The incredible saga of the Bundy brothers continues. Ammon and Ryan Bundy, and the five other people who have been on trial for an armed takeover of an Oregon wildlife refuge in January, were acquitted of all charges on Thursday. Even though the six men and one woman took over federal property for six weeks while armed, the Portland jury agreed that they are not guilty of impeding federal workers from getting to work, which was the official charge. The verdict has many people upset and comparing it to the ongoing Dakota Pipeline protest where Native American protesters have been attacked with dogs and pepper spray, while these white protesters were acquitted despite being armed.

Imagine if these defendants were black or Muslim… there would not have been a trial. https://t.co/AYAT9738Kk #crimingwhilewhite #Bundy

— Sara Elizabeth Dill (@SEDLAW15) October 28, 2016

Even the defendants’ lawyers were surprised at the outcome. “It’s stunning. It’s a stunning victory for the defense,” said Robert Salisbury, attorney for defendant Jeff Banta. “I’m speechless.” The Bundy brothers themselves will remain jailed awaiting another trial in Nevada for an armed standoff that took place in 2014. In that case, the charges are more serious, involving felony weapon and conspiracy charges. After hearing the verdicts from Judge Anna J. Brown, an attorney for Ammon Bundy, Marcus Mumford, threw a tantrum in the courtroom and yelled at the judge to release his client until guards tackled him to the ground using a stun gun. He was then also arrested.

Prosecutors argued that the group used threat of violence to occupy the wildlife refuge, which doesn’t sound that unbelievable considering they were armed and refused to leave. But the defendants said they were simply peacefully protesting government control–even though they urged others to bring their firearms and join them. The whole thing is believed to have cost taxpayers more than $3.3 million and ended dramatically when one participant, Robert “LaVoy” Finicum, was fatally shot by police during a chase when he refused to give up.

Bundy Brothers acquitted. Officially have no hope for this judicial system anymore.

— Max Winner (@maxxwinner) October 28, 2016

The National Wildlife Federation condemned the verdict in a statement:

This was not a peaceful protest; this was occupation by gunpoint and it assaulted the very foundation of our democracy, our Constitutional principles, and our shared public lands heritage. These criminals prevented Americans from enjoying the wildlife that belong to all of us, destroyed refuge infrastructure, degraded wildlife habitat, and desecrated archaeological treasures. In a democracy, disagreements must be resolved through collaboration, debate or the courts, not by brute force.

The question is how they could be found not guilty of preventing federal employees from accessing their workplace when that is precisely what they did. One of their key aims was to get the federal government to give up some of the land it owns to locals, another was to protest the conviction of two men who were found guilty of arson on government land. Those men, Dwight and Steven Hammond, turned themselves in to serve their sentences and said they didn’t want the Bundys’ help, but still became the catalyst for the whole armed standoff.

The next step is the Nevada trial for the Bundy brothers early next year, as well as another Oregon trial for seven participating defendants who chose to postpone their hearings until February.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bundy Brothers Acquitted for Armed Takeover, But Remain Jailed appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

New Allegations Against Clarence Thomas Surface

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been accused of sexual assault by Moira Smith, an Alaskan lawyer. Smith claimed that when she was 23–in 1999–Thomas groped her at a dinner party when she was working in DC. Thomas was already a Supreme Court justice at that point. Smith posted about the allegations on Facebook, and was then interviewed by The National Law Journal. In an interview she explained her motivations for coming forward, saying:

We now know that many men in power take advantage of vulnerable women. That willingness by men in power to take advantage of vulnerable women relies on an unspoken pact that the women will not speak up about it. Why? Because they are vulnerable. Because they are star-struck. Because they don’t want to be whiners. Because they worry about their career if they do speak out. But silence no longer feels defensible; it feels complicit.

Clarence Thomas–who was also accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill during his Senate confirmation in 1991–denies the allegations by Smith.

Anita Hill discusses Moira Smith’s accusation that Justice Thomas groped her in 1999 https://t.co/D2DpakjdIV via @TheNLJ @ZoeTillman pic.twitter.com/5q29qpBpBo

— Beth Frerking (@BethFrerking) October 27, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 28, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The trial in the Bundy brothers’ Oregon standoff case–when armed activists led an occupation of a wildlife refuge for 41 days–is getting closer. On Wednesday jury selection started and the first statements are scheduled to begin on September 13. The case already has plenty of attention online.

They’ve been charged with conspiracy to impede federal officers and possession of firearms in a federal facility. In total 26 people were charged but only seven are going to trial now. Seven more are going to trial early next year and the rest have already pled guilty.

The Shoes

Journalists were live-tweeting from court on Wednesday, fascinated with the nature of the case. The Bundy brothers’ lawyer had argued that his clients need to be allowed to wear cowboy boots, because they are cowboys.

2a. Mumford first giggled a bunch about the jail issued shoes, calling them “urban loafers.” Jdg Brown: “I do not find it comical at all”

— Leah Sottile (@Leah_Sottile) September 7, 2016

2c. Ammon Bundy: “I prefer to be wearing boots.”

— Leah Sottile (@Leah_Sottile) September 7, 2016

The Background

It all started when two farmers, a father and son, were convicted for arson on government land in 2001. Dwight and Steven Hammond claimed they started a controlled fire on their land to get rid of weeds and brushwood that could cause wildfires, but that they lost control over the fire. They turned themselves in in January of this year and were given the minimum sentence of five years, but this caused some local supporters to start protesting. The leaders of the protests were the sons of Cliven Bundy, who had a separate previous standoff with federal authorities in Nevada. Bundy claimed the government was just trying to punish the Hammonds for not selling their land. The government, on their hand, said the Hammonds tried to cover up poaching activity with the fire.

Currently on trial (and pictured below) are Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, David Lee Fry, Jeff Wayne Banta and Neil Wampler. Kenneth Medenbach is missing from the picture below.

Jury selection begins for #OregonStandoff trial #LiveOnK2 https://t.co/9swhvvHq6o pic.twitter.com/tLzyfXXsAR

— KATU News (@KATUNews) September 7, 2016

The protesters didn’t give up, and instead occupied a federal building until they got what they wanted. The group, led by the Bundys, started calling themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom and one of their viewpoints was that the government owns too much land and misuses that land. The fact that the group was opposed to the government and was armed led some to call them domestic terrorists. But they continue to paint themselves as cowboys and freedom fighters.

A picture from the courtroom illustrates the jury selection.

NOW: 31 potential jurors vetted by Judge Brown. Asked how much media exposure they had to the case. #Oregonstandoff pic.twitter.com/V1kEyyP4LN

— Eileen Park (@EileenParkTV) September 7, 2016

Most of the arrests were made during a traffic stop on January 26, in which the spokesperson for the new movement, LaVoy Finicum, was fatally shot.

What’s Next?

The trial is expected to take even longer than the occupation did. The protesters claim they were just using their First Amendment rights to peacefully protest, and their Second Amendment rights to carry licensed guns. The brothers’ father, Cliven Bundy, is also facing trial in Nevada, because of another standoff near his cattle ranch in 2014. That trial will take place in February in Nevada.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Bundy Brothers’ Trial is About to Start: Here’s What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.