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

User avatar
Whip
Posts: 4093
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

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

#16176

Post by Whip »

Kendra wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:39 am
inappriate
Did he really spell it that way?
he spelled Mumpoot wrong multiple times so..........

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4573
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

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

#16177

Post by NMgirl »

Whip wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:59 pm
Kendra wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:39 am
inappriate
Did he really spell it that way?
he spelled Mumpoot wrong multiple times so..........
:rotflmao:

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4573
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

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

#16178

Post by NMgirl »

I have now read, although not at all closely, Mumford's Response. He trashes Judge Mosman, calls upon his speech impediment multiple times as an excuse/explanation for questionable behavior, claims outright that Judge Brown was prejudiced against him. In his Response, Mumpoot rehashes the entire case from the perspective of a much-wronged and maligned defense attorney. For those who observed Mumford in the Oregon courtroom, it's an unwelcome reminder of the circus atmosphere which reigned supreme. It's painful to relive and reinforces my already-deep dislike for Mumpoot. Credit where credit is due: Mumpoot is a world-class whiner. Perhaps he studied at the feet of GIL. If so, I believe he has now surpassed his mentor.
Given the timing of such matters, what makes anyone think that Judge Mosman momentarily possessed the necessarily impartial judicial faculties to issue a qualifying order to show cause in the first place? The obvious answer is that he did not. And I am left to suffer the consequences of his inappropriate actions, including, among other things, the time, resources, and relationships that it has cost me to prepare this Response to the false and misleading OSC that he issued.
[Bold text and underlining are Mumford's, not mine.]
Far from any misconduct on my part, the exchange demonstrates Judge Brown’s hostility and bias against me...
The entire document is laced with references to Mumpoot's stutter and how that speech impediment may have caused him to sound disrespectful, to shout, etc.

:bigvomit:

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 8434
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

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

#16179

Post by pipistrelle »

Did the stutter also make him late most of the time?

User avatar
maydijo
Posts: 2764
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:23 pm
Location: where women glow and men plunder
Occupation: harassing marsupials

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

#16180

Post by maydijo »

Okay, that just pisses me off. I was in speech therapy for about ten years. Nobody who hears me talk now would pick up on it, but I identify as someone with a speech impediment. That isn't an excuse for losing my cool and yelling at someone.

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1963
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

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

#16181

Post by neeneko »

maydijo wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:46 pm
Okay, that just pisses me off. I was in speech therapy for about ten years. Nobody who hears me talk now would pick up on it, but I identify as someone with a speech impediment. That isn't an excuse for losing my cool and yelling at someone.
He has made a big deal in the past about how he uses his speech impediment as a courtroom tool to gain sympathy from juries, so this is part of a bigger pattern for him.

User avatar
maydijo
Posts: 2764
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:23 pm
Location: where women glow and men plunder
Occupation: harassing marsupials

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

#16182

Post by maydijo »

neeneko wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:02 pm
maydijo wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:46 pm
Okay, that just pisses me off. I was in speech therapy for about ten years. Nobody who hears me talk now would pick up on it, but I identify as someone with a speech impediment. That isn't an excuse for losing my cool and yelling at someone.
He has made a big deal in the past about how he uses his speech impediment as a courtroom tool to gain sympathy from juries, so this is part of a bigger pattern for him.
I suppose the idea is that juries should think, Wow, look how far he's come, look how hard he's worked. The difficulty is that many people associate speech problems with lower intelligence. He is exploiting that association, which further stigmatises (rather than normalises) the impediment.

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4573
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

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

#16183

Post by NMgirl »

maydijo wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:09 pm
neeneko wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:02 pm
maydijo wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:46 pm
Okay, that just pisses me off. I was in speech therapy for about ten years. Nobody who hears me talk now would pick up on it, but I identify as someone with a speech impediment. That isn't an excuse for losing my cool and yelling at someone.
He has made a big deal in the past about how he uses his speech impediment as a courtroom tool to gain sympathy from juries, so this is part of a bigger pattern for him.
I suppose the idea is that juries should think, Wow, look how far he's come, look how hard he's worked. The difficulty is that many people associate speech problems with lower intelligence. He is exploiting that association, which further stigmatises (rather than normalises) the impediment.
To be honest, I didn't really notice Mumpoot's stutter in the courtroom. That was probably insensitive of me, but he's just so hard to tolerate. He always mentions his stutter, though, at every public speaking event or when he is interviewed by the media.

