The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

User avatar
scirreeve
Posts: 4235
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:51 am

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1251

Post by scirreeve »

Jeffrey wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:20 am
Apparently there's a re-sentencing memo. Does anyone have it?
Sorry but no. I have looked on RECAP and can't find it there.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 9153
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1252

Post by Northland10 »

scirreeve wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:52 am
Jeffrey wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:20 am
Apparently there's a re-sentencing memo. Does anyone have it?
Sorry but no. I have looked on RECAP and can't find it there.
I didn't get the exhibits and there is an addendum filed under seal. This one is from his federal defenders.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 40.0_2.pdf
Edit: His defense counsel filed an errata with an updated memorandum as the original one had issues when converted to PDF. I am not going to download that one as well since it does not appear to have any substantive changes, but I am pointing out for those who may notice issues with the original filing.
ETA again.... the Final Presentence Report from the government was filed under seal.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

Jeffrey
Posts: 2059
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1253

Post by Jeffrey »

Defense document is worth the read. Doesn’t paint him in a very good light though.

User avatar
Curmudgeon
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 7:14 pm
Location: Washington County, Oregon
Occupation: Retired

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1254

Post by Curmudgeon »

The poot brigade flooding the Salt Lake City courtroom had such resounding success with ponzi scheme Koerber (only 14.1 years in the crossbar hotel and stuck in jail pending appeal), I look forward to equal success in Tacoma. :sarcasm:
Delusion: A poot who thinks that he/she is one of "we the people." ;)

Panch Villlain

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1255

Post by Panch Villlain »

Curmudgeon wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:45 am
The poot brigade flooding the Salt Lake City courtroom had such resounding success with ponzi scheme Koerber (only 14.1 years in the crossbar hotel and stuck in jail pending appeal), I look forward to equal success in Tacoma. :sarcasm:
Koerber's sentencing brought a large crowd, including a group led by Ammon Bundy. They gathered outside the federal courthouse to decry the prosecution of Koerber as "politically motivated." Bundy and Koerber became friends during Bundy's trial for a 2016 standoff in Oregon (Koerber did work for the defense and they shared the same defense attorney in their respective cases).

"He did not have a Ponzi scheme and he did not intentionally take money from people," said Bundy. "If he did, it was only through the housing crash."

https://fox13now.com/2019/10/15/free-ca ... in-prison/

User avatar
Curmudgeon
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 7:14 pm
Location: Washington County, Oregon
Occupation: Retired

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1256

Post by Curmudgeon »

"He did not have a Ponzi scheme and he did not intentionally take money from people," said Bundy. "If he did, it was only through the housing crash."

... and the two Ferraris ???? :roll:
Delusion: A poot who thinks that he/she is one of "we the people." ;)

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 30395
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Ugly bag of mostly water

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1257

Post by Foggy »

I read a few of the comments to Schaeffer Cox's latest Facebook post (he's in a Seattle area lockup now), and a huge number of them said "NOT GUILTY".

Of course, that isn't one of the options for this hearing - guilt or innocence was decided long ago, and not in Mr. Cox's favor. As we know, he's just being re-sentenced for crimes that he was found guilty of committing.

But a lot of his supporters are going to be outraged that the judge isn't going to let him argue that he isn't guilty - morons on parade. :daydream:
For more information, read it again.

(Fogbow on PayPal)

User avatar
TheNewSaint
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:05 am

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1258

Post by TheNewSaint »

Didn't you hear, Foggy? Cox only has to get one more of his charges thrown out, then he's a free man! Schaeffer said so himself!
This bramble need not be traversed.

User avatar
TheNewSaint
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:05 am

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1259

Post by TheNewSaint »

Jeffrey wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:16 am
Defense document is worth the read. Doesn’t paint him in a very good light though.
I liked this part:
It is undisputed that, other than the domestic violence episodes with his wife, Mr. Cox has never attacked, assaulted, or physically harmed another human being.
This bramble need not be traversed.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13798
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1260

Post by Notorial Dissent »

TheNewSaint wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:00 pm
Jeffrey wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:16 am
Defense document is worth the read. Doesn’t paint him in a very good light though.
I liked this part:
It is undisputed that, other than the domestic violence episodes with his wife, Mr. Cox has never attacked, assaulted, or physically harmed another human being.
I find the last part hard to believe. I can't help thinking that encouraging someone to plot a murder/execution of another innocent person is anything but harming/harmful.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
TheNewSaint
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:05 am

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1261

Post by TheNewSaint »

I'm shocked that an actual lawyer would submit this argument. "Your Honor, my client has never shown any violent tendencies, other than those times he beat his wife." They don't even try to downplay it! "Domestic violence episodes." Meaning, at least two. And it's not like he shows any remorse. He uses it as proof the mean ol' FBI is picking on him:
When Mr. Cox was charged with domestic violence involving his wife in February 2010, the FBI saw an opening that “present[ed] a variety of potential opportunities for the gathering of intelligence and prevention of violence.”
The whole document is so stupid, it's obvious that Cox wrote it himself with little input from his defense team. It's the same shit he always whines about, most of which has already been laughed out of court: I didn't do anything wrong, I was entrapped, I was only threatening to kill people if they instituted Stalinesque martial law, the undercover officers got paid for their work, I'm not safe in prison because the Muslims killed a guy, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. :crying: :crying: :crying:
This bramble need not be traversed.

