Post: #201

(01-30-2016 12:56 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  And it worked, turns out all these guys were just playing with their tricked out AR-15s and had no real intention of defending their nonexistent liberty.

That's no big shocker. Life lesson: there's far more people who talk a big game than those who will actually deliver.

Every time our forum has a discussion about options of escape from America, the pickings are pretty limited with no real good options. Despite its flaws, the USA still offers the vast majority of its population a very good standard of living by any global standard.

I'm not suggesting that people should accept government overstep because life is "good enough," but in reality, 99.5% of people will and do.

Generally anyone who is going to seriously buck against the government is either a nutjob or a liberty hobbyist.

Revolutions happen all the time all around the world. They happen when things are bad enough that people see no choice, but to put their own life on the line.

We haven't had a genuine revolution attempt in the US since the Civil War because things aren't terrible enough to prompt it. Any time I hear someone talking about having guns and being ready to fight the gubermunt, I immediately write off all of their opinions.

Post: #202

Is it normal LEO training to step in front of a speeding vehicle? Looks suicidal.

Post: #203

(01-30-2016 01:09 AM)Suits Wrote:  Generally anyone who is going to seriously buck against the government is either a nutjob or a liberty hobbyist.

These guys made it easy for the government really. Figure the left is slavering to have the state execute right-wingers, if the entire history of the 20th century is any indication. Then on top of that you have the trad cons that tend to view any sort of disobedience against the authorities akin to pissing on the American flag their buddies died face down in the muck to defend. So ultimately we aren't going to see much of any reaction to this beyond angry libertarians on internet forums.

The thing to remember is that we do still live in a democracy, albeit one full of really stupid voters. Unless you can get the public to sympathize, trying to make a stand isn't going to effect any change. This is why black criminals getting shot but then having sympathetic media coverage had far more anti-government impact than this militia ever will.

Post: #204

The cop thought the driver was going to ram his car so he jumped out of the way.

Post: #205

People don't rebel until they have nothing left to lose. The Waco wackos were stripped of everything by their leader Koresh and turned into a religious suicide mission with some help from Janet Reno.
If the elites really want to complete their global domination plan they need to keep everybody in their own private property. But, they are too damn greedy for that and it will ultimately end in insurrection french revolution style.

Post: #206

(01-30-2016 02:02 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

(01-30-2016 01:09 AM)Suits Wrote:  Generally anyone who is going to seriously buck against the government is either a nutjob or a liberty hobbyist.

These guys made it easy for the government really. Figure the left is slavering to have the state execute right-wingers, if the entire history of the 20th century is any indication. Then on top of that you have the trad cons that tend to view any sort of disobedience against the authorities akin to pissing on the American flag their buddies died face down in the muck to defend. So ultimately we aren't going to see much of any reaction to this beyond angry libertarians on internet forums.

The thing to remember is that we do still live in a democracy, albeit one full of really stupid voters. Unless you can get the public to sympathize, trying to make a stand isn't going to effect any change. This is why black criminals getting shot but then having sympathetic media coverage had far more anti-government impact than this militia ever will.

The media could have made this man into a martyr who could bring down people if they wanted. They could get thousands of the streets.

Do you think any of those BLM people are geniuses or they have some sort of ressonating cause?

Not at all, they simply have the multi-billion media industry constantly bombarding the sheep with how to think. Nothing more, nothing less. You could make people think Gadaffi was the best thing ever if only you had media control.

Post: #207

(01-30-2016 02:34 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(01-30-2016 02:02 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

(01-30-2016 01:09 AM)Suits Wrote:  Generally anyone who is going to seriously buck against the government is either a nutjob or a liberty hobbyist.

These guys made it easy for the government really. Figure the left is slavering to have the state execute right-wingers, if the entire history of the 20th century is any indication. Then on top of that you have the trad cons that tend to view any sort of disobedience against the authorities akin to pissing on the American flag their buddies died face down in the muck to defend. So ultimately we aren't going to see much of any reaction to this beyond angry libertarians on internet forums.