Skadden Arps, wth? 9 years of Mumpoot? Really? At least he didn't make partner, so there's that.

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4573
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

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

#16184

Post by NMgirl »

Maxine:
Marcus Mumford asked and today was granted more time to clean up his 'provisional' response to Judge Mosman - i.e, he noticed an 'inappropriate comment' made out of frustration- perhaps it was his reference to 'then shove it in Judge Mosman's face'
From Mumford's Response:
As background, I should point out that Mr. Koerber’s involvement in the Bundy matter preceded mine by several months. I understand that he was initially retained as a paralegal by Ammon Bundy’s former counsel, Oregon lawyer Mike Arnold, and he was also separately appointed by Judge Brown as a CJA-authorized paralegal for Defendant Ryan Bundy, under the supervision Ryan Bundy’s appointed counsel, Lisa Ludwig, Esq. I raise these facts because both of those events preceded my appearance in this action on behalf of Ammon Bundy, and also because I want this Court to review the letter of recommendation that I wrote in support of Mr. Koerber’s CJA application, attached hereto as Exhibit __, and then shove it in Judge Mosman’s face.
:yikes:

On the whole, I feel it might be to Mumford's advantage to let his attorney handle the case....

User avatar
maydijo
Posts: 2764
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:23 pm
Location: where women glow and men plunder
Occupation: harassing marsupials

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

#16185

Post by maydijo »

NMgirl wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:05 pm
Maxine:
Marcus Mumford asked and today was granted more time to clean up his 'provisional' response to Judge Mosman - i.e, he noticed an 'inappropriate comment' made out of frustration- perhaps it was his reference to 'then shove it in Judge Mosman's face'
From Mumford's Response:
As background, I should point out that Mr. Koerber’s involvement in the Bundy matter preceded mine by several months. I understand that he was initially retained as a paralegal by Ammon Bundy’s former counsel, Oregon lawyer Mike Arnold, and he was also separately appointed by Judge Brown as a CJA-authorized paralegal for Defendant Ryan Bundy, under the supervision Ryan Bundy’s appointed counsel, Lisa Ludwig, Esq. I raise these facts because both of those events preceded my appearance in this action on behalf of Ammon Bundy, and also because I want this Court to review the letter of recommendation that I wrote in support of Mr. Koerber’s CJA application, attached hereto as Exhibit __, and then shove it in Judge Mosman’s face.
:yikes:

On the whole, I feel it might be to Mumford's advantage to let his attorney handle the case....
No no no, you're misunderstanding. He stutters, see? So that makes it seem like he's writing rude, unprofessional things, but it's really just your perception, because of his stutter.

User avatar
Whip
Posts: 4093
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

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

#16186

Post by Whip »

NMgirl wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:26 pm
Whip wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:59 pm
Kendra wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:39 am


Did he really spell it that way?
he spelled Mumpoot wrong multiple times so..........
:rotflmao:
I knew I'd get you with that one. :-D

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8956
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

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

#16187

Post by RVInit »

"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
jmj
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 11:01 am

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

#16188

Post by jmj »

RVInit wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:40 pm
There sure wasn't much pushback against the guy that proposed going out and hunting down federal employees and murdering them and their families to send a message. Only a bit of minor disagreement about whether it would be tactically beneficial... These are sick people.

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 16339
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

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

#16189

Post by Kendra »

I will have to listen to this again with the head phones on, not all the discussion was clear. Is that Darryl Thorn in the thick of it? I'm assuming it's Blaine/Stanley with the talk about taking the fire engine into Idaho or whatever the plan was. All that smoking, I hope refuge staff was able to get rid of the stench in their buildings.

