Bundy Trials - Nevada

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8938
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4426

Post by RVInit »

IMO the reason for the "unshackled" motions are simply to imply that they have been shackled during court appearances, which I don't think is true. It's just to get the ire up, they want the cult members to start shrieking about the 'fact' that these poor defenseless and innocent patriots have had to endure shackles everywhere they go, including being shackled in court. So far I haven't seen anyone posting anything that indicates the poot cult has picked up the refrain...yet.
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28387
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4427

Post by bob »

Whip wrote:but still not shackled in a courtroom. :) Their motions fail on just that alone. :lol:
Yeah; the judge can quickly end this nothingburger by ruling, e.g., "At this point in time, there is no need for the defendants to be shackled in the courtroom; if changed circumstances warrant, however, this ruling will be revisited. Security measures for the trial will be determined at the final pre-trial conference."
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4562
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4428

Post by NMgirl »

Cheri Roberts wrote:
NMgirl wrote:
Kendra wrote:What is this? Flooding the potential jury pool in Nevada?
"Many of the defendants’ supporters have gone to great lengths to make, record and publish into the public domain – through Youtube and blogs – untrue and disparaging remarks about the trial, the evidence, the Court, government counsel, and investigating agents, spinning bizarre conspiracy theories and casting the government in a false light. The government, which is precluded from commenting in the media on the evidence, witnesses, the trial, or any other matters while litigation is pending – either directly or indirectly – has been greatly disadvantaged in finding a jury that has not been exposed to the biased social media campaign launched by the defendants and their surrogates."
The above is part of the Government's plea to Judge Navarro that prosecutors be given the same number of challenges as defendants have in jury selection. Prosecutors are definitely taking note of what is going on in the wider PootWorldTM.

That's from a filing? Do you have a link, pretty please?
I only have my phone. You'll see a link to that doc on page 174 of this thread--Peremptory Challenges, in a posting by me.

Cheri Roberts
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:56 am

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4429

Post by Cheri Roberts »

NMgirl wrote:
Cheri Roberts wrote:
NMgirl wrote:

The above is part of the Government's plea to Judge Navarro that prosecutors be given the same number of challenges as defendants have in jury selection. Prosecutors are definitely taking note of what is going on in the wider PootWorldTM.

That's from a filing? Do you have a link, pretty please?
I only have my phone. You'll see a link to that doc on page 174 of this thread--Peremptory Challenges, in a posting by me.
Thank you!

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
Posts: 1153
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:22 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4430

Post by Dr. Caligari »

Jeffrey wrote:
NOTICE of Assertion of Right
Is this a real thing in law?
Short answer: no.
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Law

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4562
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4431

Post by NMgirl »

Heads up, Nevada prosecutors. The quote below is from the Oregonian comment section:
There was a long response to Ammon's call to stand a day or two ago. The post, in part, lays out a new 11 point game plan for Nevada. It involves educating the potential jury pool, even by going door-to-door. It says they should stop all the FB stuff and even court house demonstrations. So, if that is being taken to heart, our Poots are changing tactics, but are still on task. Their number one goal is jury nullification, but they may be going directly to the people, and avoiding the courthouse and the judge.

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 16292
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4432

Post by Kendra »

NMgirl wrote:Heads up, Nevada prosecutors. The quote below is from the Oregonian comment section:
There was a long response to Ammon's call to stand a day or two ago. The post, in part, lays out a new 11 point game plan for Nevada. It involves educating the potential jury pool, even by going door-to-door. It says they should stop all the FB stuff and even court house demonstrations. So, if that is being taken to heart, our Poots are changing tactics, but are still on task. Their number one goal is jury nullification, but they may be going directly to the people, and avoiding the courthouse and the judge.
There was some FB chatter on I think from Andrea Olson Parker about making up flyers and stuff and handing them out. I think Shawnana had the 'brilliant' idea to pass them out at local parades, etc.

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4562
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4433

Post by NMgirl »

Kendra wrote:
There was some FB chatter on I think from Andrea Olson Parker about making up flyers and stuff and handing them out. I think Shawnana had the 'brilliant' idea to pass them out at local parades, etc.
And floats for those parades! Someone was asking if it would be possible to have a float with one of those porta-potty torture chambers from the Poot Pahrump Pathetic Protest because :deadhorse: is always a good idea.

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 16292
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4434

Post by Kendra »

Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that. Do they have to get liability insurance to be in the parade? Imagine if the poot pen tipped over and *gasp* someone was hurt.

Tardis2016
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 11:29 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4435

Post by Tardis2016 »

JohnPCapitalist wrote:
NMgirl wrote:Friday Night Document Dump

06/12/2017 2054 NOTICE of Assertion of Right to be Present in Court Unshackled, filed by O. Scott Drexler as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Steven A. Stewart. (Leventhal, Todd) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

06/12/2017 2057 NOTICE of Assertion of Right to be Present in Court Unshackled, filed by Ammon E. Bundy. (Hill, Daniel) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

06/12/2017 2058 NOTICE of Assertion of Right to be Present in Court Without Handcuffs, Shackles and/or Chains, filed by Ryan C. Bundy. (Dows, Angela) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
Here's Ryan Bundy's motion. I didn't download the others to see in what respect they differed.