The thing to remember is that we do still live in a democracy, albeit one full of really stupid voters. Unless you can get the public to sympathize, trying to make a stand isn't going to effect any change. This is why black criminals getting shot but then having sympathetic media coverage had far more anti-government impact than this militia ever will.

The media could have made this man into a martyr who could bring down people if they wanted. They could get thousands of the streets.

Do you think any of those BLM people are geniuses or they have some sort of ressonating cause?

Not at all, they simply have the multi-billion media industry constantly bombarding the sheep with how to think. Nothing more, nothing less. You could make people think Gadaffi was the best thing ever if only you had media control.

Putin is Hitler, Trump is Hitler, the migrants are all women and children from Syria, Bruce Jenner is brave and stunning and a wonderful driver, black kids are being forced to pick cotton on college campuses by serial rapist fraternity bros...the list goes on.

There's a reason the dystopian sci-fi genre got started with the advent of mass media.

Post: #208

Cliven Bundy arrested at the Portland Airport:

Quote:Cliven Bundy, the controversial Nevada rancher at the center of an armed standoff with federal officials in 2014, was arrested in Portland Wednesday, according to jail records and news reports.

He was reportedly on his way to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in isolated southeastern Oregon, where an armed occupation in its 41st day seemed to be coming to an end. The occupation had been organized by Bundy’s son Ammon, who is now in jail facing a felony charge of conspiracy to impede a federal officer.

The last remaining members of the occupation had said they will turn themselves over on Thursday morning, after the FBI appeared to close in on their encampment.

The newspaper said that Bundy, 74, faces the same charge as his son in relation to his standoff with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in 2014. He also faces weapons charges, it said.

More details here.

Post: #209

(01-30-2016 01:09 AM)Suits Wrote:  I'm not suggesting that people should accept government overstep because life is "good enough," but in reality, 99.5% of people will and do.


Revolutions happen all the time all around the world. They happen when things are bad enough that people see no choice, but to put their own life on the line.

I agree with the above, and also think it makes the history of the American Revolution all the more interesting and remarkable to think about. Compared to the French peasant starving in the street or the beaten down Russian serf, the Americans living under the British didn't really have it that bad. And the ringleaders of the revolution were mostly well-off merchants and land owners who had comfortable homes, families, women to amuse themselves with; all of which they risked in addition to their necks in 1776.

Post: #210

(02-11-2016 07:56 AM)Chevalier De Seingalt Wrote:  

(01-30-2016 01:09 AM)Suits Wrote:  I'm not suggesting that people should accept government overstep because life is "good enough," but in reality, 99.5% of people will and do.


Revolutions happen all the time all around the world. They happen when things are bad enough that people see no choice, but to put their own life on the line.

I agree with the above, and also think it makes the history of the American Revolution all the more interesting and remarkable to think about. Compared to the French peasant starving in the street or the beaten down Russian serf, the Americans living under the British didn't really have it that bad. And the ringleaders of the revolution were mostly well-off merchants and land owners who had comfortable homes, families, women to amuse themselves with; all of which they risked in addition to their necks in 1776.

This is true, but the most remarkable element of the American Revolution is that it led to stability. Revolutions occur plenty, but few lead to a long term workable solution.

While there are plenty of men with the capacity to destroy and even many with the talent to build, there's very few men alive who have the ability to both tear down and rebuild a system of governance.

That's the problem with most revolutions. They might end a corrupt system of control, but they rarely replace it with anything better.

Post: #211

(02-11-2016 08:26 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 07:56 AM)Chevalier De Seingalt Wrote:  

(01-30-2016 01:09 AM)Suits Wrote:  I'm not suggesting that people should accept government overstep because life is "good enough," but in reality, 99.5% of people will and do.


Revolutions happen all the time all around the world. They happen when things are bad enough that people see no choice, but to put their own life on the line.

I agree with the above, and also think it makes the history of the American Revolution all the more interesting and remarkable to think about. Compared to the French peasant starving in the street or the beaten down Russian serf, the Americans living under the British didn't really have it that bad. And the ringleaders of the revolution were mostly well-off merchants and land owners who had comfortable homes, families, women to amuse themselves with; all of which they risked in addition to their necks in 1776.

