guns and there was very little said that could be construed as an actual threat.

      3. saying “we will defend ourselves” counts as threatening? you don’t even need a slippery slope argument for that to be a terrifying precedent.

  18. Reading that Eric Parker and other members of the Bundy Gang have finally been arrested makes me almost as happy as I get each time I read another Scalia obituary.

    1. Why does this make you happy?

    2. I fed a troll and am feeding them again.

  19. Crime against the state and its agents is characterized as a crime against the citizenry. Of course.

  20. I wonder how locking up or executing independent ranchers squares with opposition to factory farming in the average lefty sycophant’s playbook.

    1. That is why it is great being a prog. Hold contradicting thoughts but never occurrs to them

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.