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

User avatar
Burn'em Down
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:20 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13426

Post by Burn'em Down »

Plutodog wrote:
HighPlainsDrifter wrote:
Scario wrote:
During the trial, the jury found them guilty of 2 of the 9 charges. While they were still figuring out the verdict of the other 7 charges, the Hammond's took the plea deal and the other 7 charges were dropped. They did sign a deal stating they would do the 5 years. The judge erred in giving them less than the mandatory minimum.
He erred not. He was going to retire and felt that this was his (last) chance to put his own thoughts about justice above the law.
He erred indeed. He decided to ignore law and precedent and act out. He was rightly overturned on appeal.
Judge Hogan in a outright brazen failure to follow minimum sentencing guidelines is the "original perpetrator" of the refuge occupation. Due to his arrogance in not following the federal mandate he caused the need for the gov appeals so the precedent would not stand, which lead to the erroneous calls of double jeopardy by the poots, that then lead to post Bunkerville Bundys gloming onto the issue. If he'd just sentenced as he was supposed to (pre bunkerville) the Hammonds would have been little more than a footnote in Harney county history. I hope "judge" Hogan has a shitty retirement.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35106
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13427

Post by realist »

Maybenaut wrote:
chancery wrote:IANACrL, JAB is an experienced trial judge, and maybe I haven't thought this through carefully enough, but to me this trial is going off the rails.
I don't think so. The defense is entitled to put on a case, and JAB is keeping in reined in, I think.

Just from the tweets it appears to me that Ammon Bundy is hanging himself wrt the conspiracy charge (admitting going to Burns to "take a hard stand" against the federal government, then ultimately ending up at the refuge with guns (even if his purpose in having the guns is to protect himself from the FBI). How does one "take a hard stand" against the federal government from within a federal facility and not think he's impeding federal officers from doing their jobs?

And the prosecution is going to get a chance to refocus the jury on cross-examination.
I certainly agree that the defendants are allowed to present a defense. They're not allowed to present just any defense they like.

If the tweets and stories and BOTG are accurate (and I believe they are reasonably so) the judge, since the defense case began and for a short time prior) has been letting in the kitchen sink. Testimony in no way related to defending the charges in this case. Much of it testimony and evidence she ruled (some more than once) would not be allowed, and rightly so.

I do agree somewhat that it seems Ammon is not doing himself any great favors (in the main) yet he's certainly been allowed to present a great stream of irrelevant testimony/evidence mostly seeming to be designed to garner sympathy from the jury. Which I get is a common play but this seems to be going way beyond what should be allowed, IMHO.

Hopefully the prosecution will tightly focus their cross and bring the jury back to what's relevant/pertinent.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
phelana
Posts: 2133
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 8:05 pm
Location: In the psych ward

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13428

Post by phelana »

Beautiful Leaf wrote:I came back onto this thread in order to address the short amount of time the prosecution has estimated for the cross-examination. I will keep my fingers crossed that the prosecution keeps its eyes on the prize.

Throughout my 25 years of active practice, I saw numerous cases lost when one side would lose track of what their burden of proof was to be. This is a fairly straightforward case, and probably the best thing the prosecution could do would be to ask by way of verbal bullet form cross-examination questions that lead Ammon and the jury straight through the morass. We are not here to put Ammon Bundy's religious beliefs on trial, nor are we trying to paint him as a monster. Nor however should he be allowed to paint himself as David versus the Goliath of government .

By asking Sheriff Ward to make a stand on behalf of the Hammonds, there is no debate that Ammon was expecting the sheriff to be willing to contravene the efforts of federal employees, backed up by weapons if need be, to comply with the federal courts order returning the Hammonds for the remainder of the sentence to which they agreed to serve.

By bringing a considerable amount of weapons and ammo to the refuge, they not only created an intimidating and threatening environment in which the federal employees of the refuge would likely find impossible to work within, they were there to make a hard stand against any who try to run them out of there by interfering with the federal and possibly state LEOs whose job it is to resolve the situation of getting the property back to where belongs in the eyes of the majority of American citizens.
:snippity:
And that seems like a pretty good summation that you've written to refocus our thoughts. Thank you.
Beatrice: Sigh no more, ladies, sigh no more. Men were deceivers ever. One foot in sea and one on shore, to one thing constant never. Then sigh not so but let them go and be you blithe and bonny, converting all your sounds of woe into hey nonny nonny.

