|
Arguing federal land ownership is limited to the enclave clause is verging dangerously into rule 11 territory. Members of the bar do not get to make sov cit arguments.
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
I had a plot in a community garden once, I'm a farmer.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Didn't someone in this thread who lives in Kanab say that Finnicum was generally regarded to have treated the foster kids decently, even if they were his primary revenue stream?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Yeah if you're owed a refund there is no penalty for not filing your returns. You just lose the ability to get those refunds after three years.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Might not be a great idea for Ammon to grandstand in ways that piss off his co-defendants. It's not like they need all that much incentive to roll on him, they're sitting in jail too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
I bet the jail food sucks, and im more than happy to hear about from literally anyone who cared before the Bundys got there.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Why doesn't this paragon of personal liberty and hewed-from-stone individualism carry a water bottle.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:My favorite part of the Bible is when Jesus ran in a circle yelling
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
ForeverBWFC posted:I think American cops are pretty excessive with sovcits after they killed some cops during routine stops (I remember a police training vid being posted where a sovcit with an automatic rifle just guns down a cop at a traffic stop). I think if they hear the sovcit "magic words" then it triggers a warning that the person they're dealing with is very unpredictable, and they should get them dealt with safely asap (I think that's why as soon as the people in the videos mention sovcit bullshit the first thing all the cops do is get right on the radio for backup). Speaking as a law enforcement officer, you are correct - there is training about what sovereign citizens are and how to recognize them. And most of what I have been exposed to is that when you encounter one you resort immediately to your basic tactics: maintaining a position of advantage, emphasizing awareness of cover if needed, bringing in additional resources, etc. I would disagree with that being excessive though. As soon as someone starts spouting off sovereign citizen nonsense they are telegraphing that they are more likely than some other random person to be a problem, and when someone does that it is your basic responsibility to put yourself in a position to deal with those problems. It's really not any different than someone starting a contact by saying "gently caress you cocksucker." They both mean the same thing: I don't recognize your authority, and I'm not going to cooperate. Those are the basic ingredients that lead to an assault on an officer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
There have been some notable shootings but I wouldn't go that far. Like pretty much any group, the vast majority of them are not inclined to commit murder. they're probably more likely than the population at large to kill police, but I'm not sure they're more likely than than the general population of 'pissed off people with guns' to kill police.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Ryan's filing just got word-filtered.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
ooh I found a typoquote:
That's a federal government license plate not an oregon license plate. Looks like the feds just admitted the U.S. government is under the jurisdiction of the sovereign state government, checkmate case dismissed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Physical Evidence - Guns new thread title
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Welp, caught up to the thread and the trial news. Sucked missing most of it, but this is about what I expected. JJ macnab's twitter list is a godsend.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It might be pushing the “sporting” exemption to rattle the town windows with 50 lbs. of the stuff. No, it's like how a baseball has sporting uses so it's legal to throw one through someone's window.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
lawyers are so bad at banter
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/788408535944048640 lol
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Eh, sort of. Formally, a mistrial means you just start over from square one. So in theory they could have this same trial over again, or charge them differently (greater or lesser), rework theory theory of the case, have a new strategy, etc. And sometimes that happens. But more realistically, a mistrial suggests there is some underlying problem with the case and the practical result is that the government tries to resolve it without a trial. That could mean tossing the case entirely, as happened in the Freddie Gray prosecutions in Baltimore, that could mean making more favorable plea offers to the defendants, etc. A mistrial is generally regarded as a failure on the government's part, and there is a lot of pressure to avoid a repeat outcome. That will be especially true in a case like this, which has taken over this judge's courtroom for a month and a half. If she is anything like the vast majority of judges she will be remarkably unenthusiastic about blocking off another month and a half. Despite the formal sense in which a mistrial just means the trial never happened, a mistrial in a case like this, with overwhelming evidence in favor of the prosecution and basically no legitimate question of law, would be a massive defeat for the government. It's also the only realistic option for the defendants, so that's their goal.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
