Posted on 09/23/2016 4:35:59 AM PDT by Nextrush
U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown on Thursday threatened to hold Ammon Bundy's lawyer in contempt of court each time he defies her order and tries to delve into the circumstances surrounding the officer-involved shooting of refuge occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy" Finicum during trial.
The judge told attorney Marcus Mumford that she'd fined him $1,000 each time he raised the issue in front of jurors.....
"I have ruled on this issue and it appears to me you disregard it," Brown told Mumford after excusing the jury for a morning restroom break.
"Do you understand what I'm saying...yes or no?" the judge asked Mumford as he was about to explain.....
The judge pointed to Mumford's questioning of rancher Andy Dunbar, whose property is adjacent to the eastern Oregon refuge.....
He testified that he heard shooting by the refuge boat launch on six different days. The launch is a little over a mile from the Dunbar Ranch, he said.
"You could definitely hear the shots being fired," he said.
Asked if there were a few gunshots, Dunbar said no, that there were "lots, lots and lots."....
"It's not simply the presence of the firearms. It's the use of firearms on the refuge, during the conspiracy. It could not be more relevant," (Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan) Knight said.....
Further testimony revealed that Dunbar and his 26-year-old-son, Tucker Dunbar, each were paid $2,000 by the FBI for access to their properties. The son lives across the street from his father.
Mumford introduced the FBI receipt into evidence....
Asked if that amount is a large amount of money for him, Dunbar said it was a "significant" amount. "I told them I didn't want it," Dunbar said.
"Did you give it back?" Mumford asked.
"No," Dunbar said.......
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
When I was serving jury duty, the prosecutor let numerous “details” slip about the case we WEREN’T supposed to know about regarding a man who’d jumped bail (that was OUR case).
She divulged that he was charged with beating his girlfriend and other details. She was reckless in her prosecution of the case but the facts of his bail jumping were pretty open and shut.
I’m certain that there are FBI agents trying to provoke violent actions on the right (in tea parties and such). We hear about a number of such stings that net results in apprehending Islamists and libtard Communists/Anarchists. People on the right haven’t taken the bait. Maybe it’s because conservatives DON’T want to harm innocent people and blow up this country.
There were informants in Oregon. There were informants in Waco (in both situations).
The most serious charge is conspiracy to impede federal officials-officers from doing their job along with bringing firearms onto a federal facility and others along the line of destroying or damaging federal property.
“conspiracy to impede federal officials-officers from doing their job along with bringing firearms onto a federal facility”
Impeding forest rangers from reaching a facility which was closed for winter and bringing firearms onto a wildlife refuge (read hunting area). How dare they bring guns into a hunting area!
Just info for others Next, I know you have been following very closely and this is not news to you.
“Two words: “jury nullification”.”
I like it. Here’s two more: lamp post.
Slightly OT. I’ve seen some in the media try to tie Bundy, et. al. into the sovereign Citizen movement. Is there any truth to it or is it just a red herring?
CC
In my (admittedly and thankfully few) brushes with the legal system I have seen that it is corrupt and that actual justice is far down the list of priorities and an unlikely outcome of any encounter with the legal system.
It seems to me that anything having to do with the death of Finicum is relevant to Bundy’s state of mind either during or after it happened.
So, this charge in particular, “impede federal officials-officers from doing their job “, should only be permitted to exclude Finicum if it restricts itself to any alleged ‘impeding’ BEFORE events on that drive leading the death of Finicum. ANY of the charges should be prohibited from mentioning anything during or after that fateful drive. Anything mentioned by the prosecutor during or after that drive should be fair, and fair would mean the death of Finicum being discussed. JMHO.
The judge has to ensure a guilty verdict. Any attempt to get to the truth must be severely dealt with.
I have been called dozens of times to jury service. I always get out of it because in voir dire I tell the truth. When asked if I will follow the instructions of the judge, I say that it depends on what they are. I then give an example or two of situations like this where I would be told to ignore relevant information because the court is trying to keep the truth from the jury.
As a result of my truthful statements I invariably get excused for cause.
The truth is irrelevant in criminal trials. Juries are kept in the dark so they aren’t informed of the truth. It’s systemic.
Sovereign’s dont carry a copy of the constitution around with them because they believe that it doesnt apply to them. The Bundy’s and LaVoy falling so hard on the side of justice in the eyes of the law is directly opposite of how soveriegns want the system to work for them. Most soveriegns believe that established govt higher than the county sheriff to be illegitimate. Soveriegns interpret everything as to how it can benefit themselves over others, The Bundy’s main mission was to show support for others who had been abused by the Federal government. There were no soveriegn citizens at the Oregon Standoff because there was nothing there for them to personally gain from it.
But it wouldnt surprise me if the media tried that spin.
“The most serious charge is conspiracy to impede federal officials-officers from doing their job...”
Seems to me the WH, DOJ, and DHS has been doing this routinely for about eight years running. But it’s okay when they do it.
There’s all kinds of ‘discrediting’ going on in mainstream media and beyond with the pretend patriots of a web page called “The Oath” not to mention leftists who claim the protestors included “white supremacists” and the list goes on.
Totally unfit for office as usual.
Appointed by Clinton.
A feminazi and lesbian.
That takes a bit of sand, my brother. But, basically you're saying that you hold the truth higher than the orders of the judge. Do I have that right?
“Here’s two more: lamp post.”
Yeah put the judge up on one, along with hundreds of others of her ilk.
If the Government can Control what Charges are Brought forth
If the Government can Control what Witnesses and Testimony is introduced
If the Government can Control what Evidence is allowed
What is the PURPOSE of a TRIAL???
” you hold the truth higher than the orders of the judge.”
Unequivocally YES !
thanks.
the answer is what I already knew...it depends.
Let me rephrase the question.
In this particular case, is hearing gunfire over a mile away legitimate ?
In general I agree with you.
There are some cases, one of which I know of in particular, where the accused was innocent and "evidence" of his guilt was withheld from the jury.
The so-called evidence was a video of one person's interview with another person. No oath, nothing to substantiate the truth of what was said.
The prosecutor kept referring to the video as though it was proof of something even though it was rightfully not allowed in court.
The guy was found not guilty. Basically what I'm saying is that the system works sometimes.
Actually, it was the bringing of the firearms into the buildings on the refuge.
Here's the law:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to— (1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
I've argued in the past that the phrase "or other lawful purposes" includes the Creator-given right to self-defense and the defense of other innocents is most certainly under the cover of "lawful purpose."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.