We have another case like that - and worse than that, if it was even possible.
A jury acquitted defendants in the famous Bundy case in federal court, in the State of Oregon.
And by law, when a jury acquits the defendant, the defendant is free to go.
And that is exactly what attorney Marcus Mumford
was arguing to U.S. District Judge Anna Brown, a judge with 35 years of experience as a lawyer and 24 years of experience as a judge - who knew exactly what she was doing.
But, Judge Brown claimed that the defendants were, allegedly, "wanted" on another federal indictment, in Nevada - and that's why she was detaining them in Oregon.
Attorney Mumford asked the judge to show the document she used as a basis of continued detention of his clients.
The judge did not have the document and, thus, did not have jurisdiction to detain the defendants after acquittal.
So, attorney Mumford, faithful to his oath of office and to his duty to his clients, insisted on his clients' release.
The judge refused to release them - obviously, unlawfully, since she was unable to produce the order of detention.
The attorney continued to insist on his clients' release.
The U.S. Marshals continued to grab his clients leading them into custody.
The attorney demanded documents from the U.S. Marshals that they used as a basis of taking attorney Mumford's client into custody.
As a result, attorney Mumford was reportedly:
- physically tackled - by, reportedly, 9 marshals: 6 men and 3 women;
- tasered;
- handcuffed;
- arrested;
- taken into custody, and
- charged for contempt of court.
All for asking, first, for documents used as a basis of his clients' continued detention after acquittal by jury, and for asking for documents justifying his arrest.
And, of course, for his good work in persuading the jury to acquit his clients.
The judge was supposed to maintain order and LAW in her courtroom.
The judge was supposed to PREVENT unlawful detention of defendants, she had the power to do that.
But, apparently, the judge was pissed off by the acquittal.
And she took it out on the "culprit" - the defense attorney.
And, the judge did not protect the attorney, instead she charged her for disobeying a court order.
The judge was supposed to maintain order and LAW in her courtroom.
The judge was supposed to PREVENT unlawful detention of defendants, she had the power to do that.
But, apparently, the judge was pissed off by the acquittal.
And she took it out on the "culprit" - the defense attorney.
And, the judge did not protect the attorney, instead she charged her for disobeying a court order.
A month ago Judge Brown already tried, hard, to prevent attorney Mumford from presenting to the jury evidence of governmental misconduct. She threatened him with contempt and with high monetary fines. She tried hard to help the prosecutors get a conviction. The contempt was threatened against Mumford because the judge restricted Mumford's cross-examination of prosecution's witnesses (in violation of the 6th Amendment's Confrontation Clause).
In February of 2016, another federal judge, in another federal criminal case, also threatened attorney Mumford with contempt for allegedly violating court orders restricting his cross examination - also in violation of the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause.
So, the stubborn attorney Mumford who fearlessly does his job for his clients, has been in the cross-hairs of federal judges for a while.
In the Bundy case, the judge's efforts to restrict his constitutional right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses have failed. The jury acquitted anyway.
So, attorney Mumford ended up physically tackled by 9 people, tased, arrested (without charges), handcuffed, and put into a holding cell - so Judge Brown finally had her dream come true, Attorney Mumford was punished for doing his job.
And, lo and behold, the punished attorney is a criminal defense attorney, as it nearly always is for targets of government rage, not the weasels who destroyed evidence for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
The country that arrests, tasers, beats up and criminally charges its criminal defense attorneys in punishment for effective criminal work, and for effectively arguing for their release from unlawful detention, the country that continues to punish attorneys for doing their jobs and for criticism of unlawful actions of judges - has no right to claim it is governed by the rule of law.
Taze the attorney for winning!
That's a new rule.
But definitely not of law.
Taze the attorney for winning!
That's a new rule.
But definitely not of law.
No comments:
Post a Comment