Schaeffer Cox trial underway in Alaska

[davids]

Is there a strict liability statute that covers that?

And with that smartass remark made by me, I would point out that this conversation should be taken to e-mail if you guys want to keep contending with each other. It is has gone on to the point that challenges are being made about people's education and schooling (or lack thereof) which, in my experience, tends to be a forecast of the conversation going downhill from there. None of this, as Andyk has adroitly pointed out, really has focused on the heart of the matter in terms of Schaeffer's alleged crimes. If you have a statute or case law that points out how Schaeffer is innocent or guilty, then let us focus on that.

Please.

If that is what you wish to limit the discussion to, whether he's innocent or guilty, you'll have to go back and delete about 3/4 of the posts which were just discussing the case, how people felt about the defendant, sovrun nuttiness generally, and other topics aside from guilt vs. innocence. So, is that the scope of this forum now, or just this thread? Just trying to be clear.

And if one doesn't want to be responded to harshly on a forum, don't go on the attack first is generally a good principle.

[The Observer]

If that is what you wish to limit the discussion to, whether he's innocent or guilty, you'll have to go back and delete about 3/4 of the posts which were just discussing the case, how people felt about the defendant, sovrun nuttiness generally, and other topics aside from guilt vs. innocence. So, is that the scope of this forum now, or just this thread? Just trying to be clear.

What am I referring to is the harshness of the rhetoric that developed over the issue of strict liability law. Before that came up, no one was jumping on each other over the discussion regarding sovrun nuttiness, how people felt about defendant, etc. There are times when we are going to disagree about an issue and no one is going to admit they are wrong. At that point, the issue should just be dropped for the sake of civility and move on. This thread started turning personal and that is why it needs to stop.

d if one doesn't want to be responded to harshly on a forum, don't go on the attack first is generally a good principle.

I would offer that there is a better principle: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

[davids]

I would offer that there is a better principle: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

An alternative way of saying the same thing, or close to it.

I have no beef with the moderation of the thread... but it strikes me as very odd that the minute an opinion of something which does not match the group think, all of the sudden there are lawyers coming out of the woodwork being snide, claiming to be unaware of common legal concepts, red herrings being thrown about, and others insisting those who are unaware of common legal concepts are correct.

This just a few days after I had another poster go ape over the fact that I liked Ron Paul, with multiple highly personal attacks.

To me, it appears to be a way of silencing a viewpoint that isn't welcomed here. But it doesn't matter, I don't care enough about it to be a troll, or to keep arguing with the wall.

[akbill]

Although the attorney is not bringing up the crazy Mr. Cox is. I've heard everything in the past two months to I had some kind of relationship with my FBI handler (this allegation would be funny if you knew her), I was paid 6 figures (they still owe me 30,000.00 and thats just reimbursement), I held a knife at somebody's throat (I told the guy i was going to slit his throat ye but I didn't get within 5 feet of him).

I think that your threatening to slit a guy's throat, within five feet of him, you being a gun dealer, are probably some favorable facts to an entrapment defense. Not that it would succeed, but those aren't exactly facts that would hurt such a defense. Just sayin'

Well let me clarify I didn't threaten Schaeffer, or anybody else that was charged just one of the idiots who followed him and the only guns I ever sold were provided by the FBI after Schaeffer asked me to get them for him, that was well after this incident at the time I was just a surplus store owner. During undercover operations there are times when you risk being outed this was one of those, I did the least intrusive thing I could to turn the conversation and not in any way affect the subject of the investigation.

[akbill]

If you're referring to the more than 100 hours of warrantless, undercover FBI tape recordings of Schaeffer Cox, then you, or the attorney, or both, are apparently wrong. According to the news report (from Alaska Dispatch, Oct. 17, 2011) I have in my file, the judge who denied admission of those materials was Judge David Stewart, a "superior court judge" in Fairbanks, Alaska. That's a state court, not a federal court.

