Bundy Trial Oregon Part I (Ammon et. al.)

Post Reply
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 17289
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Bundy Trial Oregon Part I (Ammon et. al.)

#1

Post by Suranis »

This is a thread for discussion of the issues, legal analysis, and general mayhem of the Bundy brothers and their co-conspirators (Alleged)
The difference between the Middle Ages, and the Age of the Internet, is that in the Middle Ages no-one thought the Earth was flat.

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 8342
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: The Bundy Trial

#2

Post by RoadScholar »

Suranis wrote:This is a thread for discussion of the issues, legal analysis, and general mayhem of the Bundy brothers and their co-conspirators (Alleged)
Should "trial" be changed to "trials?" :twisted:
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 17289
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: The Bundy Trial

#3

Post by Suranis »

Good idea. *ding*
The difference between the Middle Ages, and the Age of the Internet, is that in the Middle Ages no-one thought the Earth was flat.

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10612
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: The Bundy Trials

#4

Post by Sugar Magnolia »

Moving from the other thread to get things kicked off.
raicha wrote:The case is now active on PACER. Here are the minutes of the last hearing, with info for future hearings. All defendants will appear tomorrow at 1:30 for detention hearings.

01/27/2016 22 Minutes of Proceedings: First Appearance on Complaint before Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman as to Ammon Bundy (1) held on 1/27/2016. Defendant advised of rights. Defendant proceeds as named. Defendant detained pending further hearing. Detention Hearing is set for 1/29/2016 at 01:30 PM in Portland Courtroom 9B before the duty magistrate. Preliminary Hearing is set for 2/3/2016 at 01:30 PM in Portland Courtroom 11A before the duty magistrate. Arraignment is set for 2/24/2016 at 01:30 PM in Portland Courtroom 11A before the duty magistrate. Counsel Present for the Government: Ethan D. Knight and Geoffrey A. Barrow. Counsel Present for Defendant: Lissa Casey (retained). (Court Reporter Jill Jessup) (gw) (Entered: 01/27/2016)

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:22 pm

Re: The Bundy Trials

#5

Post by Dr. Caligari »

Detention Hearing is set for 1/29/2016 at 01:30 PM in Portland Courtroom 9B before the duty magistrate.
My prediction: bail will be denied altogether, or set very high.
Preliminary Hearing is set for 2/3/2016 at 01:30 PM in Portland Courtroom 11A before the duty magistrate.
No preliminary hearing will be held if an indictment is returned before then, though I'm not sure if the Government will be able to get an indictment that quickly.
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Law

User avatar
jtmunkus
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Location: Cone of Silence

Re: The Bundy Trials

#6

Post by jtmunkus »

Phase 2.

:bored: :waiting: :dazed: :popcorn: :pickle:

User avatar
Sweetie
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 4:46 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: The Bundy Trials

#7

Post by Sweetie »

I don't know if the American justice system is ready for the amount of craziness that is coming.

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:22 pm

Re: The Bundy Trials

#8

Post by Dr. Caligari »

bill seeb wrote:I have a couple of serious questions for any of you who has more legal experience than I (which would like be most of you):
1.) If Bundy hires a real lawyer (retains his current attorney), what are the chances that the lawyer will be willing to present the case that Bundy seemed destined to pursue (i.e.. all the Constitutional nonsense he has been babbling about for the last several years).
Very slim. The lawyer has to answer to the Court and to the Bar. He may give Bundy some leeway, but not too much.
2.) If the attorney doesn't agree with Bundy's strategy, I assume he can resign. Is that right?
Not without the Court's permission, but "my client insists I do something unethical" is usually good grounds for permission to withdraw.
3.) If Bundy wants to bring in one of his bogus lawyers to represent him, I assume that will be allowed. Is that right?
No how, no way. In federal court, you can represent yourself or use a real lawyer, but you can't be represented by a non-lawyer.
4.) What kind of latitude will Bundy have to go on Constitutional fishing expeditions in federal court?
Very little.
5.) Supposing that Bundy is allowed to bring in one of his bogus lawyers to represent him, if convicted, does his poor choice of an attorney become a basis for appeal?
See #3 above. What does happen in many SovCit trials is that the defendant fires his court-appointed lawyer, represents himself, gets convicted, and then hires a lawyer to argue on appeal that the judge shouldn't have let him represent himself. The argument is usually a loser, so long as: (1) the judge properly warned the defendant of the risks of self-representation, and (2) the defendant showed some minimal level of mental competence.
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Law

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45752
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: The Bundy Trials

#9

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Nicely answered, Dr. C. :daydream: (Who is my lawyer, if I ever need one.)