Jeffrey
Posts: 2059
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1262

Post by Jeffrey »

Is the martial law thing false? The defense makes it sound uncontested.

User avatar
Azastan
Posts: 4161
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:42 am

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1263

Post by Azastan »

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:20 pm
TheNewSaint wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:00 pm
Jeffrey wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:16 am
Defense document is worth the read. Doesn’t paint him in a very good light though.
I liked this part:
It is undisputed that, other than the domestic violence episodes with his wife, Mr. Cox has never attacked, assaulted, or physically harmed another human being.
I find the last part hard to believe. I can't help thinking that encouraging someone to plot a murder/execution of another innocent person is anything but harming/harmful.
It's highly disturbing to me that Cox's attorneys think that domestic violence with his wife doesn't count as violence.
When this offense is alleged to have begun, Mr. Cox was a young man with no history of violent behavior.
The entire security plan was to be defensive in posture and to only use force in self-defense. Cox made comments again demonstrating reluctance to use physical or violent force
There's many other references to Cox supposedly being reluctant to use violence...but it's all right if it's his wife he's beating.

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 8378
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1264

Post by pipistrelle »

TheNewSaint wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:00 pm
It is undisputed that, other than the domestic violence episodes with his wife, Mr. Cox has never attacked, assaulted, or physically harmed another human being.
Defense thinks domestic violence is so common it shouldn't be held against the guy. Other than that he's good, amiright?

He never physically harmed anyone (other than the wife beating). So he's good, amiright?

(I didn't know he had DV against him. Is he divorced?)

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 9153
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1265

Post by Northland10 »

All I can figure is they are trying to downplay the domestic violence part which was likely already mentioned by the prosecution. Assuming Cox cannot take responsibility and state that he has seen the error of his ways on the DV, they are badly trying to reduce its impact. But, having only crap to work with, all that can come out is crap.

Granted, there are those who can polish shit quite nicely and make people think it's a pretty shiny ball.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13798
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1266

Post by Notorial Dissent »

Somehow, I just don't think the FBI, or anyone else for that matter, coerced Flatcap in to beating his wife and child??? I just don't see that as realistic anymore than I see anyone in LE even knowing who he was or caring until he started in on his career of domestic abuse. If that isn't violence then I don't know what is, whether it be physical or mental, and my understanding is that it was very physical of the going to the hospital variety. Flatcap is a real sterling sample of humanity and oh so innocent. :sick:
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Dave at Sea
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:48 am
Location: Sand Sun Surf
Occupation: Busy

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1267

Post by Dave at Sea »

Pure poot :sick:

Jeffrey
Posts: 2059
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1268

Post by Jeffrey »

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:58 pm
the FBI coerced Flatcap in to beating his wife and child
Might want to re-read that section, that is not what they are saying, at all.

boots
Posts: 3341
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1269

Post by boots »

I think their point is that domestic violence is a far different animal than the alleged plot he was arrested and tried for.

It's a fair point.

He's still guilty.

User avatar
ArthurWankspittle
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 12:38 pm

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1270

Post by ArthurWankspittle »

pipistrelle wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:35 pm
(I didn't know he had DV against him. Is he divorced?)
Yes No. IMHO this is where it all started. LE came round following the domestic violence and started doing tyrannical things like asking questions and looking to see if the kids were OK. Flatcap resented the interference in his perfect poot lifestyle.
Trump appoints Incitatus to lead corona virus response.
#KingDonaldsPlague

User avatar
scirreeve
Posts: 4235
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:51 am

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1271

Post by scirreeve »

I looked at AK court records - don't see that he is divorced but those records might not be visible. No idea. I have heard before that Marti wants nothing to do with him. Not sure if true.

Clairez
Posts: 1314
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:08 am
Location: Indiana

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1272

Post by Clairez »

scirreeve wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:07 am
I looked at AK court records - don't see that he is divorced but those records might not be visible. No idea. I have heard before that Marti wants nothing to do with him. Not sure if true.
I'm pretty sure it is true. When his kids came to visit him in prison, it was his mother who brought them not his wife or ex-wife.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13798
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1273

Post by Notorial Dissent »

Back in the early days of this I seem to remember it being mentioned that they were divorced and that she wanted nothing to do with him, but that was a long ways back.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Somerset
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1274

Post by Somerset »

scirreeve wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:07 am
I looked at AK court records - don't see that he is divorced but those records might not be visible. No idea. I have heard before that Marti wants nothing to do with him. Not sure if true.
Maybe in the process, but not finalized?

User avatar
DZ Bill
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:23 pm
Location: Cog Bunker 5
Occupation: Badass

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1275

Post by DZ Bill »

I would like to reiterate that to reimburse me just for my expenses the government would need to write me a check for 35K additional If they wanted to reimburse me for the inventory value alone of my business another 500k on top of that ....so no I never got paid neither did I ever expect to....I did get a 90K reimbursement a year after the sentencing but again didnt even cover my costs (lost 45 K on one home sale alone). Also never pulled a knife on Zerbie ....but hey his defense doesn't have much to work with ...is it BS absolutely...his attorney is giving it his best shot though and I dont fault him for trying

Post Reply

Return to “Sovereign Citizens, Private Militias, and Citizen Grand Juries”