The article goes on to say that the materials were excluded in the state court proceeding because of a provision of the Alaska state constitution. A provision in the Alaska state constitution generally would not govern the admissibility of those same materials in a federal criminal case.

This is a common misconception propagated by the defense in this case. None of the 100 plus hours of recordings were "warrantless". The recordings were ruled not admissible in state court because the state requires more stringent rules then the Feds for probable cause on a warrant and while the Feds gained warrants and collected the information under these the state chose not to allow evidence collected under the Fed warrants because the privacy clause in the Alaska constitution requires a higher level of probable cause for a state warrant and the judge felt that the initial federal warrant didn't meet that level.

[davids]

Although the attorney is not bringing up the crazy Mr. Cox is. I've heard everything in the past two months to I had some kind of relationship with my FBI handler (this allegation would be funny if you knew her), I was paid 6 figures (they still owe me 30,000.00 and thats just reimbursement), I held a knife at somebody's throat (I told the guy i was going to slit his throat ye but I didn't get within 5 feet of him).

I think that your threatening to slit a guy's throat, within five feet of him, you being a gun dealer, are probably some favorable facts to an entrapment defense. Not that it would succeed, but those aren't exactly facts that would hurt such a defense. Just sayin'

Well let me clarify I didn't threaten Schaeffer, or anybody else that was charged just one of the idiots who followed him and the only guns I ever sold were provided by the FBI after Schaeffer asked me to get them for him, that was well after this incident at the time I was just a surplus store owner. During undercover operations there are times when you risk being outed this was one of those, I did the least intrusive thing I could to turn the conversation and not in any way affect the subject of the investigation.

But still, your words were that you threatened to slit his throat. If you say that is "not threatening" then I find that analysis suspect. You're personally involved in the whole thing and I'm not attempting to attack your credibility, but rather, the issues that are raised by this kind of a case and the approach that was taken with it. Again, from a civil libertarian standpoint (whether one is a Kucinich or Ron Paul or Gary Johnson kind of libertarian) these are significant issues - and I fully realize many that post here think they are not.

But I'll not debate you further as I don't want to attack you personally, nor do I want to make assumptions that certain things went wrong when they did not. There are still significant issues raised by his attorney (and not by general fake sovrun citizen nutjob theorists). Those issues may or may not be factually grounded.

[davids]

If you're referring to the more than 100 hours of warrantless, undercover FBI tape recordings of Schaeffer Cox, then you, or the attorney, or both, are apparently wrong. According to the news report (from Alaska Dispatch, Oct. 17, 2011) I have in my file, the judge who denied admission of those materials was Judge David Stewart, a "superior court judge" in Fairbanks, Alaska. That's a state court, not a federal court.

The article goes on to say that the materials were excluded in the state court proceeding because of a provision of the Alaska state constitution. A provision in the Alaska state constitution generally would not govern the admissibility of those same materials in a federal criminal case.

This is a common misconception propagated by the defense in this case. None of the 100 plus hours of recordings were "warrantless". The recordings were ruled not admissible in state court because the state requires more stringent rules then the Feds for probable cause on a warrant and while the Feds gained warrants and collected the information under these the state chose not to allow evidence collected under the Fed warrants because the privacy clause in the Alaska constitution requires a higher level of probable cause for a state warrant and the judge felt that the initial federal warrant didn't meet that level.

Apple meet Orange. The discussion was not about the defense claiming that tapes weren't admitted in state court and then complaining about that. The defense won in state court.

The discussion was about a defense claim that at least some of the tapes that the defense wanted admitted in federal court, weren't.

[Lambkin]

Schaeffer Cox gave Alaska militias a bad name. Now they're rebranding. Guns unloaded. Hugs. Crochet.

http://www.alaskapublic.org/2014/08/15/ ... -rebrands/

[Lambkin]

Schaeffer Cox prosecution team gets a medal.

http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_new ... b2370.html

[Lambkin]

http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_new ... f6878.html

Convicted militia leader Schaeffer Cox, of Fairbanks, has been granted another extension in the filing of his opening appeal brief by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The delay granted Sept. 24 by the appeals court orders Cox and his attorney to file their opening brief by Dec. 29. Prosecutors will have until Jan. 28, 2015, to file their response.

