a victory for liberty over tyranny

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > a victory for liberty over tyranny

Mirthless: Mar 27, 2011; by the sex ghost

Mors Rattus posted:

also wait, is he claiming that the government has to disprove entrapment rather than him having to prove it? because i'm pretty sure that's not how entrapment works.

lol yes that is literally what he is claiming

his argument is that the feds set him up, they told him to do it! And if they can't prove otherwise, clearly, the only thing they can do is let him go.

# ? Sep 6, 2016 19:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 01:53

CommanderApaul: Aug 30, 2003; It's amazing their hands can support such awesome.

He also seems to be arguing that since the court appointed attorney is a public defender and paid by the government, they can't properly represent his interests. Also that he didn't get to interview his public defenders to pick one.

"You have the right to an attorney, you don't have the right to a specific attorney."

# ? Sep 6, 2016 19:28

Mors Rattus: Oct 25, 2007; FATAL & Friends
Walls of Text
#1 Builder
2014-2018

also he appears to be a computer directory

# ? Sep 6, 2016 19:28

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Motion to remove standby counsel denied. Bundy's getting into it with the judge as we speak. On https://twitter.com/maxoregonian

edit: ahahaha

https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/773230858320785408

# ? Sep 6, 2016 19:46

Volcott: Mar 30, 2010; People paying American dollars to let other people know they didn't agree with someone's position on something is the lifeblood of these forums.

Discendo Vox posted:

Motion to remove standby counsel denied. Bundy's getting into it with the judge as we speak. On https://twitter.com/maxoregonian

edit: ahahaha

https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/773230858320785408

The absolute madwoman.

# ? Sep 6, 2016 20:18

WrenP-Complete: Jul 27, 2012

Volcott posted:

The absolute madwoman.

Wait, did they actually call her the "standby counsel?" Isn't she just counsel at this point?

# ? Sep 6, 2016 20:46

Mors Rattus: Oct 25, 2007; FATAL & Friends
Walls of Text
#1 Builder
2014-2018

He's still pro se, so not yet?

# ? Sep 6, 2016 20:47

WrenP-Complete: Jul 27, 2012

Mors Rattus posted:

He's still pro se, so not yet?

I dropped out of law school before* we covered this bit, so I haven't the slightest idea how this works.

*it might have also been while we were covering this bit.

# ? Sep 6, 2016 20:49

Fuckt Tupp: Apr 19, 2007; Science

WrenP-Complete posted:

I dropped out of law school before we covered this bit, so I haven't the slightest.

The judge had him submit a document with the reasons why she shouldn't take away his right to defend himself because of disruptions. He must've done that so the judge told him that he can still defend himself as long as there aren't any more disruptions.

Today he complained that he still has a lawyer even though he was representing himself, judge told him that the lawyer is just a "standby council" to help him along. He then argued that his brother was able to pick his own council and the judge told him that is because he is paying them, then Ryan complained that it isn't fair that someone not paying for his own council has less rights than someone who does.

# ? Sep 6, 2016 20:53

WrenP-Complete: Jul 27, 2012

Internet Webguy posted:

The judge had him submit a document with the reasons why she shouldn't take away his right to defend himself because of disruptions. He must've done that so the judge told him that he can still defend himself as long as there aren't any more disruptions.

Today he complained that he still has a lawyer even though he was representing himself, judge told him that the lawyer is just a "standby council" to help him along. He then argued that his brother was able to pick his own council and the judge told him that is because he is paying them, then Ryan complained that it isn't fair that someone not paying for his own council has less rights than someone who does.

Thank you! I understood (with low effort) approximately 50% of this before your explanation.

# ? Sep 6, 2016 21:11

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

I can't wait to hear what the details are on that entrapment claim. I'm guessing it's something like "law enforcement knew we were going there and didn't form a firing line to stop us at the gates, so it's really their fault we committed all those crimes.", but I'm hoping that it's something crazier. Like, maybe he'll claim that, dressed up as it was in such greenery and out in such a remote location, that the wildlife refuge was basically asking to be occupied.

