|
ansel autisms posted:Second day of oral arguments are about to begin, enjoy some fresh Bundyisms: Hahaha holy poo poo, he's still sticking to the strategy of the feds not having jurisdiction, and wants a state government trial in Harney county, with Harney residents as jurors. quote:18) Nor was there any facts alleged where defendant Ryan Bundy, waived his right as a traveler sojourning peacefully in the state Oregon under Article I, section 11; to be tried in the county in which he was arrested. FREEMAN ON THE LAND This is great, the judge has to deny his self-representation now, right? he's filed nothing but ridiculous claims at this point. The more I read the more amazing it gets, page 7 (of 20!) starts a 3-page history of the Magna Carta and Medieval Laws, featuring trials by ordeal, Oliver Cromwell and William Penn. quote:The problems of jury trials And now he's disputing what a 'state' is, according to an 1870 law dictionary. He keeps saying 'vicinage' is that a real legal term, or a latin-based word he's using to make himself seem smarter? Uh oh, he's using a normal-ish signature, i guess the secret government mind control/boat program got to him quote:Respectfully submitted this 9th day of August 2016. 20 pages of this nonsense  I wonder if the judge's response will be "This is America, there are no Crowns" 
red19fire has issued a correction as of 19:02 on Sep 14, 2016 |
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
red19fire posted:FREEMAN ON THE LAND
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Second day of oral arguments are about to begin, enjoy some fresh Bundyisms:
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Wait can you really bring up jurisdiction at any point like it says in those papers?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
No. He's been told several times that the court has jurisdiction and he needs to stop yammering about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Wait can you really bring up jurisdiction at any point like it says in those papers? No, the jurisdictional matters have already been ruled upon (unsurprisingly, the feds have jurisdiction) and the judge filed an order prohibiting Bundy to contest it again since even if the feds didn't have jurisdiction the deadline to bring up that argument had already passed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Dammit I wish scribd wasn't the de facto standard for posting legal docs, since they charge for iPad users :/
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure he knows that he isn't allowed to bring up jurisdiction again, which is why the motion is titled "motion to quash jury pool" even though he talks about jurisdiction for 17 out of 20 pages. As far as I can tell his argument for the titular quash is that the jury pool wasn't drawn from just a single division of the district, but from the entire district; as authority he cites a citation in another case:United States v. Herbert, 698 F.2d 981, 984 (1983) posted:A petit jury may be drawn constitutionally from only one division and not the whole district.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Bonfire Lit posted:I'm pretty sure he knows that he isn't allowed to bring up jurisdiction again, which is why the motion is titled "motion to quash jury pool" even though he talks about jurisdiction for 17 out of 20 pages. As far as I can tell his argument for the titular quash is that the jury pool wasn't drawn from just a single division of the district, but from the entire district; as authority he cites a citation in another case: To be what he wants, he'd want wording like A petit jury may ONLY be drawn constitutionally from
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Gounads posted:To be what he wants, he'd want wording like i think youll see that because of USC code 85.15.23 the law can mean anything i drat well want it to mean so you better step back son sic semper tyrranis molon labe dont tread on me
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
The only thing that could possibly make this trial better is if P. Barnes were one of the bailiffs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
lawl he plagiarized all of the discussion of the manga carta you can find the sites he cut and pasted from online, mostly https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-and-jury-trial
evilweasel has issued a correction as of 22:21 on Sep 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:The only thing that could possibly make this trial better is if P. Barnes were one of the bailiffs. Alternate: Richard Moll
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Let's give him some credit, that's probably the most truthful statement that the defense will make during the trial.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
I met Sean & Sandy Anderson today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:lawl he plagiarized all of the discussion of the manga carta you can find the sites he cut and pasted from online, mostly https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-and-jury-trial yesss come see me after class, Mr. Bundy ansel autisms posted:I met Sean & Sandy Anderson today. Gotta get some Patriot Selfies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
ahahahaha one of the occupiers has flipped and will be testifying for the prosecution
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:ahahahaha one of the occupiers has flipped and will be testifying for the prosecution Source? Which one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/karinapdx/status/776189888337096705 I hope this is real.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Source? Which one? https://twitter.com/hecktow/status/775855516429934592 Who knows where his source is, but he's been in the courtroom so I'm guessing it's correct http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/06/oregon_standoff_defendant_jaso.html Feds recommended a low sentence, sentencing to be held after the trial ends. Hmmm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Feds recommended a low sentence, sentencing to be held after the trial ends. Hmmm. That part's entirely conventional. Sorry for not keeping up, I've spent the day in an Oz fugue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
We missed you, my mind has turned to mush from data wrangling and no new Bundy podcasts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
There's a new 12 minute podcast out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
red19fire posted:https://twitter.com/karinapdx/status/776189888337096705
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
I'm having a hard time squaring this insanity with the fact that I drive by protesters outside the court house on my way home every day. At least so far this week.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Winkle-Daddy posted:I'm having a hard time squaring this insanity with the fact that I drive by protesters outside the court house on my way home every day. At least so far this week. All 10 of them? I've been going every day to try to see anything wild. So far it's just been a tiny group doing "marches" around the courthouse and getting honked at by BMWs when they block the road. I also met a horse enthusiast who was there just to hang out around the horse they dragged in. https://twitter.com/conradjwilson/status/776208461121990657 https://twitter.com/conradjwilson/status/776208626901852160 Anyone have a guess? Someone who waived their right to a speedy trial?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:All 10 of them? I've been going every day to try to see anything wild. So far it's just been a tiny group doing "marches" around the courthouse and getting honked at by BMWs when they block the road. I also met a horse enthusiast who was there just to hang out around the horse they dragged in. Maybe it was Lavoy.....where was this "sherriff" during the shootout where Lavoy died for our sins??
