Quatloos!

I don't view a trip to sing for armed anti government crazies an appropriate school trip under any circumstances be it pulled out of school at taken cross country to do so. There can't be a lot of good learning going on an a trip that like. I also should add I never intended to talk badly about home schooling, if done right, with the right child and right teacher it can succeed, however I don't believe for myself, my family, my children it is appropriate. I like the idea of structured days, learning social skills interacting with other kids, and having professionals teachers who provide unbiased feedback. I will also add, the wife and I had these discussions and decided sending the to a school was better for everyone. I do have a friend who is doing homeschooling next year though, and there is nothing wrong with that, it may work well for them.

I suppose I may have over-reacted.
Anyways, in Alberta, there are a number of approved home schooling curricala, and it doesn't carry the same connatations as it does elsewhere. You are assigned an accredited teacher as a tutor, there are regular tests and exams supervised by a third party, usually the local librarian. I'm not up to date but it used to be there were three allowed variations of study - general, Christian (protestant) and Christian (roman catholic). That being said, no matter which you took, you still had to meet the provincial guidelines for your age. Around here there are enough who do it that there is a local support group that organizes field trips and weekly trips to the local library, etc. to ensure appropriate socialization. I think it's time to let the matter rest and I suppose I may have over-reacted. I admit that I have a lot of respect for those parents who are interested enough in their child's education to take an active part in it themselves and btw, my wife was the local librarian.

And with that, let's please move this back to the thread topic at hand rather than the evil or good of homeschooling.

Since someone else shares my annoyance with the sidetracking; a simple warning:

The next home schooling post will result in ALL of the related off-topic posts being moved to another thread. If I'm in a good mood at that time, I'll tell everyone where they went.

I think taking children to see (not participate in) a Sovrun demonstration could be an excellent educational use of the children's time. (See, I didn't say "home schooling"....)

Arthur Rubin wrote:I think taking children to see (not participate in) a Sovrun demonstration could be an excellent educational use of the children's time. (See, I didn't say "home schooling"....)

Borderline. Marginally acceptable, but don' push it.

It has been a while since there has been an update of what is happening with the various Bundies.

Cliven's lawyer reached out to State Rep. Ken Ivory of Utah to help pay for legal bills. Rep. Ivory has expressed interest in having federal lands being turned over to the states. Cliven's lawyer assumed that Rep. Ivory would be sympathetic to the Bundy cause and donate money. Except, that's not what Joel Hansen emailed to the state rep. No, Hansen asked Ivory if he could get the Koch brothers to help pay for legal fees. https://twitter.com/ryanjhaas/status/734192070953340929

State Rep Ivory did not respond to Hansen's email, and declined to fund the defense. He also said that he has not received money from the Koch brothers. http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060037860

In other news, Ammon and Ryan are not enjoying their time being incarcerated. In a joint status report regarding jail condition, the brothers complain about being in jail: their rights are being infringed upon because they are separated, their time in the law library is limited, their religious freedoms are being infringed. The jail has made some accommodations.

One general request from Ryan raises an eyebrow, "My Second Amendment rights are being violated." Unfortunately, Ryan doesn't specifically ask for a firearm. http://res.cloudinary.com/bdy4ger4/imag ... mysimx.pdf

Looks like Cliven is preparing to throw the rest of the clowns under the bus, according to this article.

Article includes motion to sever.

Minute order from a couple of weeks ago:

The Court is in receipt of various documents from an entity entitled the Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury seeking to have the Court file on this docket its papers regarding the proceedings in this case. However, as this entity is not a party to this case, the documents shall not be filed on the docket. Should this entity wish to open its own case in this Court, it is recommended the entity follow the procedures in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for initiation of a case.

Treason!

Worse yet, we don't get to laugh at it.

Who is the "Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury", are they on our radar?

The real comedy, if you want to be generous and call it that, is the libel KKKlayman through his local sockpuppet has filed for the recusal of the current judge, "she's mean and awful and won't grant me PHV and stuffs", some really vile stuff in there masquerading as a legal filing. Even for KKKlayman a new low.

That particular collection of crazy, the CLGJ is the brainchild of Johnny "Two Names" Darash Vidurek out of New York, it was going to be the coming thing, whole lot of MYTHology about how common law grand juries are a constitutional right and supersede everything else(regular courts) and can be judge and jury and stuffs, even drag the late Supreme Court Justice in as an authority. Basically a scam. The only real effort that got any publicity was in FL when one of their dimmer cannon fodder tried to hijack a real grand jury and when that failed created his own and indited just about everyone he didn't like and then filed the "inditements" with his local county court, and for some reason the court, and well the state too when it came down to it, got all upset and purged his writs from the docket, and then indicted him for real on like 14 felony counts of fake process and impersonating an officer. Fool is like 70 years old and is working on turning something that could be a slap on the wrist into a life sentence, for reals. The saga is going to, hopefully, come to a crashing conclusion June 6 when he gets REAL court time in front of a REAL judge and JURY and not the pretend Denny's one he was leading. His real lawyer has filed some amazing bit of lawyering, not quite on par with Orly Taitz, but working at it.

If anyone is interested, and has a day or two to waste or else reads real fast, there are some fairly long and detailed threads over on Fogbow detailing the above mentioned comedy.

Johnny "Two Names" Vidurek CLGJ
Terry Trussell saga

More analysis of the machinations around separate trials

http://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/bund ... ndoff-case

Bundy and eight other defendants want separate trials, and three of his sons, Ammon, Ryan and Dave, want to be tried together. They are trying to persuade their brother Mel Bundy, who seeks a separate trial, to join them, according to court papers filed over the last two weeks.

This would be a good time for Judge Roy Bean (either ours or the original) to step in.

Well boys, the good news is i'm only giving you 5 years each. Bad news, you'll be serving your sentences in the feedlot with your cows. And an occasional bull.

grixit wrote:This would be a good time for Judge Roy Bean (either ours or the original) to step in.

Well boys, the good news is i'm only giving you 5 years each. Bad news, you'll be serving your sentences in the feedlot with your cows. And an occasional bull.

It's a bit out of my jurisdiction.

Someone dumb it down for us. What does all this talk of separate trials mean.

Trial as a group has some risks, not the least of which are conflicting interests among the defendants and competing legal strategies among counsel. Another issue involves a defendant's right to refuse to testify in a joined case even if that testimony might benefit another defendant (a defendant cannot be compelled to testify in his or her trial but can be subpoenaed and compelled to testify in another trial). Also, having separate cases means the first case offers a preview of the viability of the witnesses and the rulings on motions for the subsequent defense teams.

I'm sure our more experienced trial counsel 'round here can provide a more in-depth rationale, but then again, when it comes to the Bundy Bunch, not much would surprise me.

I think another reason would be a defendant who may have a weaker case would seek a separate trial so that he or she avoids the splatter of guilt that could come from a jury who would find against his/her co-defendants.