Ryan Bundy 2058.pdf
I've been hearing outcry from the poots about the 'unfairness' of the prosecution not being subjected to the same standards the defendants are, especially in regards to shackling. How do they not understand that the prosecution isn't being charged? There is no need for the prosecution, who are doing their jobs, to experience the trial as if they were defendants and it is absurd that so many poots seem to think that the prosecution should be treated the same as the defendants. Steven Mhyre hasn't been charged with a crime and isn't going to trial as a defendant. They just don't understand the difference between defense and prosecution.
"Never trust a man, who left alone with a tea cozy...doesn't try it on." ~Billy Connolly

User avatar
JohnPCapitalist
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:29 pm
Location: Wall Street
Occupation: Investment management in the financial industry. Deep knowledge of stocks, tech and economics.

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4436

Post by JohnPCapitalist »

Tardis2016 wrote:
JohnPCapitalist wrote:
NMgirl wrote:Friday Night Document Dump

06/12/2017 2054 NOTICE of Assertion of Right to be Present in Court Unshackled, filed by O. Scott Drexler as to Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Steven A. Stewart. (Leventhal, Todd) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

06/12/2017 2057 NOTICE of Assertion of Right to be Present in Court Unshackled, filed by Ammon E. Bundy. (Hill, Daniel) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

06/12/2017 2058 NOTICE of Assertion of Right to be Present in Court Without Handcuffs, Shackles and/or Chains, filed by Ryan C. Bundy. (Dows, Angela) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
Here's Ryan Bundy's motion. I didn't download the others to see in what respect they differed.

Ryan Bundy 2058.pdf
I've been hearing outcry from the poots about the 'unfairness' of the prosecution not being subjected to the same standards the defendants are, especially in regards to shackling. How do they not understand that the prosecution isn't being charged? There is no need for the prosecution, who are doing their jobs, to experience the trial as if they were defendants and it is absurd that so many poots seem to think that the prosecution should be treated the same as the defendants. Steven Mhyre hasn't been charged with a crime and isn't going to trial as a defendant. They just don't understand the difference between defense and prosecution.
To put it a bit more bluntly, I don't think the judge will consider US Attorney Steven Myhre a flight risk, ready to bolt from court at the slightest provocation and thus needing shackles, even though I am sure he is inwardly rolling his eyes at the nonsense he has to put up with from this particular set of defendants. Dreaming of an alcohol-soaked vacation in some tropical paradise is not the same thing as planning to flee.

Incidentally, given the large number of defendants in this case, I'm surprised that pretend judge Julie Embry hasn't filed a motion to ensure that the defendants are not transported from jail to court in one of those thousands of FEMA boxcars with shackles and guillotines that a lot of those poots are worried about. (Google it -- one of the stupidest conspiracy theories in the poot arsenal of conspiracy theories. Spoiler: they're really auto transporters seen through the eyes of people too stupid to figure that out.)

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4562
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4437

Post by NMgirl »

JohnPCapitalist wrote:
Incidentally, given the large number of defendants in this case, I'm surprised that pretend judge Julie Embry hasn't filed a motion to ensure that the defendants are not transported from jail to court in one of those thousands of FEMA boxcars with shackles and guillotines that a lot of those poots are worried about. (Google it -- one of the stupidest conspiracy theories in the poot arsenal of conspiracy theories. Spoiler: they're really auto transporters seen through the eyes of people too stupid to figure that out.)
She's hanging around:



cRyan has been surprisingly spare in filing sovcit crappola in the last few weeks. I'm expecting some break-out filings soon in the trial case. Rumor has it that Embry might be in need of some paid employment.

In fact, in general, filings for the main event, Trial 2, have slowed down. That will change as we approach the Bundy Boyz' turn to have the spotlight on their own trial.

I think it is time to separate out the threads for the three trials. With so many defendants, it's a prodigious feat of memory to keep the trials/defendants/attorneys in their proper places. Plus, also, too, purely selfishly, it would be easier for me to do separate Friday Night Document Dumps for the three trials. Looking through some of the lengthier doc dumps for the wheat rather than the chaff can be tedious.

I would also like to propose that within those separate threads we keep off-topic and gossip comments to a minimum so our wonderful legal team doesn't have to wade through pages of irrelevant stuff in order to answer queries. If any good journalists cover Trial 2 (and Maxine says she will be there), we'll have excellent coverage, including color.

Comments on those proposals? :?: :?: :?:

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28387
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4438

Post by bob »

Separate threads for separate trials sounds good. (It'll make archival searching easier.)

Gossip and chit-chat in the already created Bundy Gossip thread would be GREAT.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9933
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4439

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

Thanks, NM Girl!!!
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment:
The 19th Amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1878, yet it was not approved by Congress until 1919 – 41 years later.
- https://legaldictionary.net/19th-amendment/

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 11102
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4440

Post by Sugar Magnolia »

Kendra wrote:Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that. Do they have to get liability insurance to be in the parade? Imagine if the poot pen tipped over and *gasp* someone was hurt.
We've never had to pay anything but an entry fee to be in a parade, and we've been in a LOT of parades.

