Court status update today. They are very exhausting days. Up at 3:30, leave at 4am for the 4-hour drive to Portland. Court at 9:30, but first you have to get through the lower metal detector and then listen to the new suit explain once again how "the line" works and how you'll be "allowed" into the courtroom. The suit might be new but we aren't. You also have to pass by the phone nazi and through the second detector and answer the suit as to why you brought a handbag into the courthouse and answer for the 4th or 5th time that no you don't have cell phone. All to listen to once again the prosecutions deadlines of months get extended and the defendants deadlines of days be mocked for four hours. Then when the judge dismisses she doesn't state the date we get to do it all again. It gets to be "a surprise." Oh, the anticipation of when they have scheduled the next "first wed." of the month meeting" that will likely not be on the first wed, but will likely be on a wed. Then we nibble a home packed lunch, meet with or call who we missed while in court and often times drive over to Inverness to send a kite message before hitting the road for 4 hours home.
Below is the actual court notes if I can make sense of my chicken scratches and see anything pertinent:
Jury summons process went out. Responses coming in, "good response" (judge) will have a good pool. Next step is the questionnaires. More back and forth between defendants and prosecution.
Round two motions coming July 18. What other files coming? General or particular, applicability beyond one client? Effects both OR and NV?
- always overbreadth
- motions to suppress FB
- jurisdiction limits
- warrants under protective order, only provided to NV affectees
-email info seized before the warrent, FB accts seized
- Discovery not yet complete? Yes on May 15? Ammon new lawyer catchup. conferrals required
Can't state his motions because intends to file for extension.
Being forced to choose between speedy and fair, constitution guarantees both,
No consequences on the gov't when they drag their feet
- Suppress digital devices, we don't have them yet
Physics of the courtroom, layout, committee assigned with IT.
Don't know public access yet, will be "some" (10 seats), overflow room.
Disputed issues on joint discovery: references in discovery of different gov't databases but when asked for access, "it's non-discoverable". Oral argument that it does exist. Gov't is pick and choose what of the abc's is actually discovery, they are not providing it if "they don't believe" it's relevant. Info contained in gov't databases, if they are used against us, we need access to them.
Contested discovery issues. Why not presented earlier, because there weren't issues with the discovery because they didn't' have any yet.
Critical on all fronts to KNOW who is going forward with Sept. 7 trial.
140 days jailed, 4 terabytes of discovery. Still only have access to 28,000 pages/less than 1%.
Judge basically said just because the discovery exists doesn't mean it HAS to be viewed.
Government got a 2-monthh extension on preparing the discovery and it's available now but not for viewing, so what's the point?
Decide who is going to trial before disclosures, no disclosures before decide who's going.
Government got 5 months, defense gets 9 days to decide.
Justified in carrying firearms because show of force issues. saw/observed, defendants know what they saw. . . BUT in a he said, he said, who is believed? The lying official or the innocent patriot?
Witness identification - photos produced? that it is using as the identification. All photos produced, no record kept by gov't then, explanation of why.
(FBI is allowed to and encouraged to lie. IF it existed it's already gone, hello?) Public released emails, FBI efforts to grab and own the media. Warrantless monitoring. Statements made on an expectation of privacy.
* We get to be in court and see the confusion, but we aren't party to answers or decisions.
Pre-trial schedule being discussed, witness list will help us review discovery meaningfully.
AND GET THIS: The court is trying to determine if the death of LaVoy Finicum is "relevant" to the current pending case.
No comments:
Post a Comment