[akbill]

The tapes that "weren't admitted as evidence" do not exist. Never existed thats the crux of this whole argument. Schaeffer believed erroneously that certain tapes existed and only he seems to know what is on said tapes and because they weren't included in evidence the feds must be hiding them. The reason those tapes were never presented in court is because they never existed to be presented to begin with. The suppressed evidence are text messages and communications between the Agents and myself, the reason they were suppressed was they had no connection whatsoever with the case. I worked with the Feds long before Schaeffer became an issue, it was dissociated cases, ongoing criminal investigations and general intelligence reporting, that they were requesting and denied access to.

The "unable to testify fully on his own behalf" argument can be summed up as Schaeffer wanted to use Ruby Ridge, and the Branch Davidians as part of his defense and was not allowed to claim self defense against the government do to those two instances. He also wanted to try to bring in his acquittal at Denny's and some other sovereign stuff that the judge disallowed. The last thing that was not allowed was a 2nd amendment defense as the law had been argued before and there was no point in rearguing the validity of Federal firearms statutes.

Schaeffer had a great defense team and he fought them tooth and nail to bring up nonsense sovereign arguments the whole trial. He's lucky his defense didn't go down the path he wanted or there would have been no mitigating factors and he would have gotten even more time.

[Arthur Rubin]

The last thing that was not allowed was a 2nd amendment defense as the law had been argued before and there was no point in rearguing the validity of Federal firearms statutes.

Actually, there might be a point in rearguing some Federal firearms statutes, but a determination wouldn't be made below the Supreme Court level. Although it seems to me that some of the recent 2nd Amendment cases at SOCTUS override lower courts' interpretation of Miller, some people (who don't like the result of the decisions) think that they do question the validity of some Federal firearms statutes.

It seems unlikely that Cox would come close to making that argument at all correctly, though.

(And, I know this is approaching a political comment. Let's keep 2nd Amendment arguments, whether or not credible, off this board.)

[davids]

The last thing that was not allowed was a 2nd amendment defense as the law had been argued before and there was no point in rearguing the validity of Federal firearms statutes.

Actually, there might be a point in rearguing some Federal firearms statutes, but a determination wouldn't be made below the Supreme Court level. Although it seems to me that some of the recent 2nd Amendment cases at SOCTUS override lower courts' interpretation of Miller, some people (who don't like the result of the decisions) think that they do question the validity of some Federal firearms statutes.

It seems unlikely that Cox would come close to making that argument at all correctly, though.

(And, I know this is approaching a political comment. Let's keep 2nd Amendment arguments, whether or not credible, off this board.)

Welp, being from a state where we have had, in the past year, our entire State's firearms licensing scheme turned on its head due to recent developments in 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, I am of the opinion that lots and lots of things are subject to being reevaluated and changed in many different states, when it comes to state and federal firearms laws. I will leave it at that.

I too don't think that Schaeffer Cox himself could possibly make that argument, but then again, his attorney is the one who would do that, right? Presumably his attorney would not delve into sovereign woo. I am not aware of any of that being presented when his would be appellate counsel did the state court case. But maybe I am wrong; did that in fact happen? (I am sure there was pressure from Cox to present crazy Sov arguments, I am just not aware of them being presented).

[davids]

The tapes that "weren't admitted as evidence" do not exist. Never existed thats the crux of this whole argument. Schaeffer believed erroneously that certain tapes existed and only he seems to know what is on said tapes and because they weren't included in evidence the feds must be hiding them. The reason those tapes were never presented in court is because they never existed to be presented to begin with. The suppressed evidence are text messages and communications between the Agents and myself, the reason they were suppressed was they had no connection whatsoever with the case. I worked with the Feds long before Schaeffer became an issue, it was dissociated cases, ongoing criminal investigations and general intelligence reporting, that they were requesting and denied access to.