This is true, but the most remarkable element of the American Revolution is that it led to stability. Revolutions occur plenty, but few lead to a long term workable solution.

While there are plenty of men with the capacity to destroy and even many with the talent to build, there's very few men alive who have the ability to both tear down and rebuild a system of governance.

That's the problem with most revolutions. They might end a corrupt system of control, but they rarely replace it with anything better.

Exactly that - the best example perhaps is the French revolution which is so widely celebrated in the West. However look no further than the public Wikipedia page to realize that France was mired in chaos for years after. Revolutionaries do not make for good governance.

That's what I fear will happen in Europe. Even IF we see a civil war followed by some sort of cleansing - I don't think we'll see the 'old Europe' of the late 20th century ever again. There will be blood, there will be traitors, there will be victims, and there most certainly will be chaos.

On the upside - there won't be feminists.

Post: #212

(02-11-2016 03:42 AM)Capitán Peligroso Wrote:  Cliven Bundy arrested at the Portland Airport:

Quote:Cliven Bundy, the controversial Nevada rancher at the center of an armed standoff with federal officials in 2014, was arrested in Portland Wednesday, according to jail records and news reports.

He was reportedly on his way to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in isolated southeastern Oregon, where an armed occupation in its 41st day seemed to be coming to an end. The occupation had been organized by Bundy’s son Ammon, who is now in jail facing a felony charge of conspiracy to impede a federal officer.

The last remaining members of the occupation had said they will turn themselves over on Thursday morning, after the FBI appeared to close in on their encampment.

The newspaper said that Bundy, 74, faces the same charge as his son in relation to his standoff with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in 2014. He also faces weapons charges, it said.

More details here.

Bad move. But the feds were forced into it. Cliven was headed to Oregon to lead a second wave of occupation so they intercepted him.

This standoff thing reminds me of the miners strikes and mother jones (a name sullied by the mother jones paper) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Harris_Jones

Jones was untouchable because she was an old lady and they couldn't pistol whip her, but if she was removed a lot of the labor organizing of the time would have failed.

Back in the 1800s people would have mobbed the jail and broke her out, but I doubt that would happen to the bundys.

Post: #213

https://youtu.be/d1fnPoMLCxo

Alternate view of Levoy Finicum's murder.

Post: #214

(03-08-2016 09:06 PM)dro323 Wrote:  https://youtu.be/d1fnPoMLCxo

Alternate view of Levoy Finicum's murder.

Jesus Christ, they were firing at the vehicle before he even got out of the car. Fucking fascists.

Post: #215

Why didn't this footage come out before?

Post: #216

http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-offi...1477689168

Surprise acquittal. Media and pro-government fascists everywhere are freaking out.

Between that and Hillary FBI investigation reopening I have to say . . . today was a good day.

Post: #217

Absolutely, heard about this morning. Gasps in the court room.

Now I'm hearing about the natives fighting against the pipeline who are getting arrested with no bail.

I wonder what would happen if they occupied the place and were armed.

Post: #218

(10-28-2016 05:49 PM)Chevalier De Seingalt Wrote:  http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-offi...1477689168

Surprise acquittal. Media and pro-government fascists everywhere are freaking out.

Please quote articles so we don't give main stream media revenue in the form of clicks. Also, WSJ for non-subscribers blocks viewing the article. You can get around it by searching for it and then clicking the search-engine link, but it's much better to quote it:

Quote:Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said the acquittal of seven people who took over an Oregon wildlife refuge last winter reinforces her concern over the safety of her employees and reminded them to remain vigilant for any more such trouble.

“I am profoundly disappointed in this outcome and am concerned about its potential implications for our employees and for the effective management of public lands,” Ms. Jewell said in a message to Interior Department employees that was publicly released Friday.

A federal jury in Portland on Thursday acquitted Ammon Bundy and six others, including his brother Ryan, on charges including conspiracy, in connection with the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

The comments reflect a sense of uneasiness among federal officials and some local communities in the West that the acquittals may encourage other groups to stage land takeovers of their own.

