Skip to comments.Marcus Mumford's prosecution is an 'unprecedented attack on the defense bar,"....(OREGON STANDOFF)
Posted on 01/07/2017 4:00:07 AM PST by Nextrush
Marcus Mumford, Ammon Bundy's lawyer who U.S. marshals tackled and stunnded with a Taser gun in federal court the day his client was acquitted, returned to the same courtroom Friday...
His attorney, Michael Levine, entered a not guilty plea on Mumford's behalf to charges of failing to comply with the lawful direction of a federal police office and impeding or disrupting official government duties...
maximum penalty for each offense is 30 days in custody and a $5,000 fine.
Mumford was arrested Oct. 27 shortly after the judge announced the jury's verdict..........
Deputy marshals tackled Mumford as he questioned the government's authority to continue to hold Bundy on federal charges pending in Nevada and demanded to see paperwork to back it up.
"What happened here is an unprecedented attack on the defense bar," Levine said.....
He called the use of stun gun and Mumford's arrest "outrageous"....
Oregon's federal public defender Lisa Hay, wearing a "FREE MARCUS MUMFORD" button on her blazer, other defense attorneys from the Bundy case and court staff crowded into the courtroom....
Hay said she came to show her support for a defense attorney who was "physically assaulted while advocating for his client in the courtroom and not in disobedience of any judicial order."
Judges can find attorneys or others in contempt of court, but Hay called it an "abuse of power" for defense lawyers to face physical force from marshals.....
Defense lawyer Matthew Schindler.... said he came to court Friday to support his friend....he also introduced himself to the federal prosecutor handling the case and volunteered to be interviewed because he said what the marshals wrote in the probable cause statement about what occurred was false.
"To the extent someone says Marcus Mumford took a fighting stance, they're lying. That's a fact," Schindler said.
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
Ammon Bundy's defense lawyer Marcus Mumford was attacked by federal marshals while arguing before a judge.
Prosecuting defense lawyers in political cases smacks of a Communist country, a police state.
failing to comply with the lawful direction of a federal police officer.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There was no reason to detain Bundy, he was being released by the judge on a motion by Mumford which the police interfered with.
Why do people, who will not sue them to protect themselves and family, carry guns in the first place?
“tackled and stunnded” Stunnded...is that like stuned? Was his bieber injured?
Sounds like the federal marshals, unhappy with the verdict, dished out their own justice. The KKK would be proud.
>>Why do people, who will not sue them to protect themselves and family, carry guns in the first place?
Because lawsuits don’t protect anyone. They only “make them whole” after the fact. If you need a gun, a lawsuit is an even poorer substitute than a cell phone.
According to a probable cause statement, the marshals said they moved forward to escort Bundy out of the courtroom when Mumford positioned his body to block them and began yelling in protest. When Mumford became more agitated, “flailing his arms and raising his voice even louder,’’ and exhibiting “pre-assault indicators,” they moved in.
Mumford earlier told The Oregonian/OregonLive that the marshals were “just making up facts.”
How many marshals were there?
Answer: "six to seven marshals slowly moved in and surrounded him at his defense table."
What are “pre-assault indicators”?
What “facts” are the Marshals making up?
I suppose the attorney did not show proper respect for the Marshals (not the judge). Headshake. With 6-7 Marshals, do you really think tasering him was necessary?
There are videos of the courtroom, it will be interesting to see who they support.
Do you really think that with 6-7 marshalls trying to restrain a defense attorney it was “necessary” to Taser him?
Now the part that was not mentioned, who brought the charges against the attorney? Was it the Trial Judge? Or was it some other Federal Prosecutor who responded to the probable charges which the Marshalls held the attorney on?
Bingo, you nailed the issue.
The US Deputy Marshalls are the people who submitted the probable cause report. I doubt that went to the Trial Judge. It is some other Fed Prosecutor who brought the charges. That is not stated.
I have a very good friend living near the area where Bundy was arrested. Most people have no idea of the armaments, personnel carriers, and the numbers of federal agents brought in to fight Bundy. Schools were also closed down in the general area. Imagine if such preparation were made to stop the liberals from the looting, arson, and property destruction in their Soros funded riots.
I was being facetious. However, this is an old government trick: go after someone’s defense attorney. It stinks.
What about the charges to the bailiffs and sheriffs who disobeyed the verbal orders of the judge in the court room and physically tackled the defense attorney in the open court room with no provocation?
Thats what I thought.
Time to file personal charges against each of the officers and the judge in addition to formal complaints against the judge.
Then go after the judge for $$$.
Hope Trump finds a good reason to fire the judge and replace him/her with someone sane.
“Do you really think that with 6-7 marshalls trying to restrain a defense attorney it was necessary to Taser him?”
No face palm!!!
“I think the feds wanted to make an example out of Bundy and they were furious when he was acquitted.”
Bingo... You are on target.
No sheriff deputies or bailiffs in federal court. US Marshal’s are the guilty party in this case.
Wrong answer. Bundy was held on a detainer by the State of Nevada. That means he was facing different charges in a different venue. It also means he remains in custody until the State of Nevada charges are satisfied. We can have a conversation about the validity of the charges at a later date.
Mumford was directed to step aside to allow the removal of Bundy from the courtroom at the judge’s direction. His failure to comply and aggressive demeanor resulted in him being teased. Again, HIS ACTIONS caused that.
Was that a legal application of non lethal force? Yes.
Was it appropriate? Unless you were in the mind of the marshal at the time of the event, you don’t get to make that call.
1. Most information provided about this case and this incident is from media accounts by journalists clearly hostile to Bundy and his cause. Most on this site think he’s been inappropriately prosecuted and the trial proved that fact.
2. Why then, are some on this site so quick to buy the left wing media account of this incident and condemn the marshals involved.
3. Before I get the standard fare “jack booted thugs of the federal government” response, I,would challenge some to do a little research into what the United States Marshals Service does and what it does not. Try querying the names John Perry, Josie Wells and Pat Carothers while you’re at it.
4. When I was hired, the agency aggressively hired from the military special operations community and combined that effort with seasoned law enforcement officers from local agencies. I the last few years, this administration has pushed their agenda deep into the hiring process of the DOJ but for the most part, this 3500 deputy agency is roughly 60% military veterans with some of us continuing to serve.
5. “Military Cop” is my attempt at a sarcastic joke. It’s not what I am. It’s the two things I’ve done my whole life.
Your answer: Because lawsuits dont protect anyone. They only make them whole after the fact. If you need a gun, a lawsuit is an even poorer substitute than a cell phone.
That does not answer my question. My question was "Why do people, who will not use them to protect themselves and family, carry guns in the first place?"
bottom line is this: If you are not willing to use a gun to defend yourself and/or your family, don't carry it?
“No, he’s released on these charges. He’s acquitted. Nevada doesn’t have jurisdiction,’’ Mumford yelled, standing before the judge. “If there’s a detainer, show me.’’
The US Marshals had no written detainer and Mumford was moving the court to order his release.
The US MArshals had no business attacking Mumford. The Judge made no order to do so , made no contempt finding.
Inside the court its the Judges venue.There was nop apprehenable danger to the court of to anyone whichi would justofy the US Marshals’ action.
The US MArshals were out of order, usurping court authority and they are going to pay for that. Big Time.
You might think that the court venue is like a back ally, but fortunately it is not, and inside that court room the attorneys and the defendants are protected by the constitutional right of due process. This action violated the rights of Mumford and of Bundy to speak freely in Court, whether he was yelling or not.
The Judge would have had to issue a contempt order for the arrest of Mumford. That never happened.
The Marshals acted as if they were jack booted thugs.
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.