Bundy Trials - Oregon Pt II GUILTY!GUILTY!GUILTY! & Pt III More Poo Cleanup & Pt IV Wiping Out Poot "Klingons" Gary Hunt

Post Reply
User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

Bundy Trials - Oregon Pt II GUILTY!GUILTY!GUILTY! & Pt III More Poo Cleanup & Pt IV Wiping Out Poot "Klingons" Gary Hunt

#1

Post by SueDB » Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:55 am

For the upcoming Feb trial.

It will be the minor Pootathon.


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40907
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#2

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:01 am

I wouldn't mind if the second level poots got convicted after the Bundy Gang got away. That would not be good for morale.

And couple that with convictions in Nevada, that would be a good result all around.



HumbleScribe
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Zzyzx Road
Occupation: Green eye-shade wearing bean counter

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#3

Post by HumbleScribe » Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:28 am

No argument from the accounting department, Stern. But do you really think that the feds will pursue these charges against these minor players, especially in light of the swift acquittal from the Bundy trial jury?

Granted, Mumblepot will not be there to do whatever he did to spike the prosecution's case.

I can see plea deals to a lesser charge with the only sentence being probation. (If they prosecution can change the charges this late into the game. I do not know if this is even possible, as IANALNDIWTBO.)



User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 4990
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#4

Post by Sam the Centipede » Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:29 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:I wouldn't mind if the second level poots got convicted after the Bundy Gang got away. That would not be good for morale.

And couple that with convictions in Nevada, that would be a good result all around.
You don't think there's any danger that the prosecutors will give these guys a free pass and drop the charges because the others were acquited? :mad2: I don't see why they should, because (1) that acquital was wrong, and (2) the feds need a win to assert the rule of law.

Is there any prospect of any of the pleader-outers withdrawing their pleas (if that's possible, IANAL) and being joined into this case?



User avatar
bob
Posts: 22008
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#5

Post by bob » Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:36 am

"For completeness," which defendants are going to trial, and what are the charges against each of them?

Thanks!


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
phelana
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 8:05 pm
Location: In the psych ward

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#6

Post by phelana » Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:51 am

Maxine Bernstein‏ @maxoregonian
Judge wants prosecutors, defense to file joint status report for scheduled Feb. #oregonstandoff trial by Nov. 16:

CwMLiclVUAENrVQ.jpg
The names of those being tried in February are in the file.

For the charges, check the documents subforum.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


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
Maybenaut
Posts: 3933
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#7

Post by Maybenaut » Wed Nov 02, 2016 12:10 pm

HumbleScribe wrote:No argument from the accounting department, Stern. But do you really think that the feds will pursue these charges against these minor players, especially in light of the swift acquittal from the Bundy trial jury?

Granted, Mumblepot will not be there to do whatever he did to spike the prosecution's case.

I can see plea deals to a lesser charge with the only sentence being probation. (If they prosecution can change the charges this late into the game. I do not know if this is even possible, as IANALNDIWTBO.)
I do. IIRC they've already issued a statement saying that they're going to. A number of people have already pleaded
guilty to conspiracy, so I don't think there's anything unfair or unreasonable in proceeding against the rest.

I think as a matter of policy the government has to proceed against them. The jury may have spoken with respect to the ones already tried. But the government cannot let a hard-to-understand verdict shape charging decisions.

As an aside, I'm finding a certain amount of irony in the "severence-by-continuace" gambit put on by the Anderson contingent. At the time, I thought they were asking for a continuance because they didn't want to be tried with the Bundys but knew they couldn't win a motion to sever. I still think that. Now it looks like they, and the ones who pleaded guilty already, will be the only ones standing.



User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 12984
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#8

Post by RTH10260 » Wed Nov 02, 2016 12:20 pm

What work will have to go into finding a jury for the next set, as the strange finding by thie first jury has now been splashed all over the place.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40907
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#9

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Nov 02, 2016 12:43 pm

RTH10260 wrote:What work will have to go into finding a jury for the next set, as the strange finding by the first jury has now been splashed all over the place.
To say nothing of all the political handbills featuring Cloven's face and tying him to cop murderers that were sent out in Clark County.