Mr. Bundy, 41 years old, and dozens of other activists upset with federal land policies in the West had converged on the Malheur refuge in remote Harney County with weapons last Jan. 2 in an occupation that lasted 41 days.

“My greatest worry is that this verdict puts a target on the backs of the public stewards who manage our public lands,” said Char Miller, professor of environmental analysis at Pomona College in Claremont, Calif. “It is now open season on them.”

One of the acquitted defendants, Ken Medenbach, said in an interview Friday the verdict will encourage him to continue seeking a return to states’ control much of the land the federal government now controls in the West.

“I’m going to approach the state and say, ‘Hey, you guys have to do something,’ ” said Mr. Medenbach, 63, a wood carver from Crescent, Ore. “If they don’t, the people will have to step up.”

But some other occupiers said they weren’t likely to stage a takeover like this again. The occupation ended soon after Ammon Bundy and seven others were arrested in a highway showdown with state and federal officers during which one occupier, Robert LaVoy Finicum, was shot and killed by a law-enforcement officer.

“I don’t think people are going to do armed protests like this again,” said Jeff Banta, 47, a carpenter from Elko, Nev. who also was among the acquitted defendants. “It scared the bejesus out of all of us, really.”

J. Morgan Philpot, an attorney for Ammon Bundy, said the acquittals “don’t give anyone a license to do anything unlawful.” Rather, he said they should serve as a message to the federal government to treat rural Westerners better, and would give a boost to legal efforts in Utah and some other states to return more land to local control.

Other federal officials said they were still hopeful for convictions in other trials set to start in February of seven others involved in the occupation.

The Bundy brothers and five others from the Oregon occupation, along with their father, Cliven Bundy, have also been separately charged in a 2014 armed confrontation with federal officials near the family’s ranch in southern Nevada. That federal trial is set for next year.


“We must send a strong message of deterrence to those who would seek to replicate the occupation or perpetuate the toxic myths that sustained it,” Dan Ashe, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said in a message to his employees.

Mr. Ashe said some of the 16 employees of the Malheur refuge were relocated during the occupation for their safety and had their lives disrupted. Although many employees have returned, some have chosen not to, he said.

“Many of their friendships, and their sense of belonging in the community, have been damaged or destroyed,” he said.

Post: #219

On a search, it looks like Bundy's lawyer succeeded at least in part because he kept triggering the female judge:

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standof...ay_be.html

Quote:It would be nearly impossible for jurors not to notice U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown's growing exasperation with Ammon Bundy's lawyer Marcus Mumford.

Since the Bundy trial began two weeks ago, the judge has repeatedly told Mumford to follow her rulings, reword his questions to government witnesses and occasionally to either stand up when he addresses her or sit down and stop challenging her directives.

Despite her earlier orders that defense lawyers weren't to raise questions at trial about who owns the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Mumford tried to solicit responses from the Harney County sheriff and refuge employees on the subject.

Despite the judge's warnings that she didn't want any defendant or defense lawyer to ask witnesses about the circumstances surrounding the fatal police shooting of occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy" Finicum, Mumford passed off as a question a stinging remark that Finicum was shot three times in the back, asked another witness how close police were to him when he was shot and why the FBI wasn't investigating the shooting.

Each time, prosecutors objected. Each time, the judge asked jurors to disregard Mumford's bids to get around her edicts.

Out of earshot of the jury, Brown on Thursday had enough.

She threatened Mumford with contempt of court if he continued to delve into Finicum's shooting. She told him she'd fine him $1,000 for each time he continued to violate her orders.

So how is this of any help to Bundy as he and six others fight federal conspiracy charges in the 41-day armed takeover of the bird sanctuary in eastern Oregon earlier this year?

Trial observers have wondered aloud whether Mumford is grasping at straws or if his approach is part of a calculated plan.
marcusmumford.jpgAttorney Marcus MumfordCourtesy of Mumford

Legal experts, including a fellow defense lawyer in this case, suggest the latter.