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8807
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13429

Post by RVInit »

phelana wrote:
Beautiful Leaf wrote:I came back onto this thread in order to address the short amount of time the prosecution has estimated for the cross-examination. I will keep my fingers crossed that the prosecution keeps its eyes on the prize.

Throughout my 25 years of active practice, I saw numerous cases lost when one side would lose track of what their burden of proof was to be. This is a fairly straightforward case, and probably the best thing the prosecution could do would be to ask by way of verbal bullet form cross-examination questions that lead Ammon and the jury straight through the morass. We are not here to put Ammon Bundy's religious beliefs on trial, nor are we trying to paint him as a monster. Nor however should he be allowed to paint himself as David versus the Goliath of government .

By asking Sheriff Ward to make a stand on behalf of the Hammonds, there is no debate that Ammon was expecting the sheriff to be willing to contravene the efforts of federal employees, backed up by weapons if need be, to comply with the federal courts order returning the Hammonds for the remainder of the sentence to which they agreed to serve.

By bringing a considerable amount of weapons and ammo to the refuge, they not only created an intimidating and threatening environment in which the federal employees of the refuge would likely find impossible to work within, they were there to make a hard stand against any who try to run them out of there by interfering with the federal and possibly state LEOs whose job it is to resolve the situation of getting the property back to where belongs in the eyes of the majority of American citizens.
:snippity:
And that seems like a pretty good summation that you've written to refocus our thoughts. Thank you.
:yeah:
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 26769
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13430

Post by Volkonski »

Leah Sottile ‏@Leah_Sottile 13m
13 minutes ago

Said "several proposals" were tossed out at Jan. 2 mtg: putting cattle on Hammond land w/o BLM permission; starting presc. burn w/o perm
Leah Sottile ‏@Leah_Sottile 8m
8 minutes ago

At meeting: Finicum, Cavalier, Cliff Gardner&wife, Ritzheimer, Payne.. Bundy: "I hope I'm not making a list for the govt's next indictment"
I think he might just be doing that. ;)
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
SparklyFlitter
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 4:32 pm
Occupation: Mom to a fourteen year old "future lawyer", substitute teacher & former Silicon Valley Shark
Contact:

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13431

Post by SparklyFlitter »

Volkonski wrote:
Leah Sottile ‏@Leah_Sottile 13m
13 minutes ago

Said "several proposals" were tossed out at Jan. 2 mtg: putting cattle on Hammond land w/o BLM permission; starting presc. burn w/o perm
Leah Sottile ‏@Leah_Sottile 8m
8 minutes ago

At meeting: Finicum, Cavalier, Cliff Gardner&wife, Ritzheimer, Payne.. Bundy: "I hope I'm not making a list for the govt's next indictment"
I think he might just be doing that. ;)
Ummm...would this not be direct admission of "conspiring"?? :point:

User avatar
Mink
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:46 pm
Location: Mink's Den

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13432

Post by Mink »

Midafternoon Tweet Sheet 05 October 2016

All extraneous stuff removed from tweets. Times are approximate.

Early morning Tweet Sheet: http://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 15#p826615
Midmorning Tweet Sheet: http://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 85#p826685
Lunch Time Tweet Sheet: http://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 51#p826751

