Oregon Malheur Trial

[TheNewSaint]

I think reading that pretty much undid about half my my PhD in Economics. I may need to go all the way back to Wealth of Nations now...

Good thing you didn't read the original document then. It was 30 paragraphs of that. You might have lost sentience entirely.

It didn't have that effect on me, but I have far less education to undo.

[Tuba Cain]

As anyone with the slightest familiarity with financial trading knows, a call is an option to buy, and a put is an option to sell. So, apparently a buy is like a sell or a buy. You know, for the lien bonds that are securitized from monopolized private civil court judgments, sent to the clearing house, sold as commercial items through an underwriting company with an escrow agent as go-between, and deposited in the Federal Reserve Bank, which is all legal because they have an "NAICS put code number."

... ... ...So, I read that, and it all made perfect Sovcit sense to me.

Maybe I should go read something else for a while.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Juror dismissed. Alternate called up.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow ... story.html

[The Observer]

In the note, Juror No. 4 wrote: "Can a juror, a former employee of the Bureau of Land Management, who opens their remarks in deliberations by stating 'I am very biased ...' be considered an impartial judge in this case?"

I am surprised that this juror made it through voir dire. Unlesss the defense attorneys thought that leaving him on the panel would improve their chances of getting a mistrial later on...

[TheNewSaint]

I am surprised that this juror made it through voir dire. Unlesss the defense attorneys thought that leaving him on the panel would improve their chances of getting a mistrial later on...

I wondered that too, and came up with a couple possible explanations:

1. According to earlier reports in this thread, the defense lawyers are not very good at their jobs. Maybe they simply failed to realize they should have objected to this juror.

2. This juror was not entirely forthcoming during voir dire:

In the note, Juror No. 4 wrote: "Can a juror, a former employee of the Bureau of Land Management, who opens their remarks in deliberations by stating 'I am very biased ...' be considered an impartial judge in this case?"

...

During jury selection, the man said his past employment would not prejudice his views in the case.

They still should have tossed him, though. In my experience with jury duty, it takes very little potential bias to make at least one party's lawyers not want you on the jury.

And my third theory is a bit out there, but I'll include it anyway:

3. The Bundys thought having a former BLM employee on the jury would help their cause, not hurt it. I seem to remember them claiming at times they have supporters within the government and the like. They really are that stupid and delusional.

[The Observer]

All valid observations. The point I was trying to make is that generally you do not want someone on the jury who is associated with your opponent's side. As an example, because my father was in law enforcement, I routinely get kicked off criminal trials by defense attorneys as a potential juror. I do get asked all the nice questions about whether I can be fair and impartial despite my father's career, but I and the defense attorney know that at the end of the day he cannot afford to leave me on the panel under any circumstances.

I am sure there are exceptions to this from time to time, but given the usual strategy, I was surprised that this juror got to stay.

[Burnaby49]

I was once questioned in court as a potential juror in the trial of a local terrorist group. This one;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squamish_Five

I was asked a bunch of questions which seemed to go fine until defense asked me what my occupation was. As soon as I said CRA income tax auditor I was gone.

[TheNewSaint]

I was excused from my last jury duty simply because my family operates a small business. It was some kind of contract dispute between a small business and a storage place, and they asked the jurors if I had any feelings about small business in general. I said "well, my family's had one since 1979, which my brother now runs." I was out of there by 11 o'clock.

(Another question, which I found fascinating in light of my interest in the SovCit movement, was "do you think a valid contract can exist without a signature?" I actually wanted to hear more about that. Apparently it was central to the dispute.)

I often wonder how courts even manage to field a jury for high-profile cases like the Bundys, when such minor affiliations can disqualify someone.

[Tuba Cain]

In what can only be considered proof that these jackasses had a jury of their peers, the Bundys et al have been acquitted.

[eric]

I was asked a bunch of questions which seemed to go fine until defense asked me what my occupation was. As soon as I said CRA income tax auditor I was gone.

Personally I admire the method used by a member of my family with a military background. Whenever he was called for jury duty, which by mis-chance was usually every two years, he could play "the last Englishman" card so well done by Alfred Wintle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wintle
He would make sure his moustache was perfectly waxed, wear a nice harris tweed hacking jacket, and would ensure that the court referred to him as sir or Colonel - he actually was a retired colonel from the Canadian Army. For some reason the defense always turned him down.

[TheNewSaint]

In what can only be considered proof that these jackasses had a jury of their peers, the Bundys et al have been acquitted.

Un-fucking-believable. i don't even know what else to say.

[Pottapaug1938]

In what can only be considered proof that these jackasses had a jury of their peers, the Bundys et al have been acquitted.

"But the jury appeared swayed by the occupiers’ contention that they were protesting government overreach and posed no threat."

Protesting via an armed takeover? "Jury Nullification", anyone?

[wserra]

In what can only be considered proof that these jackasses had a jury of their peers, the Bundys et al have been acquitted.

Were you present for the trial? If not, you don't know that.

Anyway, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/bu ... .html?_r=0

[Dr. Caligari]

Juries, bless their hearts, are never predictable.

[NYGman]

My fear is that this acquittal will emboldened them, and we will see a repeat, but this time they will be better armed, and will not trust anyone, so CIs may be problematic this time around. They may be dumb enough to shoot someone next time, feeling they have jurors on their side. Wonder if we will hear from the jury at some point. Guessing there May be a book, or even a movie in this for at some of them.

[notorial dissent]

A couple of points,

• 1)during the voire dire, the prosecution asked that that juror be excused for cause, and the judge declined to do so as the juror said when asked that he could be impartial,
  
  2) the defense, largely lead by the great Mumbles, were the ones pushing for him to be removed after the juror complaint this time.
  
  3) No one really knows just exactly how the juror was "biased" at this point, and we may well never know.

So at this point, it is a crap shoot as to whether he was "biased" towards the prosecution or the defense. The only thing we know for sure is that one of the jurors took offense at his perceived bias. How this is going to affect the trial is anyone's guess.

My guess, FWIW, is that this may just be another in the long line of defense legal master strokes we have been entertained with throughout this trial. Time will tell.

[wanglepin]

My guess, FWIW, is that this may just be another in the long line of defense legal master strokes we have been entertained with throughout this trial. Time will tell.[/color][/b]

All Seven Defendants Found Not Guilty In Refuge Occupation Trial.
Ammon and Ryan Bundy have been found not guilty of conspiracy. Their five co-defendants Jeff Banta, Shawna Cox, David Fry, Kenneth Medenbach and Neil Wampler have all been found not guilty as well.

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-or ... eur-court/

[SteveUK]

So now the circus moves to Nevada for round 2?

[Chaos]

A couple of points,

• 1)during the voire dire, the prosecution asked that that juror be excused for cause, and the judge declined to do so as the juror said when asked that he could be impartial,
  
  2) the defense, largely lead by the great Mumbles, were the ones pushing for him to be removed after the juror complaint this time.
  
  3) No one really knows just exactly how the juror was "biased" at this point, and we may well never know.

So at this point, it is a crap shoot as to whether he was "biased" towards the prosecution or the defense. The only thing we know for sure is that one of the jurors took offense at his perceived bias. How this is going to affect the trial is anyone's guess.

My guess, FWIW, is that this may just be another in the long line of defense legal master strokes we have been entertained with throughout this trial. Time will tell.

seeing they had an acquittal verdict in lightning speed with the new juror, I think it's safe to say the booted juror wanted a conviction.

[JamesVincent]

Had to come here and check since the sovs are partying. Wtf. They are already talking about pressing charges for murder in the shooting death of lavoy.