"He knows what he's doing. It's intentional,'' said Matthew Schindler, a lawyer helping co-defendant Kenneth Medenbach. "I don't believe he makes choices without a strategic focus.''

Mumford may be trying to mimic Bundy's narrative – that the federal government hasn't listened to his concerns and that's why he needed to make a stand.

The judge's consistent slap down of Mumford's questions could play into his defense of Bundy, legal scholars and other lawyers say.

He could be setting up an argument to jurors at the end of the trial: "See, they aren't even letting you hear about the most critical evidence in the case. The government can do what it wants, and they're not even giving us a fair fight,'' said Portland criminal defense lawyer Kevin Sali.

Or perhaps Mumford's marathon cross-examinations of witnesses – marked by seemingly random questions far beyond the scope of the charges and long pauses as he figures out his next query – might be designed to confuse jurors.

With the government's case resting heavily on the defendants' own recorded statements and social media postings, photos and videos before, during and after the refuge occupation, "maybe all that's left is trying to cast doubt about the government's actions and the propriety of the government's actions,'' said Tung Yin, a Lewis & Clark Law School professor.

But the tactics could backfire – attorneys can risk losing face in front of jurors when they invite constant scolding.

"The judge – especially someone like Judge Brown, who keeps tight control over her courtroom – will typically be perceived by jurors as a trusted authority figure,'' Sali said. "Being repeatedly shot down by such a person can harm a lawyer's credibility in jurors' eyes.''

In a case with many defendants, it also could make the other lawyers look better, Yin said.

Over the past two weeks, Mumford asked a refuge employee how many birds he estimated lived outside the refuge compared to the number on the refuge. It was stricken as irrelevant. Another time, Mumford slipped in a reference to adverse possession, a principle his client contends he was exercising when he occupied the refuge in an effort to stake claim to the property and turn it over to the people of Harney County. Never mind that the judge has made clear that the federal government owns the refuge and any references to adverse possession must be restricted to the defendants' state of mind if they take the stand themselves.

A few times, the judge has chided Mumford in front of jurors for mischaracterizing direct testimony during cross-examination. After a few witnesses misinterpreted Mumford's questions, the judge advised him when jurors were out of the courtroom to simplify them and avoid using complex clauses, something she said experienced lawyers should know.

"On the one hand, a jury who sees an attorney repeatedly asking improper questions and getting shot down by the judge might think that attorney is not very competent, and be biased against the defendant,'' said Andrew Kim, a Concordia University School of Law professor. "On the other hand, if the other side, the prosecution, is continually forced to object to questions that sound reasonable to the jury, it could give the impression that they have something to hide, which might work in the defendant's favor.''

Bundy, considered the leader of the occupation, his older brother, Ryan, and the other five defendants each face a charge of conspiring to impede federal employees from working at the refuge through intimidation, threats or force. Eleven other defendants have pleaded guilty to the charge. Seven others are set for trial in February.

Ryan Bundy, who is representing himself and has no legal education, usually follows Mumford in cross-examining government witnesses. In contrast, his questions, for the most part, have been focused and direct, and on several occasions, the judge has overruled government objections to his questions. Ryan Bundy also has an experienced standby counsel and paralegal assisting him.

Schindler, who typically asks witnesses a few pointed questions and moves on, said he's proud of Mumford.

"I've never seen anybody get Judge Brown so fired up,'' Schindler said. "We're not there to be friends with judges. Justice is not done by sitting down and shutting up.''

Yin said Bundy's lawyer also may be trying to preserve a record for an appeal if his client is convicted: the court's restrictions on his ability to question witnesses about Finicum's shooting, for example.

The judge, though, also is likely wary of providing any fodder for Mumford to appeal.

"A trial judge has to be careful in a criminal trial not to clamp down on the defense,'' he said. "It sounds like she might have tolerated more than she would have with Mumford already than she might have, say, with prosecutors or if this were a civil case.''

As for Mumford, this is par for the course for the pugilistic attorney.

While many lawyers in Brown's courtroom Thursday said they had never witnessed a judge threaten an attorney with contempt before, it's the second time this year for Mumford.