Maxine (Oregonian)
begin 3:06pm pst

1. Jason Patrick tells court he won't take the 5th if he's called to testify
2. Ammon B said on 1/1 he meant 'hard stand' 'meant going to refuge' but he didn't share it w/ anyone.
3. ABundy said in backroom mtg at Ye'old Cafe on 1/2 he first proposed the refuge takeover
4. AB:violation of Art. 1, Sec 8, Clause 17 'is the issue!' 'This is the reason we went to the refuge and did what we did .'
5. AB said US Rep. Greg Walden's speech on House floor in early Jan encouraged him to stay at the MNWR
6. ABundy said Rep. Walden was articulating what he believed. At that point, Bundy thought:'What we were doing was working.
7. AB said Walden's speech in Congress showed:'They were starting to actually listen....It was working.'
8. AB said he had 4 conversations with US Rep. Walden's office
9. A Bundy argued the refuge takeover was never about impeding the employees:'This is so much bigger than the refuge itself.''10.
10. AB:The problem is not at refuge employee level.'The problem is up above,they won't listen to us won't consider our rights.'
11. AB said the plan was to stake claim to refuge through adverse possesssion ; hence, signs changed, new PO box
12. Why guns? Bundy said that was done to be taken seriously
13. If had just protested at refuge, would have been taken away in a paddy wagon and not heard, Bundy said
14. AB talked about his friend LaVoy being killed and that he misses him
15. ABundy had expected Feds to pursue a trespass or eviction and argue land control in civil court

Conrad Wilson (OPB)
begin 3:06pm pst

1. If called as a witness, Jason Patrick won't plead the 5th
2. Ammon Bundy said he did have a plan on Jan 1 to take over the refuge. Before lunch he said he did not.
3. Bundy said he was encouraged by Rep. Greg Walden's speech after the occupation began. "He understood the issue," Bundy said
4. "He was articulating in my view how I felt," Bundy said of Walden's speech.
5. "Standing on the Congress floor I began to understand what we were doing was working, they were actually starting to listen," Bundy said
6. Bundy said he spoke with Walden's office about four times during the occupation
7. Bundy said the presence of firearms allowed their message to get out. Without them, Bundy said, the group would've been arrested

Leah Sottile (independent print journalist)
begin 3:12pm pst

1. RE: Jan.2 meeting before rally. Mumford: "When you said hard stand,what did you mean? Bundy: "I meant going to the refuge."
2. Said "several proposals" were tossed out at Jan. 2 mtg: putting cattle on Hammond land w/o BLM permission; starting presc. burn w/o perm
3. Again Mumford asked "can I have Mr. Bundy read the Constitution?" Knight: "I would object to that request."
4. Bundy grew frustrated with this objection. "This is the case! This is the reason why we did what we did!"
5. Then we got a rousing explanation of adverse possession, with Bundy continuing to emphasize this was "in my belief"
6. At meeting: Finicum, Cavalier, Cliff Gardner&wife, Ritzheimer, Payne.. Bundy: "I hope I'm not making a list for the govt's next indictment"
7. Bundy: "I proposed to them that we go into the refuge and we basically take possession of this land ... I want to make that clear"
8. A Bundy said a stand has happened at ev point in history when things changed. "When Martin Luther King stood, he had to make a hard stand."
9. Did he want to impede fed employees? Bundy: "This is so much bigger than the employees of the refuge or the BLM... than the refuge itself"
10. Bundy wanted to obtain the refuge by HIS DEFINITION of adverse possession, get "mass amount of media attention"
11. Bundy: Refuge employees aren't "where the problem is." It's "up above them."
12. Did Bundy carry gun during occupation? Bundy: "I didn't need to."
13. Why guns @ refuge? Bundy: "The only way we could get this msg out is if they respected us a little."
14. Ammon Bundy said that when Rep. Walden gave speech on floor of House that it encouraged him to stay: "What we were doing was working!"
15. Occupiers set up PO Box. even tho federal. Bundy said its in Constitution:"Isn't it a wonderful,beautiful thing we enjoy...our post office?"
16. Bundy said he wanted to be served eviction to get in a civil court where"we can dispute all of these things where they've been ignoring us."
17. Mumford: "You've been described as a leader..." Bundy: "Yes but... I don't tell other men what to do."