User avatar
Scario
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:02 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#10

Post by Scario » Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:00 pm

Question to actual lawyers on here... since the jury gave the Bundys a pass, can prosecution now change charges against those coming up for trial in February? I don't want to see these ##ck##s get off again.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 22008
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#11

Post by bob » Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:50 pm

Scario wrote:since the jury gave the Bundys a pass, can prosecution now change charges against those coming up for trial in February?
The prosecution can. It would likely create a not-frivolous appellate issue regarding vindictive prosecution, but the prosecution and the courts could handle it.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

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

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#12

Post by Burn'em Down » Wed Nov 02, 2016 2:16 pm

Just posting so it'll show up on the "your posts" section but hopefully DoJ goes forward w prosecuting the "Mullet and the madman" (and J. Patrick).



User avatar
Lilslice
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Ohio
Occupation: Master Social Worker/Therapist
Contact:

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#13

Post by Lilslice » Wed Nov 02, 2016 2:35 pm

I would think the govt wants to see Sean Anderson serve some time because of his video "come get some". Was he the one who shot at the FBI drone? Plus he and Jake were the ones using the heavy equipment, probably responsible for the "poop trench".



User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#14

Post by SueDB » Wed Nov 02, 2016 2:47 pm

I'm getting to think that more and more, the Govt should vigorously prosecute and let the appellate system do whatever the appellate system does. It just means more time sitting in jail for those incarcerated. Also after the guilty verdicts, the court should jail the rest pending appeal. IMHO They need a little taste of what it's like.


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
ElaineSoCal
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 4:20 pm
Location: My bunker in the desert
Occupation: Retired
Contact:

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#15

Post by ElaineSoCal » Wed Nov 02, 2016 3:19 pm

SueDB wrote:I'm getting to think that more and more, the Govt should vigorously prosecute and let the appellate system do whatever the appellate system does. It just means more time sitting in jail for those incarcerated. Also after the guilty verdicts, the court should jail the rest pending appeal. IMHO They need a little taste of what it's like.
:yeah:



User avatar
Mary Quite Contrary
Posts: 490
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#16

Post by Mary Quite Contrary » Sat Nov 05, 2016 6:50 pm

I hope the prosecution fixes whatever "mistakes" made the first round and nails them all.


"My greatest hope is for inclusion and love for all humanity in 2017 and beyond." -Pharrell Williams

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 4214
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#17

Post by RVInit » Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:06 pm

Mary Quite Contrary wrote:I hope the prosecution fixes whatever "mistakes" made the first round and nails them all.
I agree. I just cannot believe that there is not enough convincing evidence to put them away. Interesting thing about juries though. It really does all depend on the make up of the jury.

Here in Florida we had the case of Michael Dunn who killed a young black man and shot at the rest of the occupants of that vehicle as they were trying to get away from him. They had no weapons on them, just a basketball in that car. The first jury had some people who did not want to convict Dunn of ANY of the crimes he committed - the murder, and three charges of 2nd degree attempted murder. Journalists said you could hear the muffled sounds of members of the jury yelling at each other. A black woman on the jury was seen outside of the jury room crying. Finally at one point the jury had questions. One of them was "If we believe that one of the victims threatened the defendant, can we apply that to all of the charges, i.e. use that to get him off on the attempted shooting of the other boys" - even though Dunn never claimed that any of the other boys ever threatened him. I was appalled when I heard that question because it showed there was at least one person on that jury that didn't want to convict him on any of the counts - that they apparently believed that Dunn's story that Jordan threatened him and apparently was trying to argue to the rest of the jury that it means he could even try to shoot the rest of the boys, even as they were clearly trying to get away from him and clearly none of them were shooting at him (they did not have any guns on them or in their car). The judge said no, each charge stands on it's own. Paraphrasing: if they were going to find him not guilty of the attempted 2nd degree charges, he had to believe each of the boys were a threat. One of the jurors talked afterward and she didn't cross the line as far as outright telling which jurors didn't want to convict him even of the attempted murder charges, but it seemed clear it was the same 3 who didn't want to convict for the actual murder of Jordan Davis. In the end, this jury did convict him of the three attempted 2nd degree murder charges, but were hung on the murder charge - three of the jurors believed Dunn truly believed his life was in danger. He was tried again for the murder and the 2nd jury found him guilty in 5 1/2 hours. One man was a hold-out during deliberations for 2nd degree murder, but after watching the initial police interview again he said he was on board with the rest of the jury for 1st degree murder.