# ? Sep 6, 2016 21:38

Mors Rattus: Oct 25, 2007; FATAL & Friends
Walls of Text
#1 Builder
2014-2018

Azathoth posted:

I can't wait to hear what the details are on that entrapment claim. I'm guessing it's something like "law enforcement knew we were going there and didn't form a firing line to stop us at the gates, so it's really their fault we committed all those crimes.", but I'm hoping that it's something crazier. Like, maybe he'll claim that, dressed up as it was in such greenery and out in such a remote location, that the wildlife refuge was basically asking to be occupied.

The document he submitted appears to contend that the claim is 'I was entrapped! PROVE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, YOUR MOVE, GOVERNMAILURES'

# ? Sep 6, 2016 21:39

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Can't wait for this goddamn trial. I'll be out on my lunch break taking pictures of the sure-to-exist protestors outside of the courthouse.

# ? Sep 6, 2016 22:54

SocketWrench: Jul 8, 2012; by Fritz the Horse

Internet Webguy posted:

The judge had him submit a document with the reasons why she shouldn't take away his right to defend himself because of disruptions. He must've done that so the judge told him that he can still defend himself as long as there aren't any more disruptions.

Today he complained that he still has a lawyer even though he was representing himself, judge told him that the lawyer is just a "standby council" to help him along. He then argued that his brother was able to pick his own council and the judge told him that is because he is paying them, then Ryan complained that it isn't fair that someone not paying for his own council has less rights than someone who does.

WTF?
How long before he starts e-begging for lawyers now

# ? Sep 6, 2016 23:16

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

My annotated pocket constitution didn't tell me about this

# ? Sep 6, 2016 23:18

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Mors Rattus posted:

The document he submitted appears to contend that the claim is 'I was entrapped! PROVE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, YOUR MOVE, GOVERNMAILURES'

I'm not a lawyer, but I did read a bunch of books I found in a law school dumpster, and if I'm reading this right, doesn't calling entrapment basically say "yeah, I did it, buuuuuuut..."

Not that the prosecution will need to argue that, it'd be about 154th on the list of most incriminating things, right between a geotagged image of him holding a signed confession and a video from the local news of him confessing.

# ? Sep 7, 2016 00:08

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; c-spam cannot afford

In order for there to be entrapment Bundy must demonstrate not only that he was deliberately led to commit a crime by law enforcement agents, but also that he was not predisposed to committing the crime in the first place.

Cops can lie to hookers and johns all day long and it isn't entrapment because the people were going to commit the crime whether the police were involved or not. Even if Bundy had an agent coaching him through the entire occupation, its pretty trivial to show that based upon what happened in Nevada he would have done it anyways without the agent's prompting.

I have a feeling that he's going to lose his pro se status within a day of trial if he keeps it that long.

# ? Sep 7, 2016 00:23

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Mr. Nice! posted:

In order for there to be entrapment Bundy must demonstrate not only that he was deliberately led to commit a crime by law enforcement agents, but also that he was not predisposed to committing the crime in the first place.

Cops can lie to hookers and johns all day long and it isn't entrapment because the people were going to commit the crime whether the police were involved or not. Even if Bundy had an agent coaching him through the entire occupation, its pretty trivial to show that based upon what happened in Nevada he would have done it anyways without the agent's prompting.

I have a feeling that he's going to lose his pro se status within a day of trial if he keeps it that long.

I'll give him less than a week before he's removed from the courtroom for the first time, and a month before it's permanent.

# ? Sep 7, 2016 00:25

Baka-nin: Jan 25, 2015

Well Entrapment is admitting that you did it, or you were going to do the act, but you were coerced or compelled to do so by the law enforcement agency itself. A good example of this would be the agent provocateur, where a undercover policeman encourages repeatedly a group to carry out illegal acts.

Baka-nin has issued a correction as of 00:32 on Sep 7, 2016

# ? Sep 7, 2016 00:25

Mors Rattus: Oct 25, 2007; FATAL & Friends
Walls of Text
#1 Builder
2014-2018

The other thing is that entrapment as a defense has to demonstrate that entrapment occurred, you can't just shout 'ENTRAPMENT!' and have the prosecution have to prove beyond a doubt that it never happened.