Steven Dubois (AP)
begin 3:10pm pst

1. Bundy: no guns would have led to quick arrests, no media coverage of western issues. Guns, even unused, provide some respect

end 3:34pm pst
###
Quite Sane

User avatar
Mink
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:46 pm
Location: Mink's Den

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13433

Post by Mink »

Just now from Leah Sotille: Guess whaaaaaaat. Fiore is on the stand and Ammon is back up...tomorrow. GODDDDDDDDDDDDD
Quite Sane

MimiConnor
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:06 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13434

Post by MimiConnor »

As an introduction - IANAL - I am a librarian who has been following this case since the beginning. My perspective/question is as follows : Why is the judge allowing this trial to devolve into what appears to be chaos? As an uneducated follower, it seems to me that the defense has been allowed to take over the courtroom and create considerable chaos and confusion. I assume this is not usual in court? Is there any reason why this is being allowed? Thanks in advance for any enlightenment.

TexasTee
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 10:56 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13435

Post by TexasTee »

Mink wrote:Just now from Leah Sotille: Guess whaaaaaaat. Fiore is on the stand and Ammon is back up...tomorrow. GODDDDDDDDDDDDD

Why is JAB allowing this?
Don't Panic.

User avatar
Mink
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:46 pm
Location: Mink's Den

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13436

Post by Mink »

Question for criminal lawyers: Doesn't all this switching off of witnesses in between Ammon's pieces confuse jurors? I find it really irritating.
Quite Sane

User avatar
Mink
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:46 pm
Location: Mink's Den

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13437

Post by Mink »

An additional tweet from Karina Brown: Mumford managed to squeeze in a video appearance by LaVoy, schooling reporters on govt overreach hours after the takeover.
Quite Sane

gshevlin
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:05 pm
Location: Dallas TX
Contact:

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13438

Post by gshevlin »

Mink wrote:An additional tweet from Karina Brown: Mumford managed to squeeze in a video appearance by LaVoy, schooling reporters on govt overreach hours after the takeover.
Judge Brown has lost control of this trial. The defendants are putting on a massive grandstanding shit-show designed to sow confusion and doubt in the jurors. Unless she gains control by gaveling a few people into silence, and shuts down the grandstanding, this could end in either a mistrial or acquittals by a bunch of jurors who are going to throw up their hands and vote Not Guilty out of confusion.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10533
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13439

Post by Mikedunford »

HighPlainsDrifter wrote:
Plutodog wrote:
HighPlainsDrifter wrote:
He erred not. He was going to retire and felt that this was his (last) chance to put his own thoughts about justice above the law.
He erred indeed. He decided to ignore law and precedent and act out. He was rightly overturned on appeal.
/offtopic
For me as a non native English speaker to "err " means to make a "nonvoluntary " mistake and not breaking the law with open eyes. But I may be wrong.
This is actually not sarcasm:
As an American, my theoretical knowledge of English is not terribly strong. That said, for me "err" means to make a mistake regardless of whether the mistake is voluntary or deliberate - in normal use. In legal use, that's even more the case.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Mink
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:46 pm
Location: Mink's Den

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13440

Post by Mink »

Another tweet from [the very late] Karina Brown: Ammon's basic premise: who cares about impeding govt workers? Fighting feds' ability to own land way more important.
Quite Sane

User avatar
Mink
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:46 pm
Location: Mink's Den

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13441

Post by Mink »

Another Karina Brown Tweet just now: Ammon on adverse possession is gleeful as a little boy discussing trading baseball cards.
Quite Sane

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7347
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13442

Post by raicha »

TexasTee wrote:
Mink wrote:Just now from Leah Sotille: Guess whaaaaaaat. Fiore is on the stand and Ammon is back up...tomorrow. GODDDDDDDDDDDDD

Why is JAB allowing this?
Maybe because no one is objecting. Maybe because the prosecution believes that AB is just strengthening their case.

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 3426
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 4:05 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13443

Post by Jim »

realist wrote:Hopefully the prosecution will tightly focus their cross and bring the jury back to what's relevant/pertinent.
"Isn't it true Mr Bundy, that the Hammonds did not want your help?"

"Isn't it true Mr Bundy, that the Hammonds refused to go along with your plans?"

"Isn't it true Mr Bundy, that the Hammonds agreed with the courts and voluntarily turned themselves in?"

