WHY PRE TRIAL JAIL IS MONSTROUSLY UNJUST

"ANYONE? ANYONE? CLASS, ANYONE KNOW?" From Ferris Bueller's Day Off Like the high school teacher played by Ben Stein, I am still waiting for somebody to answer my question: "Why the hell are the Bundys et al in prison without ever having been convicted of anything?" A better question is: "Why the hell has defense not challenged the court on this miscarriage of justice?" I am going to do an autopsy on what I understand is the official answer. 1. Flight risk: The government (judge and prosecutors), in a united, co worker voice, claimed that the Bundys et al were denied bail because they were flight risks and that no amount of bail would get them to appear at trial. They had no evidence whatsoever that the Bundys ever fled anything. In 2014, when they faced arrest for not turning over their cattle to the government, they did not flee to avoid arrest but stood and protested. The government has no evidence that the Bundys et al would flee. Evidence was provided that the defendants had deep roots, family, businesses, assets and many reasons not to flee. They did not have current passports and were willing to turn in any passports that they had. Dave Bundy's local sheriff offered to monitor Dave and to provide additional measures to assure that Dave Bundy would not flee. Government position was to laugh it off and simply say, without reason or cause, they are flight risks that cannot be controlled by any means. 2. Danger to society: This was introduced by the Bail Reform Act (BRA). Prior to BRA, the only reason to incarcerate somebody prior to conviction was flight risk because they could not make bail. Excessive bail was prohibited by the constitution but bail of some kind, was required. If someone could not raise the funds, they stayed in jail. But, danger to society was never a consideration unless they were charged with a capital offense and facing capital punishment. With the war on crime started by Nixon, it was deemed wise by congress to include dangerousness as a reason for denying bail. With that, the unconstitutional BRA was enacted and judges were given new powers by congress to put people in jail at their discretion, something the constitution did not support. In discussing dangerousness, the judge alleged that the Bundys et al already proved they were dangerous by organizing a stand off in Nevada and bringing guns to the refuge. The biased federal judges, like their prosecutor cohorts, were offended by the Bundy stand against their employer, the federal government. and were sure that the Bundys would stage another armed protest because the Bundys did not respect the authority of the federal government. However, not respecting the authority of the federal government and being dangerous are two entirely different things. The government (judge and prosecutors) were unable to show any dangerous activity by the defendants, neither in Nevada nor in Oregon. In spite of the lack of evidence, the judge ordered pre trial detention, contrary to everything that is constitutional, with monstrous consequences to the defendants. For a detailed analysis of the unconstitutionality of the Bail Reform Act, please see this paper starting at page 21: http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi…