Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

User avatar
ElaineSoCal
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 4:20 pm
Location: My bunker in the desert
Occupation: Retired
Contact:

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#701

Post by ElaineSoCal » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:07 am

scirreeve wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:38 am
Racist Roots filed something or other that will free the Bundiots.
Big News! Attorney Robert O. Kurth and I have filed a "Rule 60(b)" motion to vacate and set aside the court orders in Cliven Bundy's 1998 civil case. That case ended in summary judgment in 2013, leading to the BLM's attempts to round up Cliven's cattle in 2014. (We all know how that turned out.)
Link to the motion is on a Pooty page: https://itmattershowyoustand.com/portfo ... page-1-30/



scirreeve
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:51 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#702

Post by scirreeve » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:19 am

Thanks - I hadn't seen that - no way I'm reading it tonight.



User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 3970
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#703

Post by pipistrelle » Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:26 am

Sincere question: How often can these people cry "wolf" before they stop believing? Every day is "BIG NEWS" or some equivalent. Or Ammon has dislocated shoulders that he has to reset himself, or some other unbelievable nonsense. Isn't there any "outright lies" fatigue?



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6426
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#704

Post by Northland10 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:37 am

pipistrelle wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:26 am
Sincere question: How often can these people cry "wolf" before they stop believing? Every day is "BIG NEWS" or some equivalent. Or Ammon has dislocated shoulders that he has to reset himself, or some other unbelievable nonsense. Isn't there any "outright lies" fatigue?
Apparently not.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.


User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25625
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#706

Post by Foggy » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:03 am

pipistrelle wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:26 am
Sincere question: How often can these people cry "wolf" before they stop believing? Every day is "BIG NEWS" or some equivalent. Or Ammon has dislocated shoulders that he has to reset himself, or some other unbelievable nonsense. Isn't there any "outright lies" fatigue?
Nobody knows the answer. For reference, see our few remaining birther threads. The birthers had "BIG NEWS" every day from before the 2008 election until today. They filed more than 230 lawsuits, lost every single one of them, and still expect to win in court someday REAL SOON.

One theory they had was that unless both your parents are American citizens on the day you're born, you're not a natural born citizen. The beauty of this one is, nobody even thought it up until after the election. At least 10 different courts from one end of this great land of ours to the other issued official opinions that explicitly stated that there's no such rule. The father of the first Republican candidate for president, John Charles Frémont, was a French citizen on the day he was born. But the birthers will still be glad to educate you on their fake imaginary "born in the US to two US citizens" rule, and they'll tell you all the judges that ruled otherwise are corrupt and/or threatened by Obama. That's their law, they believe it, and that settles it.

Have we seen any less magical thinking on the part of the pooty tooty pootriots? :nope: :talktothehand:


... and how does that make you feel?
What is it you are trying to say?
:think:

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#707

Post by Maybenaut » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:29 am

NMgirl wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:05 pm
pipistrelle wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:58 pm
:snippity:

The jury isn't going to know the facts are questionable (and then some).

Am I understanding correctly that it's acceptable for an attorney to lie outright in court during representation?
I've wondered about that, too. IAALs care to chime in :?:
Well, it is not acceptable to lie in court. A lawyer has a duty of “candor to the tribunal.”

But when the facts are subject to interpretation, then it’s probably not a lie. For example, if the government seeks to prove that the defendant intended X, and the lawyer gets up and says no, the defendant intended Y, that’s not a lie, I don’t think.

Or let’s say that a defendant says that he wasn’t anywhere near the crime scene on the day of the offense, but the government has a mountain of evidence putting him there. And the defendant tells his attorney, look, I can’t explain it, but I am adamant I was not there. I think the attorney can probably get up and say that the defendant was not there.

PS: Other IAALs might have a different view of this, but I’ve never bought into the idea that you can’t ask your client any questions about the offense because you can’t put them on the stand if you know he’s going to lie. A clients could give five different versions of an event, and since The lawyer wasn’t there, the lawyer doesn’t know which (if any) of them are true. And just because his version of events conflicts with the governments evidence, doesn’t necessarily mean that he is lying. So you warn him about his obligation to tell the truth, explain the consequences of committing perjury on the stand, and then you elicit the testimony if he still wants to say that.



NMgirl
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#708

Post by NMgirl » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:39 am

Maybenaut wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:29 am
:snippity:
Well, it is not acceptable to lie in court. A lawyer has a duty of “candor to the tribunal.”

But when the facts are subject to interpretation, then it’s probably not a lie. For example, if the government seeks to prove that the defendant intended X, and the lawyer gets up and says no, the defendant intended Y, that’s not a lie, I don’t think.[/quote]

The specific instance we are talking about here are Whipple's statement(s) about the history of Bundy Ranch. Those statements, presented to the jury, are demonstrably, indisputably, false. The Bundys bought the land in 1947, not 1877. That is just one example of Whipple's mischaracterization, to put it politely, of the history of the Bundys in Bunkerville.



User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 6177
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#709

Post by RVInit » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:42 am

I really hope prosecutors will debunk all these lies in front of the jury. I know the lawyers disagree with me because "the jury is supposed to only pay attention to what the prosecution is legally required to prove". Well, OK, yeah, the jury is supposed to do that. But, they don't. They hear everything. That is exactly why defense lawyers put in all the BS and distraction. Because they know the jury are not lawyers. If the jury were lawyers, then I agree that the prosecution doesn't need to debunk all these lies because they don't go to the charges. The jury hears everything. I have been on two juries myself. They hear everything and may not even be aware of all the little things that paint their own "take" on the case, like Ammon Bundy's 6 days of lying on the stand in Oregon and the prosecution failure to systematically show Ammon Bundy to be the liar that he is. This whole event was built on Bundy lies, all those lying edited videos. If the jury sees that the prosecution can prove the Bundys are all lying on the witness stand, they are more apt to believe that they put together all these lies in a successful attempt to get others to help them flout the law.

Prosecutors need to go through systematically and prove every single goddam lie that Ammon, Ryan, and their lawyers put forth. They need to paint the entire picture for the jury, not just the parts that go to charges. Ignoring Ammon's days and days and days on the stand telling lies did not work in Oregon and it's not going to work here either.


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

ImageImage

Pompeed
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:27 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#710

Post by Pompeed » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:43 am

NMgirl wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:43 pm

:snippity: At least two defendants, Ammon and cRyan, are certain to take the stand. But they won't admit to the correct facts, no matter how substantiated "by the documentary record" those facts might be.

But what about the ethics of a lawyer knowingly presenting false info to the jury? Is it even frowned upon? After seeing Mumpoot in action in Oregon, I find it easy to believe that defense attorneys can lie their asses off in court and there is no penalty. [Woops. I just remembered: Mumpoot is in a deal of trouble. But not for lying.]


The witness doesn't have to admit to the objective facts: on cross, when presented with the objective facts, the mendacity comes out by itself. The filed deed to the land from just after WWII when Cloven Foot's parents bought it, debunks the claim that the Bundy clan has been on the land since memory runneth not to the contrary and, therefore, have "prior" rights by mere use.

The ethics problem of what an attorney says in front of a jury is limited to subornation of testimony: an attorney cannot put a witness on the stand knowing he will lie or fail to being perjury to the attention of the court if the witness says something and the attorney knows it is a lie. The attorney is not under oath. His witness and/or client is.



NMgirl
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#711

Post by NMgirl » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:52 am

From Scott:
From yesterday: Whipple says the dump truck that Ammon blocks with his ATV had the Bundy's private property in the form of irrigation gear. Wasn't this the same dump truck they suggestively suggested had dead cows during the OR trial? #Bundytrial #bundycourtsket
I can't remember. Anybody? Pays yer money and takes yer choice: A Bundy lied in the Oregon trial or a Bundy is lying in the Nevada case. What a shocker



NMgirl
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#712

Post by NMgirl » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:58 am

Pompeed wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:43 am
:snippity:
The witness doesn't have to admit to the objective facts: on cross, when presented with the objective facts, the mendacity comes out by itself. The filed deed to the land from just after WWII when Cloven Foot's parents bought it, debunks the claim that the Bundy clan has been on the land since memory runneth not to the contrary and, therefore, have "prior" rights by mere use.

The ethics problem of what an attorney says in front of a jury is limited to subornation of testimony: an attorney cannot put a witness on the stand knowing he will lie or fail to being perjury to the attention of the court if the witness says something and the attorney knows it is a lie. The attorney is not under oath. His witness and/or client is.
As a strategy for the prosecution, though, nitpicking through every lie, or possibly just a few lies, told by Cliven & Co. (in this case it will be Ammo and cRyan), is likely to be a loser, is it not? The jury will be lost to inattention or hostility.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43203
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#713

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:36 am

There is a strategic decision that has to be made in closing argument, which also affects how the case is presented.

For example, if in a defense opening statement there is the claim that defendant's family tilled the land for 100+ years, that's a fact which by the nature of the opening statement defendant intends to prove. If no evidence is submitted by the defense, this point was not proven. The prosecution does not need to put evidence in or cross-examine on that point, but merely point out in closing argument that defendant did not prove a fact he promised he would.

If, on the other hand, Cloven or Ammo gets on the stand and claims his rights derive from a lengthy family history with the land, then the prosecution can demonstrate the lie in cross examination or rebuttal (and if a material point should be well-prepared to do so).

I always remind juries that the opening statement constitutes a promissory note of what I (and my opposition) intend to prove.* At the end of the case I ask the jury to determine if that promissory note has been paid.
_____________________________________________________________________
* Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions:
1.21 OUTLINE OF TRIAL

Trials proceed in the following way: First, each side may make an opening statement. An opening statement is not evidence. It is simply an outline to help you understand what that party expects the evidence will show. A party is not required to make an opening statement.

The plaintiff will then present evidence, and counsel for the defendant may cross-examine. Then the defendant may present evidence, and counsel for the plaintiff may cross-examine.

After the evidence has been presented, I will instruct you on the law that applies to the case and the attorneys will make closing arguments.

After that, you will go to the jury room to deliberate on your verdict.



NMgirl
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#714

Post by NMgirl » Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:57 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:36 am
There is a strategic decision that has to be made in closing argument, which also affects how the case is presented.

For example, if in a defense opening statement there is the claim that defendant's family tilled the land for 100+ years, that's a fact which by the nature of the opening statement defendant intends to prove. If no evidence is submitted by the defense, this point was not proven. The prosecution does not need to put evidence in or cross-examine on that point, but merely point out in closing argument that defendant did not prove a fact he promised he would.

If, on the other hand, Cloven or Ammo gets on the stand and claims his rights derive from a lengthy family history with the land, then the prosecution can demonstrate the lie in cross examination or rebuttal (and if a material point should be well-prepared to do so).

I always remind juries that the opening statement constitutes a promissory note of what I (and my opposition) intend to prove.* At the end of the case I ask the jury to determine if that promissory note has been paid.
_____________________________________________________________________
* Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions:
1.21 OUTLINE OF TRIAL

Trials proceed in the following way: First, each side may make an opening statement. An opening statement is not evidence. It is simply an outline to help you understand what that party expects the evidence will show. A party is not required to make an opening statement.

The plaintiff will then present evidence, and counsel for the defendant may cross-examine. Then the defendant may present evidence, and counsel for the plaintiff may cross-examine.

After the evidence has been presented, I will instruct you on the law that applies to the case and the attorneys will make closing arguments.

After that, you will go to the jury room to deliberate on your verdict.
Thanks to all the long-suffering attorneys on TFB who answer a layperson's endless and tediously ignorant questions. :thumbs: :bighug:



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 7226
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#715

Post by Kendra » Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:07 pm

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-stando ... e_tha.html
LAS VEGAS - Ryan Bundy, released to a halfway house on the eve of the Nevada standoff trial, stepped from a white limousine Tuesday outside the Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse in Las Vegas, dressed in a black suit and wearing a white cowboy hat.

He shook the hands of supporters gathered outside the courthouse, participated in a prayer circle in the courthouse corridor and then sat in the public gallery of the seventh-floor courtroom to watch a lesser player in the April 2014 confrontation plead guilty.

The trial for Bundy - and his father, Cliven, brother Ammon and friend Ryan Payne -- began Tuesday after a week's delay and after U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro denied the government's request for another week-long delay.

Prosecutor Steven Myhre had asked for the extra time to locate, review and share with the defense, as ordered, any emails from FBI agents between March 1 and April 30, 2014, capturing the lead-up to the standoff, the standoff period and aftermath.



User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#716

Post by Maybenaut » Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:18 pm

NMgirl wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:39 am
Maybenaut wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:29 am
:snippity:

Well, it is not acceptable to lie in court. A lawyer has a duty of “candor to the tribunal.”

But when the facts are subject to interpretation, then it’s probably not a lie. For example, if the government seeks to prove that the defendant intended X, and the lawyer gets up and says no, the defendant intended Y, that’s not a lie, I don’t think.
The specific instance we are talking about here are Whipple's statement(s) about the history of Bundy Ranch. Those statements, presented to the jury, are demonstrably, indisputably, false. The Bundys bought the land in 1947, not 1877. That is just one example of Whipple's mischaracterization, to put it politely, of the history of the Bundys in Bunkerville.
Can you say, with absolute certainty, that the Bundys were not related in any way to the people they bought the land from?



Jerry Mander
Posts: 787
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:06 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#717

Post by Jerry Mander » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:03 pm

Kendra wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:07 pm
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-stando ... e_tha.html
LAS VEGAS - Ryan Bundy, released to a halfway house on the eve of the Nevada standoff trial, stepped from a white limousine Tuesday outside the Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse in Las Vegas, dressed in a black suit and wearing a white cowboy hat.

He shook the hands of supporters gathered outside the courthouse, participated in a prayer circle in the courthouse corridor and then sat in the public gallery of the seventh-floor courtroom to watch a lesser player in the April 2014 confrontation plead guilty.

The trial for Bundy - and his father, Cliven, brother Ammon and friend Ryan Payne -- began Tuesday after a week's delay and after U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro denied the government's request for another week-long delay.

Prosecutor Steven Myhre had asked for the extra time to locate, review and share with the defense, as ordered, any emails from FBI agents between March 1 and April 30, 2014, capturing the lead-up to the standoff, the standoff period and aftermath.
I know the Bundy cult is comprised of gullible idiots, but you would think the optics of arriving to court in a stretch limo would be counter-productive to the cause. What with all the fundraising and grifting.

Or perhaps all humble, patrotic and God-fearing ‘cowboys’ ride stretch limos. :lol:



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 7226
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#718

Post by Kendra » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:20 pm

Apparently cRayn gave his opening whatever it's called. Incoming from Maxine at the moment. I am so glad she's there keeping us updated.



NMgirl
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#719

Post by NMgirl » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:24 pm

I'm not positive Max is done, but I have to run:
RB at times slipped into lecturing jurors about state rights, redress of grievances and origin of militias

Ryan Bundy mocked the First Amendment 'pig pens ' set up during standoff & said govt harmed brothers David and Ammon Bundy and his aunt

RB to jurors : 'We need you to see through their lies, the fabricated stories' of the government

RB said everything he is charged with - impeding, threatening, extortion - is what the govt did to his family

Ryan B accused the BLM of trying to manage his father off the land

Ryan Bundy put up a photo of his family on a projector throughout the opening and got emotional at times

RBundy argued he and supporters weren't there to impede the govt but 'to protect our rights, our life, our liberty, our property'

He argued that his family owns the grazing rights and water rights on the land - so 'we don't pay rent for something we own.'

Ryan B: statement he'd do 'whatever it takes' wasn't a threat but statement of determination to stand for his rights,commitment to freedom

Ryan Bundy just completed his opening statement that lasted a little over an hour
Reminder: In front of a jury, cRyan is respectful to judge, et al., and can be eloquent, articulate, charming, while lying through his teeth.



User avatar
maydijo
Posts: 2593
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:23 pm
Location: where women glow and men plunder
Occupation: harassing marsupials

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#720

Post by maydijo » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:26 pm

Maybenaut wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:18 pm
NMgirl wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:39 am
Maybenaut wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:29 am
:snippity:

Well, it is not acceptable to lie in court. A lawyer has a duty of “candor to the tribunal.”

But when the facts are subject to interpretation, then it’s probably not a lie. For example, if the government seeks to prove that the defendant intended X, and the lawyer gets up and says no, the defendant intended Y, that’s not a lie, I don’t think.
The specific instance we are talking about here are Whipple's statement(s) about the history of Bundy Ranch. Those statements, presented to the jury, are demonstrably, indisputably, false. The Bundys bought the land in 1947, not 1877. That is just one example of Whipple's mischaracterization, to put it politely, of the history of the Bundys in Bunkerville.
Can you say, with absolute certainty, that the Bundys were not related in any way to the people they bought the land from?
Yes. However, Bundy's maternal grandparents did own a ranch in nearby Mesquite. I believe this is the basis of their claim that they've ranched there for 100+ years.



User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#721

Post by Maybenaut » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:31 pm

maydijo wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:26 pm
Maybenaut wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:18 pm
NMgirl wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:39 am


The specific instance we are talking about here are Whipple's statement(s) about the history of Bundy Ranch. Those statements, presented to the jury, are demonstrably, indisputably, false. The Bundys bought the land in 1947, not 1877. That is just one example of Whipple's mischaracterization, to put it politely, of the history of the Bundys in Bunkerville.
Can you say, with absolute certainty, that the Bundys were not related in any way to the people they bought the land from?
Yes. However, Bundy's maternal grandparents did own a ranch in nearby Mesquite. I believe this is the basis of their claim that they've ranched there for 100+ years.
Well, I meant the actual people they bought the ranch from. In the context of a "lie" told by an attorney in an opening statement, this doesn't strike me as something that's easily proven to be false without engaging in a significant genealogical research. I doubt any court or bar would fault an attorney for taking his client's word for something like that, particularly since it is so tangential to the case.



NMgirl
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#722

Post by NMgirl » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:38 pm

Maybenaut wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:31 pm

Well, I meant the actual people they bought the ranch from. In the context of a "lie" told by an attorney in an opening statement, this doesn't strike me as something that's easily proven to be false without engaging in a significant genealogical research. I doubt any court or bar would fault an attorney for taking his client's word for something like that, particularly since it is so tangential to the case.
In some sense, I guess if you go back far enough, I, myself am probably related to Cloven. :sick:



JJ McNabb has a more exhaustive history of the Bundy family but I can't provide a link at the moment.



NMgirl
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#723

Post by NMgirl » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:44 pm

Leah, with color for us:
Ryan Payne appeared in court on Tuesday in a blue shirt and American flag tie; today he is wearing a black button down that reads "We the People" across the shoulder blades.

Federal court, Vegas style, starts about 45 minutes late, and we get, like, two hour lunches.

Today in #bundytrial court, we saw an interesting strategy: Ryan Bundy delivered his opening remarks, Ryan Payne's counsel will deliver his, but Ammon Bundy's attorneys will defer their opening until after govt has presented its case.



User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#724

Post by Maybenaut » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:47 pm

NMgirl wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:38 pm
Maybenaut wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:31 pm

Well, I meant the actual people they bought the ranch from. In the context of a "lie" told by an attorney in an opening statement, this doesn't strike me as something that's easily proven to be false without engaging in a significant genealogical research. I doubt any court or bar would fault an attorney for taking his client's word for something like that, particularly since it is so tangential to the case.
In some sense, I guess if you go back far enough, I, myself am probably related to Cloven. :sick:



JJ McNabb has a more exhaustive history of the Bundy family but I can't provide a link at the moment.
I've seen a lot of this stuff before. There's nothing that I've seen that says the Bundy's weren't related to the Leavitts in some way. I'm not saying they were. I'm just saying that I'm not ready to call the attorney a liar over this.



NMgirl
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#725

Post by NMgirl » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:47 pm

Scott:
Ryan Bundy gave a long but well spoken opening argument that tiptoed around some of basis for their beliefs, but sold them as a foundation for a protest defence. Lot of bio info at thr started that seem to connect well with the jury.



Post Reply

Return to “Bundy Ranch/Malheur NWR”