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Do they bother prosecuting dead people? I always thought that the legal system just kinda stopped once someone died unless there were Important Unresolved Details or something
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
i imagine you would run into some issues trying to prove that they were competent to stand trial and participate in their own defense
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
XMNN posted:i imagine you would run into some issues trying to prove that they were competent to stand trial and participate in their own defense Didn't stop Pope Stephen from judging Pope Formosus in the Cadaver Synod.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:Let's give him some credit, that's probably the most truthful statement that the defense will make during the trial. And by far the most coherent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Wait can you really bring up jurisdiction at any point like it says in those papers? Yes. Or rather, yes and with very few exceptions. If a court doesn't have jurisdiction over the person or the subject matter then it has no authority to render any decision and that can be raised at any time; even on appeal. I don't even think its something that can be waived by a party. edit: nevermind, i didn't read the whole discussion before jumping in. in the context of Bundy, he's raised it and it has been ruled on and the court is well within its rights to sanction him if he keeps bringing it up. in the context of, can he raise it again on appeal; absolutely and at every stage of the appeal. radical meme has issued a correction as of 13:32 on Sep 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
radical meme posted:edit: nevermind, i didn't read the whole discussion before jumping in. in the context of Bundy, he's raised it and it has been ruled on and the court is well within its rights to sanction him if he keeps bringing it up. in the context of, can he raise it again on appeal; absolutely and at every stage of the appeal. Judge Brown has warned him that if he keeps bringing stuff up that she ruled on already she's going to take away his right to represent himself. To my naive understanding it seems like she's in a hard situation. She has to weigh how much bullshit she's going to allow him to do in the proceedings, versus bringing the hammer down and further delegitimizing herself in the eyes of the mulletia (pun lol). Obviously they don't think highly of any government entity, but even the perceived slight of not letting him poo poo up the courtroom could be dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Did they rule on whether or not he's allowed to wear his cowboy dress-up outfit yet?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Judge Brown has warned him that if he keeps bringing stuff up that she ruled on already she's going to take away his right to represent himself. To my naive understanding it seems like she's in a hard situation. She has to weigh how much bullshit she's going to allow him to do in the proceedings, versus bringing the hammer down and further delegitimizing herself in the eyes of the mulletia (pun lol). Obviously they don't think highly of any government entity, but even the perceived slight of not letting him poo poo up the courtroom could be dangerous. She's not worried about public opion, she's worried about a conviction being overturned if she takes away his right to self-represent and having to do the whole thing over again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Sweevo posted:Did they rule on whether or not he's allowed to wear his cowboy dress-up outfit yet? Yes, "No."
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
nm posted:She's not worried about public opion, she's worried about a conviction being overturned if she takes away his right to self-represent and having to do the whole thing over again. So is that his stratety? Just be such an incoherent obstruction that the court gives up on trying to argue with him so he can appeal?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:So is that his stratety? Just be such an incoherent obstruction that the court gives up on trying to argue with him so he can appeal? The sovcit strategy is largely built upon bogging down the courts with such nonsense that things either take forever to get resolved or dropped out of convenience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
I think his strategy is 'if I keep trying, eventually I'll cast this drat spell right.'
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Do they bother prosecuting dead people? I always thought that the legal system just kinda stopped once someone died unless there were Important Unresolved Details or something I believe you cannot prosecute a dead person which means, for example, Kenneth Lay who died during the appeal of his conviction is in the eyes of the law innocent and that can't ever be changed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 16:25
|
|