# ? Sep 7, 2016 00:26

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; c-spam cannot afford

Baka-nin posted:

Well Entrapment is admitting that you did it, or you were going to do the act, but you were coerced or compelled to do so by the law enforcement agency itself. A good example of this would be the agent provocateur, where a undercover policeman encourages repeatedly a group to carry out illegal acts.

But if the government can demonstrate that you would have acted similarly or were predisposed to the action even without the agent provocateur, it isn't entrapment.

# ? Sep 7, 2016 00:41

Facebook Aunt: Oct 4, 2008; wiggle wiggle

If the government hadn't been illegally occupying that land, then the Bundy society wouldn't have gone there to protest. Ergo, entrapment.

# ? Sep 7, 2016 00:44

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

# ? Sep 7, 2016 00:44

CaptainSarcastic: Jul 6, 2013

I have a feeling that in his SovCit brain it was "entrapment" because the Feds were unconstitutionally occupying public land in a maritime fashion and thus encouraging the occupation which he wouldn't have had to do if they weren't so drat gold-fringed, so it's their fault.

e: fb

# ? Sep 7, 2016 00:45

CrazyLittle: Sep 11, 2001; Clapping Larry

Mr. Nice! posted:

But if the government can demonstrate that you would have acted similarly or were predisposed to the action even without the agent provocateur, it isn't entrapment.

yup. In cartoon form: http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-was-entrapped

# ? Sep 7, 2016 00:53

red19fire: May 26, 2010

SocketWrench posted:

WTF?
How long before he starts e-begging for lawyers now

Better question: How much money could I make from an indie gogo pretending to be taking up for the bundy defense fund? Or, should i use indie gogo for a one-time payday, or a patreon for a continuous check?

# ? Sep 7, 2016 01:16

Baka-nin: Jan 25, 2015

Mr. Nice! posted:

But if the government can demonstrate that you would have acted similarly or were predisposed to the action even without the agent provocateur, it isn't entrapment.

Err yes, if you were going to something anyway then you weren't compelled or coerced to do so, as by definition compulsion and coercion wouldn't apply. I don't see what the disagreement is here.

# ? Sep 7, 2016 01:20

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; c-spam cannot afford

Baka-nin posted:

Err yes, if you were going to something anyway then you weren't compelled or coerced to do so, as by definition compulsion and coercion wouldn't apply. I don't see what the disagreement is here.

Its not about the particular crime for which you were coerced. Its about whether you would have ever committed that crime. It's very subjective and rarely falls in favor of the defendants.

In this particular case, Bundy has taken up arms against federal agents once before in Nevada. Even if he was coached through the entire oregon occupation by undercover agent David Fry, there still would be no entrapment.

# ? Sep 7, 2016 01:27

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

The Conspiracy Charge against Pete Santili in the Malheur standoff has been dropped, he's still in a world of poo poo in Nevada though.

quote:

Feds dismiss federal conspiracy case against Oregon standoff defendant Pete Santilli on eve of trial

On the eve of trial, federal prosecutors in Oregon have dropped the federal conspiracy indictment against Peter Santilli, a self-described independent broadcaster who was present in Harney County during the 41-day occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Santilli, 51, was the lone person of eight defendants set for trial this month who never stayed overnight at the federal wildlife refuge, and his attorney argued that much of the material he broadcast on his Youtube channel was protected speech under the First Amendment.

In a motion filed late Tuesday afternoon, federal prosecutors urged the court to dismiss the indictment against Santilli.

They cited U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown's ruling last week that limited the evidence that the government could be present against Santilli.

For example, the judge ruled prosecutors could not present evidence of Santilli haranguing counter-protesters at the refuge or badgering traditional media in an attempt to counter Santilli's defense that he was simply acting as a member of the press documenting the refuge takeover.

"Based upon this Court's pretrial evidentiary rulings excluding evidence against Santilli, the government has decided that the interests of justice do not support further pursuit of these charges against Santilli,'' according to a motion signed by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Ethan Knight, Craig Gabriel and Geoffrey Barrow.

Santilli, also facing indictment in Nevada stemming from the April 2014 armed standoff with federal officers near Bunkerville, Nevada, will remain in custody but be transferred to Nevada to face the charges in that case.