User avatar
mmmirele
Posts: 2456
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Xenu's Red Mountain Trap

Re: The Bundy Trials

#10

Post by mmmirele »

I'm thinking some of our defendants may just want to skip all this booshwah and go straight for the "let's make a deal" phase with the federal prosecutor. In exchange for testimony, natch. I have to wonder who will be the first to deal. I bet it's Santilli.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45752
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: The Bundy Trials

#11

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

mmmirele wrote:I'm thinking some of our defendants may just want to skip all this booshwah and go straight for the "let's make a deal" phase with the federal prosecutor. In exchange for testimony, natch. I have to wonder who will be the first to deal. I bet it's Santilli.
:yeah: :ymca:

chancery
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: The Bundy Trials

#12

Post by chancery »

mmmirele wrote:I'm thinking some of our defendants may just want to skip all this booshwah and go straight for the "let's make a deal" phase with the federal prosecutor. In exchange for testimony, natch. I have to wonder who will be the first to deal. I bet it's Santilli.
I'm sure that some of them will. But I'm beginning to wonder how much the prosecutors will need to rely on witness testimony, particularly testimony from the likes of this crowd. There are lots of advantages to video evidence; it can't be cross-examined and made to break down on the stand. The deals being offered might not be very attractive.

User avatar
Mockingbird
Posts: 874
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: Central Oklahoma

Re: The Bundy Trials

#13

Post by Mockingbird »

Dr. Caligari wrote: What does happen in many SovCit trials is that the defendant fires his court-appointed lawyer, represents himself, gets convicted, and then hires a lawyer to argue on appeal that the judge shouldn't have let him represent himself. The argument is usually a loser, so long as: (1) the judge properly warned the defendant of the risks of self-representation, and (2) the defendant showed some minimal level of mental competence.
That answers a lot of my newbie, layman type questions.

So he can't have some self-anointed Galactic Barrister of the Constitutionalissimus Unionated States of the Real America "lawyer" represent him.

Question: But he goes "pro se", could he have a non-attorney "advisor" (of some sort) at his side?

Anyway, I am excited about following these events as they unfurl here now in the legal thread, and gratitude to all veteran fogbowers for indulging us in our newbiness.

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5919
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: The Bundy Trials

#14

Post by Maybenaut »

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
mmmirele wrote:I'm thinking some of our defendants may just want to skip all this booshwah and go straight for the "let's make a deal" phase with the federal prosecutor. In exchange for testimony, natch. I have to wonder who will be the first to deal. I bet it's Santilli.
:yeah: :ymca:
I also think this is where we see a separation of the wheat of true sovcit believers from the chaff of folks who are just disaffected and wanted to be part of something larger than themselves. The chaff will be looking to cut deals.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Re: The Bundy Trials

#15

Post by SueDB »

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
mmmirele wrote:I'm thinking some of our defendants may just want to skip all this booshwah and go straight for the "let's make a deal" phase with the federal prosecutor. In exchange for testimony, natch. I have to wonder who will be the first to deal. I bet it's Santilli.
:yeah: :ymca:
It does match his perceived lack of any ethics and overweening ego. He's not the one supposed to be charged cause he did nothing wrong cause he's a reporter that is only reporting exercising his first amendment rights cause babble babble argle bargle bargle Santilli argle Santilli Show bargle.
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
mmmirele
Posts: 2456
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Xenu's Red Mountain Trap

Re: The Bundy Trials

#16

Post by mmmirele »

Here's a link to a slooooow as molasses cloud site for a copy of the indictment complaint for Jason Patrick, Duane Ehmer and Dylan Anderson. Same stuff, for the most part, as the previous indictment complaint, but with added Patrick, Ehmer and Anderson, with pics.

I'd post it here except the pics blows the PDF to over 3 MB.

http://res.cloudinary.com/bdy4ger4/imag ... p2bopq.pdf

RLBaty
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:27 pm

Re: The Bundy Trials

#17

Post by RLBaty »

mmmirele wrote:
I'm thinking some of our defendants may just want to skip
all this booshwah and go straight for the "let's make a deal"
phase with the federal prosecutor. In exchange for testimony,
natch.