My whole point is that I believe that the make up of the jury is vitally important. I believe that AB, RB, Shawna and the rest were the beneficiaries of a jury made up of one very strongly opinionated person and only one of the rest of them was inclined to attempt to persuade the others of guilt. And we all know what happened to him. I don't know if there were any others who were inclined to believe they were guilty, but, if there were, they weren't up to the task of explaining their "case" to the rest of the jury and they just went along with the not guilty verdicts. Just like Michael Dunn, the 2nd trial might have a completely different kind of jury and the results may be quite different. It's a toss up. I also think that jurors are affected by the fact that it's a high profile case. I'm not entirely convinced that the same charges, same defendants, and the jury had never heard anything about this and AB was not "famous"...who knows what the verdicts would have been in that case. To me, it's kind of like what happens when a physically ugly old man is a janitor he would probably not have any chance of getting a 25 year old beauty queen to marry him, but, a rich physically ugly old man...different story.


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

NMgirl
Posts: 2013
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#18

Post by NMgirl » Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:10 pm

ElaineSoCal wrote:
SueDB wrote:I'm getting to think that more and more, the Govt should vigorously prosecute and let the appellate system do whatever the appellate system does. It just means more time sitting in jail for those incarcerated. Also after the guilty verdicts, the court should jail the rest pending appeal. IMHO They need a little taste of what it's like.
:yeah:
None of the February defendants are in jail. They're walking around free as birds, most of them for months now, with all but no conditions placed on their release.



User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 4990
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#19

Post by Sam the Centipede » Sat Nov 05, 2016 11:14 pm

RVInit wrote:
Mary Quite Contrary wrote:I hope the prosecution fixes whatever "mistakes" made the first round and nails them all.
I agree. I just cannot believe that there is not enough convincing evidence to put them away. Interesting thing about juries though. It really does all depend on the make up of the jury.
:snippity:
Given that over a third of the adult population appears to be sufficiently stupid or nasty to vote for Donald Trump, one would reasonably expect over a third of a randomly selected jury (i.e. 4 or more from 12) to be similarly awful. So expecting to persuade a jury to find a unanimous verdict, requiring the rational and decent ones to convince the deplorables, is a huge ask, and a massive defect in the system when it allows certain (classes of) defendants to evade justice.

So, yes, the prosecution really needs to focus on getting a rational jury and pushing and shoving them to have no option or desire other than a guilty verdict. It is really worrying that a Nevada jury might include one or more with prior sympathy for the defendants' motives and actions.



Cheechako
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2016 10:36 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#20

Post by Cheechako » Sun Nov 06, 2016 2:22 am

Re-posted from another thread:

I think the prosecutors will drop the future trials and those who have plead guilty will change their pleas. In any future trial for the untried Malheur defendants the defense lawyers will put the 7 Bundyites on the stand who will then proclaim that the whole idea of occupying the refuge was their idea and theirs alone. The Bundyites would say all the defendants on trial were just "guests" who stopped by for "3 hots and a cot" and were not part of any conspiracy of any kind.

Do you really think any jury would convict them with that testimony



User avatar
Mary Quite Contrary
Posts: 490
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#21

Post by Mary Quite Contrary » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:21 am

Cheechako wrote:Re-posted from another thread:

I think the prosecutors will drop the future trials and those who have plead guilty will change their pleas. In any future trial for the untried Malheur defendants the defense lawyers will put the 7 Bundyites on the stand who will then proclaim that the whole idea of occupying the refuge was their idea and theirs alone. The Bundyites would say all the defendants on trial were just "guests" who stopped by for "3 hots and a cot" and were not part of any conspiracy of any kind.