Santilli's court-appointed attorney Thomas Coan, said he got word late Tuesday afternoon that the U.S. Department of Justice had approved prosecutors' request to dismiss the federal indictment against his client. Coan, who was told the dismissal of the case was a possibility on Friday, shared the news with Santilli about 4 p.m., at the end of Tuesday's pretrial conference hearing.

"He was tearfully happy,'' Coan said. "He started crying. He feels vindicated. He's very, very happy and relieved.''

Coan hugged Santilli's girlfriend, Deb Jordan, as both emerged from the pretrial conference Tuesday afternoon.

Co-defendants only learned through the electronic filing of the government's motion after Tuesday's pretrial hearing that Santilli would not be joining them for jury selection Wednesday.

Prosecutors had argued up until Tuesday that Santilli had used his online show to issue a "call to action,'' to encourage more people to participate in the refuge takeover and to bring their firearms.

Coan had depicted Santilli, of Cincinatti, Ohio, as a "shock-jock'' journalist whose words were taken out of context by the government and did not intend to take over the refuge because he spent his nights at the Silver Spur Motel in Burns. He had argued that Santilli isn't violent and that he was being punished for his First Amendment right to free speech and his bravado.

Coan said he had been pushing for a dismissal of the case against his client for weeks.

"Pete had an innocent, lawful intent when he was out there,'' Coan said. "I was able to persuade prosecutors of that by last week.''

Coan said he had evidence that Santilli was surprised by the move to take over the refuge on Jan. 2 following the protest against the return to federal prison of Harney County ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steve Hammond. Coan also said he had evidence that Santilli didn't agree with the refuge takeover, and attempted an "intervention'' at the Burns fairgrounds to persuade others not to participate.

At one point, Santilli noticed the security detail assigned to him for the Hammonds' protest on Jan. 2 suddenly left him, according to Coan. When Santilli inquired why, he learned from Idaho "3 Percenter'' Brandon Curtis of the refuge takeover plan. Curtis further advised Santilli not to go along with it, Coan said.

"He was mad about what happened. He felt like he was taken advantage of. He also didn't want to abandon these guys. He didn't want to leave the unfolding story either,'' Coan said, of his client.

Santilli faces more serious charges in Nevada, where he faces a 16-count indictment, accused of conspiring to assault federal officers, threaten officers, obstruct justice, extort officers, and use and brandish a firearm in relation to a crime of violence stemming from the armed standoff outside the Bundy ranch near Bunkerville, Nevada.

The government alleges Santilli recruited gunmen to the ranch, helped lead an assault on U.S. Bureau of Land Management officers trying to roundup cattle on federal land, conducted reconnaissance of hotels where federal officers were staying and delivered an ultimatum to the land bureau's agent in charge to leave the impound site.

-- Maxine Bernstein

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/09/feds_dismiss_federal_conspirac.html#incart_big-photo

# ? Sep 7, 2016 01:47

Trillary Flinton: Aug 3, 2016

What the gently caress why would the judge exclude that? That sleazy gently caress was obviously not there in just a journalistic capacity.

# ? Sep 7, 2016 02:22

Baka-nin: Jan 25, 2015

Mr. Nice! posted:

Its not about the particular crime for which you were coerced. Its about whether you would have ever committed that crime. It's very subjective and rarely falls in favor of the defendants.

In this particular case, Bundy has taken up arms against federal agents once before in Nevada. Even if he was coached through the entire oregon occupation by undercover agent David Fry, there still would be no entrapment.

Well I've just checked Oregon's definition of entrapment, and it looks like it subscribes to that subjective test of entrapment. http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/161.275 Which is pretty shocking to me as that basically gives law enforcement officers freedom to instigate very serious breaches of the law so long as they target people unlikely to convince a jury of their good intentions. That's actually pretty terrible, I mean under UK's entrapment laws in the scenario you've listed the agent would be guilty of inciting an armed rebellion just so he and his superiors could get some arrests. And we still have very serious issues with police infiltration and instigation.

# ? Sep 7, 2016 02:29

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It's the more conventional and widespread definition of entrapment. There's nothing wrong with it.