I have to wonder who will be the first to deal. I bet it's Santilli.
If Santilli cuts a deal, I do hope the evidence includes his threats against the federal judge in the Hansen/Hovind case last year and that it includes some hard time, the typical 3 years of Supervised Release, a federal felony conviction resulting in him losing his guns, and some other strict conditions (i.e., like having to get a real job.

chancery
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: The Bundy Trials

#18

Post by chancery »

Mockingbird wrote: Question: But he goes "pro se", could he have a non-attorney "advisor" (of some sort) at his side?
That's frequently done, but not always. It's in the judge's discretion.

Edit: Bob has pointed out that my eyes slid right over the "non-" in your question. No non-attorney advisors at counsel table, never.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 17289
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: The Bundy Trials

#19

Post by Suranis »

mmmirele wrote: I'd post it here except the pics blows the PDF to over 3 MB.
You should have used layers.

*tss boom*
The difference between the Middle Ages, and the Age of the Internet, is that in the Middle Ages no-one thought the Earth was flat.

chancery
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: The Bundy Trials

#20

Post by chancery »

mmmirele wrote:Here's a link to a slooooow as molasses cloud site for a copy of the indictment for Jason Patrick, Duane Ehmer and Dylan Anderson. Same stuff, for the most part, as the previous indictment, but with added Patrick, Ehmer and Anderson, with pics.
http://res.cloudinary.com/bdy4ger4/imag ... p2bopq.pdf
I don't mean to quibble, but it's a complaint, not an indictment. You need a grand jury for an indictment, and that takes time. This is a placeholder.

User avatar
mmmirele
Posts: 2456
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Xenu's Red Mountain Trap

Re: The Bundy Trials

#21

Post by mmmirele »

Suranis wrote:
mmmirele wrote: I'd post it here except the pics blows the PDF to over 3 MB.
You should have used layers.

*tss boom*
I don't have the original, I was swiping it from Oregon Public Broadcasting. I would have made it smaller if it had been me running the scanner. :)

User avatar
bill seeb
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 10:03 am

Re: The Bundy Trials

#22

Post by bill seeb »

I've been asked to repost this here:

Now that we are mostly through the occupation phase of what I will call the "Continuing Bundy Saga", we begin to move into the judicial phase of the confrontation. I didn't expect, nor does it appear likely from Bundy's most recent statement, that he will be changing his stripes. This will be interesting but probably not as entertaining as watching the Three Stooges Festival out at the refuge. Consider that with each of the defendants represented by an attorney, the number of participant with triple digit IQ's will more than double. This of course assumes that they do in fact hire competent legal counsel by which I mean someone who has actually gone to law school, passed the bar and worked a case or two.

I have a couple of serious questions for any of you who has more legal experience than I (which would likely be most of you):
1.) If Bundy hires a real lawyer (retains his current attorney), what are the chances that the lawyer will be willing to present the case that Bundy seemed destined to pursue (i.e.. all the Constitutional nonsense he has been babbling about for the last several years).
2.) If the attorney doesn't agree with Bundy's strategy, I assume he can resign. Is that right?
3.) If Bundy wants to bring in one of his bogus lawyers to represent him, I assume that will be allowed. Is that right?
4.) What kind of latitude will Bundy have to go on Constitutional fishing expeditions in federal court?
5.) Supposing that Bundy is allowed to bring in one of his bogus lawyers to represent him, if convicted, does his poor choice of an attorney become a basis for appeal?

User avatar
mmmirele
Posts: 2456
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Xenu's Red Mountain Trap

Re: The Bundy Trials

#23

Post by mmmirele »

chancery wrote:
mmmirele wrote:Here's a link to a slooooow as molasses cloud site for a copy of the indictment for Jason Patrick, Duane Ehmer and Dylan Anderson. Same stuff, for the most part, as the previous indictment, but with added Patrick, Ehmer and Anderson, with pics.
http://res.cloudinary.com/bdy4ger4/imag ... p2bopq.pdf
I don't mean to quibble, but it's a complaint, not an indictment. You need a grand jury for an indictment, and that takes time. This is a placeholder.
Fixed. I'm a little distracted. My car needed real mechanical repair work for the first time today (excluding tires, windshields and batteries). I've had it for nearly 10 years, so the cost of the repairs is kind of blowing me away.

User avatar
bill seeb
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 10:03 am

Re: The Bundy Trials

#24

Post by bill seeb »

[quote="Dr. Caligari"][quote="bill seeb"]I have a couple of serious questions for any of you who has more legal experience than I (which would like be most of you):
Thanks!

chancery
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: The Bundy Trials

#25

Post by chancery »

bill seeb wrote:I've been asked to repost this here:
FYI, there's already a reply upthread, in addition to the reply in the original thread.

Post Reply

Return to “Bundy Ranch/Malheur NWR”