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 16292
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4441

Post by Kendra »

Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Kendra wrote:Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that. Do they have to get liability insurance to be in the parade? Imagine if the poot pen tipped over and *gasp* someone was hurt.
We've never had to pay anything but an entry fee to be in a parade, and we've been in a LOT of parades.
Thanks. City girl here.

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 11102
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4442

Post by Sugar Magnolia »

Kendra wrote:
Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Kendra wrote:Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that. Do they have to get liability insurance to be in the parade? Imagine if the poot pen tipped over and *gasp* someone was hurt.
We've never had to pay anything but an entry fee to be in a parade, and we've been in a LOT of parades.
Thanks. City girl here.
When my son was living in Bellingham, he called me during their St. Paddy's day parade. First off, I was amazed I could hear him, but he explained, with tears in his voice, that their idea of a "parade" was only a few blocks long, and you could line up on the street right up against the curb. And talk on the phone while you were watching the parade. The poor baby had been raised on Mardi Gras parades, second lines with full brass bands and the local St Paddy's parade. He was heartbroken that not everyone in the country knew how to throw a parade and complained bitterly that the total number of beads thrown was less than one good days haul at a "real" parade. Heaven forbid, they didn't even have bead bags or step ladders! The horror!

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8938
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4443

Post by RVInit »

Is it possible to have all the downloaded documents going into an "Index of Documents" thread(s)? We have a general Index of Documents thread for Nevada, but maybe we should split it up between the 3 trial groups and then put the documents in those threads. I thought that worked out pretty well for the Oregon trial.
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4562
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4444

Post by NMgirl »

RVInit wrote:Is it possible to have all the downloaded documents going into an "Index of Documents" thread(s)? We have a general Index of Documents thread for Nevada, but maybe we should split it up between the 3 trial groups and then put the documents in those threads. I thought that worked out pretty well for the Oregon trial.
I've thought about that, and also considered a separate thread for each trial listing the defendants and their backgrounds, Nevada charges, the attorneys, etc., as a reference-only thread. Maybe that's too cumbersome, though. I'm pretty sure I'm the only one on TFB who loves the minutiae of the trials. I have a thick notebook on all that stuff. :oops:

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8938
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4445

Post by RVInit »

I would read any and all of the postings/minutia on the Bundy trials, and I would bet many others would, too! Also! No need for embarrassment, it's all very interesting. I also have personal reasons for wanting the Bundys and the supporters to be held accountable for their actions. They created a potentially lethal situation all because Cliven Bundy thinks the government is responsible for the fact that ranching is difficult in the freaking desert. And the amount of thuggery perpetrated on the local population by the Bundy thug brigade really pisses me off.

Hey, did I read that Maxine is going to attend the trial in Nevada? :cheer1: :cheer: :happydance: :banana:
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 16292
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4446

Post by Kendra »

Maxine, really? Yay!!

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 Trials - Nevada

#4447

Post by maydijo »

Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Kendra wrote:
Sugar Magnolia wrote: We've never had to pay anything but an entry fee to be in a parade, and we've been in a LOT of parades.
Thanks. City girl here.
When my son was living in Bellingham, he called me during their St. Paddy's day parade. First off, I was amazed I could hear him, but he explained, with tears in his voice, that their idea of a "parade" was only a few blocks long, and you could line up on the street right up against the curb. And talk on the phone while you were watching the parade. The poor baby had been raised on Mardi Gras parades, second lines with full brass bands and the local St Paddy's parade. He was heartbroken that not everyone in the country knew how to throw a parade and complained bitterly that the total number of beads thrown was less than one good days haul at a "real" parade. Heaven forbid, they didn't even have bead bags or step ladders! The horror!
A few years ago we were in Honolulu for the King Kamehameha celebrations. We took the kids, then aged 6 and 4, to the parade. I grew up in a small town where parades were only a few blocks long and people walking in the parades threw out candy, and then all the kids would run into the street to pick up the candy. I was telling my kids about this when a horse walking in the parade did, er, what horses do. The woman sitting next to us looked over and said, "Yeah, that's not candy, don't pick it up."

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1945
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4448

Post by neeneko »

NMgirl wrote:
She's hanging around:

So.. am I understanding this correctly : they found a law that didn't get through congress and are trying to claim fraud even though the actual text of the law made it into a more comprehensive piece later that year? It almost comes across as 'only a law with a nearly identical title can replace an earlier one'.

boots
Posts: 3339
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: Bundy Trials - Nevada

#4449

Post by boots »

I love the over-reliance on maxims of jurisprudence. "He who is silent appears to consent." Makes perfect sense. We've all heard about all the deaf mutes in prison. What?

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 Trials - Nevada

#4450

Post by maydijo »

Techno Luddite wrote:I love the over-reliance on maxims of jurisprudence. "He who is silent appears to consent." Makes perfect sense. We've all heard about all the deaf mutes in prison. What?
I'd counter that one with, It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Post Reply

Return to “Bundy Ranch/Malheur NWR”