In February, a federal judge in Utah did the same during a criminal trial for the same type of offense – leading a witness during cross-examination into a forbidden area of inquiry. In that case, Mumford's client, accountant Scott Leavitt, was acquitted of all 86 charges in an alleged influence-peddling scandal that included allegations of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering.

Mumford, who grew up on an Idaho dairy farm, told students at his alma mater, Utah State University, in 2010 that he had to be "audacious enough'' to enter the field of law with a significant stuttering condition he's struggled with since age 4 because "the world wasn't prepared for a stuttering lawyer.''

Mumford went on to graduate from Brigham Young University's law school. He clerked for a federal appellate judge and worked eight years for one of the country's biggest law firms, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, before returning to Utah to open his own practice.

Mumford told The Oregonian/OregonLive this week that he has tremendous respect for Judge Brown and doesn't anticipate he'll be found in contempt of her rulings. Yet he continued to defend his approach in court.

"My client has a right to confront the witnesses who are testifying against him,'' he said. "I must zealously represent his interests. I have an obligation to ask all the relevant questions.''

He said he's striving to show a link between what he and Ammon Bundy perceive as the government's "misconduct'' in the shooting of Finicum and what they contend is the government's misleading view and mishandling of the refuge occupation.

"It's the same governmental mistakes in how they reacted to the occupation itself,'' Mumford said. "They didn't engage in civil debate but engaged in wrongdoing and made up evidence that my client violated federal law.''

"It's not easy to tell the federal government it's wrong,'' Mumford said.

It's not exactly Randy Weaver, but these are wonderful persuasive tactics. Of course, don't try this at home kids -- notice the guy who represented himself was asking pointed and organised questions -- but some of these tactics are right out of the Gerry Spence playbook (and let's remember, Spence's books are on the Scott Adams persuasion reading list.)

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #220

(10-28-2016 06:37 PM)AneroidOcean Wrote:  You can get around it by searching for it and then clicking the search-engine link

Nice, I never knew about that trick.

Post: #221

And further to defence counsel Mumford's high energy:

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standof...aj-story-1

Quote:Moments after the Oregon standoff defendants' acquittals were announced in court Thursday, Ammon Bundy's lawyer Marcus Mumford stood before the judge, and argued that his client should be released from custody immediately and allowed to walk out of the courtroom a free man.

Ammon Bundy, who chose to wear blue jails scrubs throughout the trial, was dressed in a gray suit Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown told him that there was a U.S. Marshal's hold on him from a pending federal indictment in Nevada.

"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.''

"Mr. Mumford, you really need to never yell at me now or never again,'' the judge responded.

Brown told Mumford that she's releasing Bundy on all federal holds in the Oregon case, but he'll have to take up any questions about the federal holds from the Nevada case with the U.S. Marshals Service.

"If they want him, they know where to find him,'' Mumford told the judge. "I don't see any paper proving their authority to hold him.''

Suddenly, a group of about six to seven U.S. Marshals, who had been either standing or seated around the perimeter of the courtroom, slowly moved in and surrounded Mumford at his defense table. The judge directed them to move back but moments later, the marshals grabbed onto him.

"What are you doing?'' Mumford yelled, as he struggled and was taken down to the floor.

As deputy marshals yelled, "Stop resisting,'' the judge demanded, "Everybody out of the courtroom now!''

Mumford was taken into custody by the Federal Protective Services.

He was cited for failure to comply with a federal lawful order and disturbance and released with a Jan. 6 date to return to federal court, said Eric Wahlstrom, supervising deputy of the U.S. Marshals Service.

According to Wahlstrom, Mumford was shocked with a stun gun in what's called a dry-stun mode, meaning no probes were fired into his body but a Taser was placed up against his body.

Wahlstrom, who was not in the courtroom, said the actions were taken because Mumford was resisting and preventing marshals from taking Ammon Bundy out of the courtroom and back into custody.

Wahlstrom said the stun gun was used because deputy U.S. marshals "attempted to handcuff him and he continued to resist.''