"Isn't it then true Mr Bundy that it was NOT for the Hammonds that you led an armed takeover of Malheur, but you did it for your own self-serving motives?"

I don't think the prosecution will have much trouble getting the focus back to where they need it...in fact in closing they can point out that nobody has been charged with making a mess.

Hercule Parrot
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:58 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13444

Post by Hercule Parrot »

realist wrote: I certainly agree that the defendants are allowed to present a defense. They're not allowed to present just any defense they like.

If the tweets and stories and BOTG are accurate (and I believe they are reasonably so) the judge, since the defense case began and for a short time prior) has been letting in the kitchen sink. Testimony in no way related to defending the charges in this case. Much of it testimony and evidence she ruled (some more than once) would not be allowed, and rightly so.

I do agree somewhat that it seems Ammon is not doing himself any great favors (in the main) yet he's certainly been allowed to present a great stream of irrelevant testimony/evidence mostly seeming to be designed to garner sympathy from the jury. Which I get is a common play but this seems to be going way beyond what should be allowed, IMHO.

Hopefully the prosecution will tightly focus their cross and bring the jury back to what's relevant/pertinent.
Yes, it does seem to have become a bit of a circus. Ammo making his evangelical speech about what God told him to do, a decent rancher under the jackboot of the federal government etc. Members of the congregation standing up to applaud him. Mumbles now being downright insolent to JAB, poots cheering like it's a football game. They're going flat out for nullification - no attempt to defend, only trying to create a moral justification .

I think it won't work. The jury won't buy the "simple honest folk driven to an act of desperation". I admit I dare not think about the possibility that a couple of jurors are swayed to sympathy, acquittal would be a carte blanche for further armed seditionizing.

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 10070
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13445

Post by GreatGrey »

15. ABundy had expected Feds to pursue a trespass or eviction and argue land control in civil court
You bastards charged us as criminals, we didn't expect that. UNFAIR!
I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

Tuba Cain
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:10 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13446

Post by Tuba Cain »

:yeah: :yeah: Not a lawyer, but I think she's letting the jury get a full taste of how totally out to lunch these fools really are. I hope to goodness someone brings up reptilian shape shifters... oh, to be so fortunate!

User avatar
phelana
Posts: 2133
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 8:05 pm
Location: In the psych ward

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13447

Post by phelana »

I don't know that JAB has lost control. I think if anything, ABs testimony is making their decision very clear.

I've been reading tweets to my SO who hasn't followed this. I reminded him of the charge. SO seems to think that AB is incriminating himself rather nicely.

This could be a win win. Ammon gets to make his irrelevant adverse possession argument so he's happy. He incriminates himself while making that argument which makes us all happy. Win win.
Beatrice: Sigh no more, ladies, sigh no more. Men were deceivers ever. One foot in sea and one on shore, to one thing constant never. Then sigh not so but let them go and be you blithe and bonny, converting all your sounds of woe into hey nonny nonny.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10533
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13448

Post by Mikedunford »

GreatGrey wrote:
15. ABundy had expected Feds to pursue a trespass or eviction and argue land control in civil court
You bastards charged us as criminals, we didn't expect that. UNFAIR!
I'm sure that the criminal and/or trial lawyers among us can come up with a more eloquent way of expressing this, but when I read this the cross-examination question that pops into my mind is:

Mr. Bundy, you do not seriously expect that anyone in this room is fucking stupid enough to actually believe that you thought the US would take you to civil court, do you?
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 26769
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13449

Post by Volkonski »

IANAL but it seems to me that Ammon has made the prosecution's case for them. He did conspire before the fact with a group of now identified persons to occupy the refuge. He did use guns to intimidate and prevent Federal officers from doing their jobs.

OK, he still claims not to have had a gun.
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Mink
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:46 pm
Location: Mink's Den

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon

#13450

Post by Mink »

From Karina Brown: And... cue the comparisons to MLK. Ammon: "When MLK stood, he had to make a hard stand.

I have to say that comparisons like this almost make me physically ill. :bigvomit:
Quite Sane

Post Reply

Return to “Bundy Ranch/Malheur NWR”