User avatar
jmj
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 11:01 am

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

#16190

Post by jmj »

Kendra wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:31 pm
I will have to listen to this again with the head phones on, not all the discussion was clear. Is that Darryl Thorn in the thick of it? I'm assuming it's Blaine/Stanley with the talk about taking the fire engine into Idaho or whatever the plan was. All that smoking, I hope refuge staff was able to get rid of the stench in their buildings.
I think you're right on both Stanley and Thorn. I didn't recognize a lot of the others though.

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8956
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

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

#16191

Post by RVInit »

jmj wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:02 pm
Kendra wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:31 pm
I will have to listen to this again with the head phones on, not all the discussion was clear. Is that Darryl Thorn in the thick of it? I'm assuming it's Blaine/Stanley with the talk about taking the fire engine into Idaho or whatever the plan was. All that smoking, I hope refuge staff was able to get rid of the stench in their buildings.
I think you're right on both Stanley and Thorn. I didn't recognize a lot of the others though.
I don't remember what Thorn looks like, but that was definitely our buddy Stanley talking about taking the vehicle and heading to Idaho. I was also disturbed about how casually one of them talked about killing federal employees and their families and the fact that nobody actually spoke up and said that is just plain wrong and completely nuts and unacceptable to even talk about. It was just some muttering about how it would "look".

And this illustrates one of the biggest problems with the Bundys. Ammon, and to an extent Ryan, have the ability to seem somewhat credible, mainly because of their awe shucks demeanor and the fact that they very deliberately dress up like ranchers. Change their clothes and they would get no attention at all, nobody would give them the time of day. If they used the same language and arguments but dressed up without the cowboy hats nobody would listen to them. They would seem more like the kooks they are to everybody, even the most lonely of the hangers-on.
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

Animal Mother
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 12:12 am

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

#16192

Post by Animal Mother »

jmj wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:05 pm
There sure wasn't much pushback against the guy that proposed going out and hunting down federal employees and murdering them and their families to send a message. Only a bit of minor disagreement about whether it would be tactically beneficial... These are sick people.
That was sick. And yeah, nobody said that was wrong, just that they disagreed with the "tactics".

Did you notice that they weren't even all that upset about ole' LeRoy committing suicide by cop? It was more along the lines of "now we got our martyr!"

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8956
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

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

#16193

Post by RVInit »

Animal Mother wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:06 pm
jmj wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:05 pm
There sure wasn't much pushback against the guy that proposed going out and hunting down federal employees and murdering them and their families to send a message. Only a bit of minor disagreement about whether it would be tactically beneficial... These are sick people.
That was sick. And yeah, nobody said that was wrong, just that they disagreed with the "tactics".

Did you notice that they weren't even all that upset about ole' LeRoy committing suicide by cop? It was more along the lines of "now we got our martyr!"
I was floored when I heard the "now we have our martyr" comment. And yes, they were very casual about his death, I saw nothing to indicate they were the least bit upset by it. The woman who first brought it up asked about it in the same way she might ask what time it is.
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
maydijo
Posts: 2764
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:23 pm
Location: where women glow and men plunder
Occupation: harassing marsupials

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

#16194

Post by maydijo »

I thought it was interesting that almost immediately after Finicum's death these people were insisting he was shot in cold blood with his arms up. I suppose that means Ammon's story to Lisa (the one where he claimed to have seen the whole thing from five miles around a bend) had already been made public. Funny how the video disproved ALL of that but it's still, to this day, the official Bundy line. Well, once these guys lie, they really commit to it.

User avatar
scirreeve
Posts: 4248
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:51 am

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

#16195

Post by scirreeve »

Kendra wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:31 pm
I will have to listen to this again with the head phones on, not all the discussion was clear. Is that Darryl Thorn in the thick of it? I'm assuming it's Blaine/Stanley with the talk about taking the fire engine into Idaho or whatever the plan was. All that smoking, I hope refuge staff was able to get rid of the stench in their buildings.
Yes that is Thorn. Does anyone know who the female poot sitting next to him is? I don't recognize her.

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4573
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

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

#16196

Post by NMgirl »

I dare say it's the right course not to retry cRyan, but I'm sighing heavily anyway.

Feds won't retry refuge occupier Ryan Bundy on FBI camera theft charge

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-stando ... cupie.html

Post Reply

Return to “Bundy Ranch/Malheur NWR”