|
Platystemon posted:But did the chili have beans in it? https://twitter.com/SueMoenius/status/788545396813488128
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 07:00 |
|
|
Everybody is going to be bummed as hell when Bronn shows up tomorrow and kills the AUSA in one on one combat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
This is unintentionally a pretty apt metaphor. The government buys a can a chili and walks out of the store. Bundy walks up with a gun and takes the chili out of the bag and walks back into the store, where he proceeds to attempt to purchase it, and is promptly arrested. "Why did you steal that chili?" "I wasn't stealing it, I was planning to pay for it." "You took it from another person, how is that not stealing?" "They gave it to me." "Then why did you have the gun?" "Well, they wouldn't have given it to me if I didn't." "..."
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Bobulus posted:This is unintentionally a pretty apt metaphor. The government buys a can a chili and walks out of the store. Bundy walks up with a gun and takes the chili out of the bag and walks back into the store, where he proceeds to attempt to purchase it, and is promptly arrested. More like "the Constitution does not say that the government is allowed to own chili. Therefore, the government unlawfully acquired that chili and I, a patriot, liberated it for the people. By 'the people' I mean I wanted the chili and decided to take it by force."
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Bobulus posted:This is unintentionally a pretty apt metaphor. The government buys a can a chili and walks out of the store. Bundy walks up with a gun and takes the chili out of the bag and walks back into the store, where he proceeds to attempt to purchase it, and is promptly arrested. ToxicSlurpee posted:More like "the Constitution does not say that the government is allowed to own chili. Therefore, the government unlawfully acquired that chili and I, a patriot, liberated it for the people. By 'the people' I mean I wanted the chili and decided to take it by force."
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Dr. Killjoy posted:I swear to god a court appointed public defender would have been scores better than this goddamn clown. That's who is giving the only compenent defense here. (Fry's attorney)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
nm posted:That's who is giving the only compenent defense here. (Fry's attorney) *Lets Fry talk for 5 minutes "Your honor, Mr. Fry is clearly insane" "I am not!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
And that chili was made with freedom, freedom that the Founding Fathers bought with the greatest coupon ever written: The Constitution. And you can't return a can of chili just because the freedom is too spicy for you, just as you can't imprison my clients for exercising their rights to that chili. The defense rests. *Turns and grins at Ammon client while giving double thumbs up*
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Please, I could handle that one. He should be committed to the Asylum of Criminally Insane Robots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Dr. Killjoy posted:I swear to god a court appointed public defender would have been scores better than this goddamn clown. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Did he insult the sketch artist or something? He looks like a mongoloid chuckling to himself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Rebel Blob posted:This is Mumford, suddenly the choice of a chili analogy makes a lot more sense... (this article has a bunch of the court drawings). 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Please, I could handle that one. This is clearly a jokey answer, but NGI has been so loving gutted at this point that it is virtually an impossible standard for anyone to meet. Getting an NGI with someone who was floridly psychotic at the time is hard enough. Also, NGI often results in clients spending more time in custody than if they get a straight guilty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
Mumford was apparently an associate at Skadden for eight years, which really takes some of the luster off the big firm credential.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