# ? Sep 7, 2016 02:37

Baka-nin: Jan 25, 2015

I don't think either statement is true, I've checked and subjective entrapment seems to only apply in the US and even there a number of states don't use it. And given that all applications of objective entrapment I've seen leave less room for abuse by the authorities, and some were brought in specifically to curb previous abuses, I'd say there's a good case there's plenty wrong with it.

# ? Sep 7, 2016 02:47

Young Freud: Nov 26, 2006

Baka-nin posted:

Well Entrapment is admitting that you did it, or you were going to do the act, but you were coerced or compelled to do so by the law enforcement agency itself. A good example of this would be the agent provocateur, where a undercover policeman encourages repeatedly a group to carry out illegal acts.

So, is Ryan going to make the play that Ammon is an undercover FBI agent? :suspense:

# ? Sep 7, 2016 03:15

CaptainSarcastic: Jul 6, 2013

"Obama told us to occupy the refuge! YOU CAN'T PROVE HE DIDN'T!"

# ? Sep 7, 2016 03:19

red19fire: May 26, 2010

Trillary Flinton posted:

What the gently caress why would the judge exclude that? That sleazy gently caress was obviously not there in just a journalistic capacity.

Yeah, it's kind of bullshit, he was pretty far from an 'unbiased journalist' by shouting at counter protestors and inviting more people with guns to the refuge. But if it strengthens the case against the others, so be it.

Best case is he gets shunned by the rest of the movement as a snitch, and also gets crushed for the Nevada business.

# ? Sep 7, 2016 03:30

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Trillary Flinton posted:

What the gently caress why would the judge exclude that? That sleazy gently caress was obviously not there in just a journalistic capacity.

He's a sleazy piece of crap, but the case against him, even with the evidence that got thrown out, wasn't anywhere near as strong as the cases against the rest of them. And while I think that he definitely went way over the line, it's not a slam dunk like it is against the rest of the idiots going to trial. Best not to risk an acquittal and just send him back to Nevada where the case is much stronger. Dude's still going to jail, and for something real close to this, but not this.

As a broader issue, we're living in an age where there's plenty of biased reporting, both in ways overtly acknowledged by said reporters and in far more underhanded ways as well, and I don't personally like the idea that just because a journalist agrees and promotes the agenda on which they're reporting that they lose all the protections normally afforded to journalists. Our personal views, thanks to social media, are much more widely broadcast and available to those with any desire to find them online. While I don't think Santili's a journalist as most people would define, I can envision how think about how such precedent could be abused to silence legitimate, if obviously biased journalists from not getting too close to a story under risk of being prosecuted along with the perpetrators.

I think about journalists who went out to cover BLM protests and got caught up when things turned violent, and how I'd hate to see them get charged for covering it, just because their personal social media accounts say good things about BLM and encourage them. For a more chilling example, think about what Sherrif Joe and a crazyass right-wing judge in Maricopa County would do with that kind of precedent and ask yourself if it's worth it to put this guy away for even longer than he's already going away for.

# ? Sep 7, 2016 04:58

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

Jumpingmanjim posted:

The Conspiracy Charge against Pete Santili in the Malheur standoff has been dropped, he's still in a world of poo poo in Nevada though.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/09/feds_dismiss_federal_conspirac.html#incart_big-photo

That judge needs to learn what the gently caress media actually are. Harassing people who don't support the cause you're there to cover/support goes beyond 1A and media protection. Even the paparazzi don't get threatening with celebs (i think?) like this rear end in a top hat did to locals.

Though he's probably still completely up poo poo creek for Nevada so it's not like they can't just double down on wanting the harshest punishment possible for him there instead. Unless that judge makes a similar ruling in which case we get to look forward to more aggressive "reporting" from assholes like him in the future.

# ? Sep 7, 2016 05:16

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

Sadly I entrapped Jeb! with felony "Being a MESS" charges. It was wrong but also way too easy.

# ? Sep 7, 2016 05:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 01:53

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/occupation-trial-podcast-this-land-is-our-land/

There is a new BONUS episode of the podcast up about Pete Santilli and the jury selection process.

# ? Sep 7, 2016 06:35

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > a victory for liberty over tyranny

«‹›448 »