In the e-book The Law That Governs Government, CHQ Chairman Richard A. Viguerie and constitutional lawyer Mark J. Fitzgibbons made the case that America’s biggest lawbreaker is government, and now it looks like a federal judge in Nevada agrees.

Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed the charges against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, his sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy, and supporter Ryan Payne "with prejudice," meaning they cannot face trial again.

Judge Navarro’s ruling was based on the egregious misconduct of the FBI and Justice Department lawyers handling the case, that led her to conclude that a new trial would not be sufficient to address the problems in the case and would provide the prosecution with an unfair advantage going forward.

The judge criticized both the prosecution and the FBI for not providing evidence to the defense as required under court rules. "The court finds that the universal sense of justice has been violated," Navarro said according to reporting by Robert Anglen for the Reno Gazette Journal.

Navarro said it was clear the FBI was involved in the prosecution of the case, and that it was not a coincidence that most of the withheld evidence came from the FBI.

She said the prosecution's reliance on the FBI and failure to look beyond the documents the FBI provided represented an "intentional abdication of its responsibility." Essentially, she said the prosecution decided not to follow up because the evidence would have worked in the Bundys' favor Anglen reports.

Navarro on Dec. 20 cited six pieces of evidence the Nevada U.S. Attorney's Office failed to disclose that was favorable to the defense and could have changed the outcome of the trial.

The evidence included:

Records about surveillance at the Bundy ranch;

Maps about government surveillance;

Records about the presence of government snipers;

FBI logs about activity at the ranch in the days leading up to standoff;

Law-enforcement assessments dating to 2012 that found the Bundys posed no threat;

Internal affairs reports about misconduct by Bureau of Land Management agents.

"Failure to turn over such evidence violates due process," Navarro said last month. "A fair trial at this point is impossible," reported Anglen.

Those following the Bundy cases and the FBI and Department of Justice conduct in the Hillary Clinton, Uranium One, Trump dossier and Russian collusion investigations will find a certain frightening similarity in all these travesties of justice: Obama-era FBI and Department of Justice misconduct that is deeply offensive to constitutional government.

The St. George News, a leading news site in Southern Utah that has done extensive reporting on the Bundy saga summed up the real lessons of their trial in an editorial saying:

[What happened to the Bundys] is merely the most visible symptoms of a much larger problem that must still be addressed. That problem is how to restrain and restore an overreaching, virtually unaccountable government to its legitimate limits.

The Bundy case has simply brought into the light of day just how far federal bureaucrats are willing to go to impose their will upon the American public. Can you recall ever hearing of such an abusive, militarized provocation being undertaken for the purpose of addressing an unpaid fee?

As horrific as the past several years have been for members of the Bundy family and the other defendants, the truths that emerged from hiding in this last trial are providing some long overdue vindication for the stand they’ve taken.

What kind of legitimate government would seek to destroy the livelihoods of ranchers and other producers for purposes that don’t involve objectively provable harm or criminal activity? This question pertains to more situations than the one involving Cliven Bundy.

The editors of the St. George Times then concluded:

Would legitimate authority conspire to harm people just to show them who’s in charge. Would it joke and laugh about who to shoot first? Would it deliberately seek to provoke a deadly confrontation after being told to de-escalate by sheriff’s deputies who were – finally – acting as peace officers?

Would government that exists to protect our rights to life, liberty and property choose to lie about and misrepresent those who stood up to or resisted its encroachments? Would it falsely accuse them of overblown charges that could result in prison sentences lasting several lifetimes?

Would a legitimate government allow such individuals to freely roam about society for two years if they posed an authentic threat to the public? Would it roll them up in SWAT raids and incarcerate them for more than 600 days without pretrial release based upon lies and exaggerations it told about the threat they may pose?

Would it deceive and withhold evidence that favors those it is accusing and openly mock them in court when they are seeking to defend themselves? We already know the answer to many of these questions is a resounding yes.

The dismissal of the charges against the Bundys should not be the end of this matter.

Americans should start asking the larger questions raised by the gross misconduct of the Obama-era FBI and Justice Department that has been revealed in the Bundy trials and the killing of Robert "LaVoy" Finicum: When will those government officials responsible for all the lives destroyed be brought to justice? And, is the same kind of misconduct that was used to try to destroy the Bundys and their allies at work in the Hillary Clinton, Uranium One, Trump dossier and Russian collusion investigations?