So are the fucks going to jail or what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^ They're already in jail. They're going to prison. Fun fact: People who've already been to prison generally can't wait to get to loving prison if it in inevitable. Better food, less politics (aka less random violence), more recreational opportunities, etc. When realignment happened and former prison inmates learned they were going to do years in county jail they loving flipped. If only the tough on crime people knew that pissed repeat felons off more than anything, they might have supported it. Kazak_Hstan posted:Mumford was apparently an associate at Skadden for eight years, which really takes some of the luster off the big firm credential. Most big law associates barely do any courtroom work and could be destroyed in a criminal case by any decent second year DA or PD. One of the most fascinating things about criminal trial work is how little formal education really matters. You gotta be reasonably smart, but it is more about social intelligence and such. I went to a good school and suck at trails compared to a fair number of PDs who went to TTTs or even non-ABA schools. Most, but not all, of the criminal attorneys I would refer people to went to law schools no one heard of. (The above does not mean you should go to a TTT. Going to a good school means you can make money if it turns out you're not a criminal trial idiot savant.) I will point out; however, that pissing off the judge in front of the jury is a time honored if risky tactic to take in some cases, but generally you need a sympathetic defendant and Bundy ain't that. If your client seems like a good dude and they judge and the DA are being dicks, juries will sometimes try to "even things out" by being extra nice to your client. I've had that happen (mostly by accident) in one case. This is risky as hell, even if unintentional, because if you lose, your client is gonna do some serious time. In my trial where this happened (by accident), the judge was clearly making a record so as to max out my client (who I actually believe to be NG). If we hadn't gotten full NGs, he'd have been completely hosed. (I'd love to take credit for this one, but my client testified and was honest and friendly and didn't let the DA rattle him. He even had a felony record that came out that he explained in a way that made the DA look like an rear end in a top hat. That takes skill an attorney just can't teach.) edit: He was also a 10th circuit clerk. He's almost certainly not a dummy, but lots of smart people can be bad trial attorneys. fake edit 2: I will say I haven't followed things quite closely enough to say he is a bad trial attorney, though the things I've seen certainly make me wonder. Simply pissing off the judge and media (who are generally the worst reporters of whether an attorney si doing good) is often a sign you're just doing your job. No one else matter but those 12 people in the box. This is a really loving hard case to try as they are just so clearly guilty which means it is time to pick some crazy rear end defense theory you'd never try if you were worried about being IAC in a winnable case. On these types of cases, you get to try out poo poo you'd never try otherwise, because, really what's the worst that can happen? Your client can't be found extra guilty. nm has issued a correction as of 06:54 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
nm posted:On these types of cases, you get to try out poo poo you'd never try otherwise, because, really what's the worst that can happen? Your client can't be found extra guilty. Hopefully this will be the case that prompts the legislature to add a statute allowing defendants to be found "extra guilty."
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
nm posted:
Yeah, I was a biglaw associate, albeit not Skadden big. I mostly just enjoy talking poo poo about big firms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Yeah, I was a biglaw associate, albeit not Skadden big. I mostly just enjoy talking poo poo about big firms. As do I because they can't try their way out of a paper bag despite being "litigation attorneys" and making 2x (or more) what good trial lawyers (many of whom have done death cases) make. There are good big law trial attorneys, but they're partners and generally started as US attorneys or federal defenders or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/karinapdx is turning out gold. from http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/10/18/bundy-occupied-refuge-after-being-ignored-lawyer-says.htm : quote:Ammon Bundy's lawyer continued Tuesday to argue legal theories that aren't at issue in the trial of seven occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, while an attorney for the government said the defendants have basically admitted their guilt. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight said Bundy and his six co-defendants' ultraconservative beliefs about the rightful role of the federal government under the Constitution are irrelevant. Instead, what matters is whether the occupiers broke the law by conspiring to keep refuge employees from doing their jobs. Knight said Bundy and his co-defendants think the law applies differently to them, that they believe if they are acting for the right reasons, they can choose which laws to follow. "It's not about the beliefs or values of any of these defendants," Knight told the jury. "It's about them deciding which laws apply and which don't. It's about a collective decision to take what isn't theirs and make it theirs."