Well, I am referring to a statement by his counsel, not a statement by Cox, for that. Maybe you're right and they don't exist. I'm going to still assume that the attorney isn't completely blowing smoke, but maybe you are correct.

I am quite sure he was pushing for sov woo to be tried in the courtroom, and probably drove his counsel nuts (it would me) but it doesn't sound like his lawyer of choice (there's no indication he has agreed to take the case) is hinting at that. Cox is a nut either way.

[notorial dissent]

I may be mis-remembering here, but i thought Cox had dismissed his lawyers because they wouldn't go all sovruny for him, and that he is filing his current appeal au naturel, and so he can go all sovrun and crazy he wants.

I think they did the best they could for him, but there really wasn't much they could work around, as he'd done a pretty good job of convicting himself.

[davids]

I may be mis-remembering here, but i thought Cox had dismissed his lawyers because they wouldn't go all sovruny for him, and that he is filing his current appeal au naturel, and so he can go all sovrun and crazy he wants.

I think they did the best they could for him, but there really wasn't much they could work around, as he'd done a pretty good job of convicting himself.

I believe he jettisoned his trial lawyers from the federal case in that manner, but has wanted to hire the atty who repped him in the state court case as his appellate court atty. I recall reading that funds were an issue. For sure, there was lots of crazy to go around...

[davids]

http://benswann.com/notorious-former-po ... informant/

Interesting twist on the Cox scenario, with the informant being the would-be leader in this case, instead of another.

[Lambkin]

http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_new ... acf3c.html

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in September granted Cox and his attorney a 90-day extension to file their opening briefs, but Cox’s attorney is now asking for an additional 30 days, to Jan. 29, to prepare.

The new attorney, Myra Sun, cites the volume of case material as a need for the additional delay.
“The record in this case totals over 5,000 pages and hundreds of exhibits, including audio or video evidence for which transcripts were provided to the jury,” Sun wrote in the Dec. 22 request for a further delay. “At the time I sought the first continuance, I was awaiting additional defense exhibits used at trial, which I have received.”

[akbill]

I may be mis-remembering here, but i thought Cox had dismissed his lawyers because they wouldn't go all sovruny for him, and that he is filing his current appeal au naturel, and so he can go all sovrun and crazy he wants.

I think they did the best they could for him, but there really wasn't much they could work around, as he'd done a pretty good job of convicting himself.

I believe he jettisoned his trial lawyers from the federal case in that manner, but has wanted to hire the atty who repped him in the state court case as his appellate court atty. I recall reading that funds were an issue. For sure, there was lots of crazy to go around...

Yes the attorney in Alaska that SC wants was his attorney on the state charges, but they have 20,000 or so in unpaid bills to him so he's waiting till he gets paid to do anything else.

[akbill]

The tapes that "weren't admitted as evidence" do not exist. Never existed thats the crux of this whole argument. Schaeffer believed erroneously that certain tapes existed and only he seems to know what is on said tapes and because they weren't included in evidence the feds must be hiding them. The reason those tapes were never presented in court is because they never existed to be presented to begin with. The suppressed evidence are text messages and communications between the Agents and myself, the reason they were suppressed was they had no connection whatsoever with the case. I worked with the Feds long before Schaeffer became an issue, it was dissociated cases, ongoing criminal investigations and general intelligence reporting, that they were requesting and denied access to.

Well, I am referring to a statement by his counsel, not a statement by Cox, for that. Maybe you're right and they don't exist. I'm going to still assume that the attorney isn't completely blowing smoke, but maybe you are correct.


This is not his counsel now nor was it when the statement was made this is the same attorney who represented him in state court that I referred to above.
I am quite sure he was pushing for sov woo to be tried in the courtroom, and probably drove his counsel nuts (it would me) but it doesn't sound like his lawyer of choice (there's no indication he has agreed to take the case) is hinting at that. Cox is a nut either way.