Do you really think any jury would convict them with that testimony

If they want to get on the stand and admit everything, that would be great!


"My greatest hope is for inclusion and love for all humanity in 2017 and beyond." -Pharrell Williams

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 4214
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#22

Post by RVInit » Mon Nov 07, 2016 12:58 pm

Mary Quite Contrary wrote:
Cheechako wrote:Re-posted from another thread:

I think the prosecutors will drop the future trials and those who have plead guilty will change their pleas. In any future trial for the untried Malheur defendants the defense lawyers will put the 7 Bundyites on the stand who will then proclaim that the whole idea of occupying the refuge was their idea and theirs alone. The Bundyites would say all the defendants on trial were just "guests" who stopped by for "3 hots and a cot" and were not part of any conspiracy of any kind.

Do you really think any jury would convict them with that testimony

If they want to get on the stand and admit everything, that would be great!
What I really don't get is that there is so much information out that could have been used to completely discredit Ammon Bundy and show him to be a complete liar. I don't understand why the prosecution didn't do that during their rebuttal case. Maybe they are limited and aren't allowed to do that? Or maybe rebuttal is limited to rebutting only specifically what was said on the witness stand. I still think much of what Ammon Bundy said on the stand could easily have been rebutted and therefore undermine his testimony by showing that his words have no credibility. :confused:


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

User avatar
phelana
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 8:05 pm
Location: In the psych ward

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#23

Post by phelana » Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:02 pm

RVInit wrote: What I really don't get is that there is so much information out that could have been used to completely discredit Ammon Bundy and show him to be a complete liar. I don't understand why the prosecution didn't do that during their rebuttal case. Maybe they are limited and aren't allowed to do that? Or maybe rebuttal is limited to rebutting only specifically what was said on the witness stand. I still think much of what Ammon Bundy said on the stand could easily have been rebutted and therefore undermine his testimony by showing that his words have no credibility. :confused:
That is exactly it. Rebuttal is limited to rebutting misinformation during defense closing. Just as the scope of the trial and various motions limited the questioning during the trial.

Read the transcript of juror #4's emails with Maxine. The jurors thought Ammon was a list and manipulative. The prosecution didn't have the smoking gun they thought they needed.

Maybe the smoking gun was in the video of Ryan that didn't get admitted. Maybe the jury would have felt different seeing that.
Edit: eta to add full thought


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.

Cheechako
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2016 10:36 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#24

Post by Cheechako » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:15 pm

Mary Quite Contrary wrote:
Cheechako wrote:Re-posted from another thread:

I think the prosecutors will drop the future trials and those who have plead guilty will change their pleas. In any future trial for the untried Malheur defendants the defense lawyers will put the 7 Bundyites on the stand who will then proclaim that the whole idea of occupying the refuge was their idea and theirs alone. The Bundyites would say all the defendants on trial were just "guests" who stopped by for "3 hots and a cot" and were not part of any conspiracy of any kind.

Do you really think any jury would convict them with that testimony

If they want to get on the stand and admit everything, that would be great!

Since they were acquitted of all charges in Oregon, they can not be re-tried on any other charges relating to that incident. They can sing like birds at the others trials. They will admit to being the only guilty parties and all the others are "completely innocent".



User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11920
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Oregon Part II (Andersons and ilk)

#25

Post by Plutodog » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:15 pm

But they will be subject to cross and should they screw up and perjure, woe be unto them. They don't just get to get on and do a quick bare speech about it all being their plan, their fault and nobody else did more than maintain the property like good citizens. And if they tell the truth on pointed questions about how things were run, what exactly happened...woe be unto the 2nd set of defendants. At least that's what I hopes as a IANAL.


The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

Post Reply

Return to “Bundy Ranch/Malheur NWR”