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Important detail about Mumford's presentation: according to the OPB podcast reporters it was four hours long.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:One slide read: "Being ignored: The worst feeling ever." LOL. Please find us not guilty on account of having our feelings hurt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
"Senpai noticed me  " - Ryan BundyThe real crime here is that the Feds ignored them for so long 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
I love life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
cumshitter posted:Important detail about Mumford's presentation: according to the OPB podcast reporters it was four hours long. Mercifully with two short breaks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
cumshitter posted:Important detail about Mumford's presentation: according to the OPB podcast reporters it was four hours long.  When I had jury duty it didn't even take us 4 hours to return a verdict on the half dozen or so charges, with each side taking maybe 30 minutes total for their final remarks. I can't imagine sitting through four hours of that guy's insanity. Gonna laugh if the jury returns a verdict in a very short period of time, though the sovcits will just see it as the process being rigged.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Ryan Bundy continues to https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/788778830152409088
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:https://twitter.com/karinapdx is turning out gold. It seems like Mumford's entire defense seems to be debating whether or not the laws should apply to his clients because they're so upset, rather than whether or not they broke them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:It seems like Mumford's entire defense seems to be debating whether or not the laws should apply to his clients because they're so upset, rather than whether or not they broke them. That's because no one, not even the defense, is questioning that they broke those laws. This is all Mumford's got. (The defense tried to argue some of them, but also did a great job proving themselves that they did indeed break those laws) Cox's defense: "I was just taking notes!" TotalLossBrain has issued a correction as of 18:49 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:https://twitter.com/karinapdx is turning out gold. By mishandling artifacts, plowing roads through archeology sites, trashing the buildings, plugging the toilets, hacking government computers, stealing money and vehicles, destroying property both public and private, and leaving piles of trash and poo poo all over the refuge. Yeah, sounds legit
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/chrisliedle/status/788537904968572929 via https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/lists/bundy-oregon-trials?s=09
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/karinapdx/status/788812861485166592 You don't say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:By mishandling artifacts, plowing roads through archeology sites, trashing the buildings, plugging the toilets, hacking government computers, stealing money and vehicles, destroying property both public and private, and leaving piles of trash and poo poo all over the refuge. Yeah, sounds legit Yeah I'm amazed the government didn't use pictures of the poop trench or ruined building as a counter argument to their obvious lies about 'we took over in order to improve the refuge'. Lutha Mahtin posted:five second rule!! In the military UCMJ this is called wrongful appropriation and carries the same penalties as theft. The one case I prepped for it, Guy A says hey dude, you can borrow my truck anytime if you need it. Later Guy B breaks a window in his house to get the keys because Guy A wasn't home, and drives to Havasu for a weekend. 'It's not theft because I returned it with a full tank of gas' 
red19fire has issued a correction as of 20:42 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
TotalLossBrain posted:That's because no one, not even the defense, is questioning that they broke those laws. This is all Mumford's got. They are clearly targeting the 1 or 2 crazy jurors they hope are on the panel in hopes of them nullifying. You have to give them something to hang on to, as most jurors won't knowingly nullify even if you tell them they can. You give them enough facts and confuse the issue just enough that they think they have a valid issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
From here:quote:How the Oregon standoff ended, with a Japanese American man from Ohio holed up in a shelter at the edge of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge with a gun to his head in the midst of a mental health crisis, was almost as improbable as the crime that the man, David Fry, was charged with, his lawyer told jurors Wednesday. It seems like Fry's defender is trying to argue he didn't intend to be involved in a conspiracy and the charges are inappropriate. I'm guessing they're trying to generate sympathy instead of appealing to potential nullifiers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Fry has a diagnosis of schizo affective disorder, right? Is there a mental component to conspiracy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Found an artist's depiction of Ryan Bundy's legal woes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brdx7kmxx2I
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Lol @ Medenbach's (?) lawyer Schindler: https://twitter.com/amandapeacher/status/788860512838619137 https://twitter.com/amandapeacher/status/788860626273566720 These guys are hosed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
TotalLossBrain posted:Lol @ Medenbach's (?) lawyer Schindler: "Yes, I understand that I broke into your house. But you were on a long trip to Europe, so it doesn't count!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 07:00 |
|
|
TotalLossBrain posted:Lol @ Medenbach's (?) lawyer Schindler:  "they got paid leave for having to put up with an armed occupation of their workplace, therefore the occupation couldn't have possibly been illegal. Q.E.D. motherfuckers"
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 23:09
|
|