But observers who were close to the arrest decried the use of force against a lawyer in court.

"What happened at the end is symbolic of the improper use of force by the federal government,'' Mumford's co-counsel J. Morgan Philpot said. Philpot explained that Mumford was attempting to point out that since the judge previously had said in court that she had no authority over detention orders made by the court in Nevada, she couldn't now maintain the right to order his client held.

"I grew up on a dairy farm, so am I used to some rough treatment, sure?'' Mumford told reporters, after his release. But he said the actions of the U.S. marshals were uncalled for.

"All I was asking for was papers. Just show me you have the authority to take Mr. Bundy into custody,'' Mumford said.

Defense lawyer Per C. Olson, who represented co-defendant David Fry, called the physical confrontation "a complete overreaction. Utterly disgusting.''

Olson said Mumford was getting animated, but he did nothing physical. He didn't charge the bench, or block marshals from his client. "He raised his arm as if to say, what the hell...And they grabbed him, Tased him and took him down. It was just shocking. It was completely inappropriate,''Olson said.

Defense lawyer Matthew Schindler, standby counsel for defendant Kenneth Medenbach, said he was disappointed by Mumford's challenge to his client's return to custody, considering he faces more serious federal charges in Nevada.

Schindler said Mumford was exhausted, having "put out everything he had,'' during the past six weeks of the case.

"Unfortunately he let his passion and desire and belief in his client overcome his good judgement,'' Schindler said.

Margaret "Margie" Paris, a University of Oregon law professor and former dean, said she couldn't believe what occurred when she learned of the confrontation.

"It just blows my mind,'' Paris said. "To have a lawyer who's making an argument in court physically restrained and taken down is extraordinary. He's entitled to make these arguments. If he was repeating himself over and over, the more typical response is to hold him in contempt. But to physically accost him is just shocking.''

That's a lawyer you want in your corner. Guaranteed that bitch judgess knew exactly the point Mumford was making but wanted to inflict some futile, bureaucratic vengeance on a guy she had to acquit while grinding her teeth.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #222

^
^
^
Good update. It is being spun in the local Oregon news like he freaked out and had to be restrained.

Post: #223

One of the outcomes of this case, that hasn't been covered AT ALL by the media including the alt-right:

The Obama Department of Justice ordered an investigation into the LaVoy Finnicum shooting due to the lies that the FBI agents told in their recount of the action.

Bullet holes were found in the roof of the pickup, showing that agents fired on the vehicle from above, and with a different type of rifle than the state police were using (I'm paraphrasing).

The only source I have is Oregon Public Media, because as I said there is a media blackout on this story.

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-ore...-name-law/

http://www.opb.org/news/series/election-...stigation/

from the last link:

"The federal investigation, conducted by the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General, will determine whether a member of the hostage rescue team failed to disclose firing at Finicum as he left the truck and whether anyone participated in a cover up over those shots."

There is absolutely no coverage of that investigation and I only see mention in local Oregon sources.

Post: #224

(10-31-2016 04:29 PM)Grodin Wrote:  One of the outcomes of this case, that hasn't been covered AT ALL by the media including the alt-right:

The Obama Department of Justice ordered an investigation into the LaVoy Finnicum shooting due to the lies that the FBI agents told in their recount of the action.

Bullet holes were found in the roof of the pickup, showing that agents fired on the vehicle from above, and with a different type of rifle than the state police were using (I'm paraphrasing).

The only source I have is Oregon Public Media, because as I said there is a media blackout on this story.

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-ore...-name-law/

http://www.opb.org/news/series/election-...stigation/

from the last link:

"The federal investigation, conducted by the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General, will determine whether a member of the hostage rescue team failed to disclose firing at Finicum as he left the truck and whether anyone participated in a cover up over those shots."

There is absolutely no coverage of that investigation and I only see mention in local Oregon sources.

That must be the investigation that Mumford kept triggering the judge with. He kept trying to mention that Finicum was illegally shot and the bitch judge kept trying to gag him.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #225

How could he trigger an investigation of her bank account? See if any large deposits were made from FBI account?