I want a can of stagg chili now. Goddamn it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Dr. Killjoy posted:I swear to god a court appointed public defender would have been scores better than this goddamn clown. The court appointed lawyers have done very solid work in this case. Mumford has played a jackass.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
When jurors have questions (whether they can consider certain information, whether they can get a clarification on a jury instruction, etc.) it is up to the court to provide (or decline to provide) an answer. Because a trial is more or less a zero sum game, the precise answer given likely benefits one side at the other's expense to some degree or another. As a result, the judge doesn't just answer the question immediately, the parties argue over the answer and then the court crafts the answer and gives it to the jury. It's more or less addenda to the jury instructions.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
lmao step up your voir dire game defense counsel. Wouldn't be shocking based on those questions if one or more juriors are trying to find a way to avoid convicting Fry and Medenbach on the weapons charges.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Condiv posted:is it possible a guilty verdict could be tossed because of the BLM guy in the jury pool? That's a stretch, his prior history with BLM was known during jury selection and the defense had 21 peremptory challenges. We also don't know what was actually said. For all anyone outside the jury rooms knows, he said "I'm very biased, but we have to look at each charge element by element and leave our personal feelings out of it" or something.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Incidentally, juror bias is currently before the supreme court. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-case-on-juror-racial-bias.html The existing standard is very deferential to secrecy of the deliberation process and if this case rolls that back it sounded at oral argument like it would be narrowly focused on issues of racial bias.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Is that first question even valid? As in the jury should only be considering the evidence presented for each individual charge and not the implication of their votes for the trial as a whole? Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(b) is pretty unambiguous - partial verdicts are fine. The ninth circuit model jury instructions are also very clear - each charge and each defendant has to be considered separately. See specifically model instructions 1.14 and 3.14. Not surprising for the jury to be confused on a point like that though. This is a very complex case.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Leah_Sottile/status/791066084090662913
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Welp, looks like we can bump the verdict out a day or two at minimum.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
So if you get jury duty and one of the other jurors annoys you, just send a handwritten note to the judge accusing them of bias. The judge can't ignore the accusation, and can't ask questions to figure out if you're full of poo poo. This was an overly defensive move on her part. The decision whether to disqualify a juror is left to the discretion of the trial court and reviewed on a very deferential standard. She was not convinced based on her interview with the juror that he was biased. She leaned on the prosecution to stipulate. That is not really "good cause." It would be one thing if the juror had lied or hid his past. He did not. Defense counsel knew he worked for BLM and failed to get rid of him. You're not entitled to a jury with zero members who have any biases of any kind, you're entitled to a jury that can act impartially in spite of any biases. It's not even clear the guy said anything wrong. Acknowledging the existence of a bias and working past it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I can understand where she is coming from - every possible avenue of appeal will be pursued as more or less a recreational endeavor. So maybe this was ultimately the correct path. But it is frustrating.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
I'm reading a fair bit into the sense of the courtroom from last night, at least as reported on twitter. It seemed like she was leaning against dismissing him after talking to him, and then decided she just wanted to get rid of the issue after getting Mumford's motion. It is ultimately probably a minor issue. I'm just irritated there always has to be some extra tedious bullshit everyone has to tip toe around with these people.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Can't arzy over the election since Clinton's going to probably win by 5+ points, time to arzy over yall qaeda members being found not guilty by reason of American Stupidity. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
That is faster than expected.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
are you loving kidding me
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
welp see you guys later, off to take over a post office, nothing loving matters
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
stay safe tarp ghost
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
well my toilets stopped up, i could fix it, or I could go dig a hole in those jurors yards with a stolen tractor and poo poo in it, since that's apparently not a crime
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Im wondering too, I know the whole "trial by jury of your peers" and not being charged twice thing but what happens if the jury goes "eh gently caress it not guility" Like could I straight up murder a dude infront of a security camera in good light and state my name and everything and still get a not guilty charge if the jury was stupid af? idk, are you a dumb loving hick?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
Welp, time for me to find a park east of the Mississippi to work in, gently caress this poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 00:26
|
|