Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mom says Patriot Act stripped son of due process
WRAL News, Raleigh NC ^ | Apr 29 2009 | WRAL News, Raleigh NC

Posted on 05/05/2009 12:32:40 PM PDT by hiredhand

Oxford, N.C. — Sixteen-year-old Ashton Lundeby's bedroom in his mother's Granville County home is nothing, if not patriotic. Images of American flags are everywhere – on the bed, on the floor, on the wall.

But according to the United States government, the tenth-grade home-schooler is being held on a criminal complaint that he made a bomb threat from his home on the night of Feb. 15.

(Excerpt) Read more at wral.com ...


TOPICS: Government; US: Indiana; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: 20090215; 20090305; 200904; 20090429; 4chan; antigun; ashtonlundeby; bombthreats; granvillecounty; homeschool; kernell; lundeby; ncarolina; oxford; partyvanpranks; patriot; patriotact; purdueu; threats; tyrone; voip
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

1 posted on 05/05/2009 12:32:40 PM PDT by hiredhand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: hiredhand

would a had a better chance in Gitmo


2 posted on 05/05/2009 12:36:32 PM PDT by CGASMIA68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiredhand

This totally sucks. The Patriot Act needs to be repealed. Period.


3 posted on 05/05/2009 12:44:35 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiredhand

Obamma lamma and his idiot minions are thinking of releasing a bunch of Gitmo terrorists loose in the U.S.A.?
I’d like to know what each has been up to and also what the Govt says this kid was up to.
I mean as a kid we all tried to make small bombs out of matches or whatever.


4 posted on 05/05/2009 12:50:34 PM PDT by Joe Boucher (yEP,i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

marked to read later


5 posted on 05/05/2009 12:50:58 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8 (Please pray for our troops.... http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher
I have an "interesting" job...part of which involves knowing what people do on networks when they think nobody is watching. There are 6000 of them, and ONE of me. So I have no opinion of whether or not this kid is guilty of what he's accused of.

However, I do have an issue of this effectively making a mockery out of due process, and the whole notion of "innocent until proven guilty". Those who opposed PATRIOT did so because of this very thing, which the authorities promised wouldn't happen. In reality, this kid is only one of many. I saw the stats a couple of months ago, and can't remember where. You can probably find them again with some creative searches on Google.
6 posted on 05/05/2009 12:54:58 PM PDT by hiredhand (Understand the CRA and why we're facing economic collapse - see my about page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hiredhand
"I was terrified," Lundeby's mother said. "There were guns, and I don't allow guns around my children. I don't believe in guns."

She "doesn't believe in guns"? As in, doesn't believe they exist? I can see why she was upset then, since there were guns right there in front of her.

7 posted on 05/05/2009 1:17:29 PM PDT by xjcsa (Currently shouting "I told you so" about Michael Steele on my profile page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiredhand

Shouldn’t be too difficult (for a techie) to prove that someone hacked into her son’s IP address. I would think the government would check that angle out to make sure they had the right person. Something seems a bit fishy here.


8 posted on 05/05/2009 1:20:10 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiredhand

I read somewhere a post from someone who claimed to be a local cop, who wrote that they had webcam video of the kid calling in bomb threats while eating pizza and laughing about it.

For what it’s worth...


9 posted on 05/05/2009 1:35:59 PM PDT by stinkerpot65 (Global warming is a Marxist lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
TWO things....

One. Either they were at church, as was the young man in question, or they weren't. It doesn't say that most of the family was, and he wasn't. Since he's still locked up, I'm going to "guess" that most of the family was away from the house, and he was there alone.

Two. It's often the case that there's not enough audit data left behind to prove the suggestion that it was an external intrusion (a "hack"). Unless the accused gets the "right" lawyer, an uninformed judge, or jury can and will convict on "fairy tales" conjured up from what Hollywood tells our brainless nation about information security.

But the kid is being denied due process, so these questions are going to be difficult to answer at best right now, much less present to the justice system.

If half of what the mom says is true, then I'm guess that they had a poorly secured WAP (Wireless Access Point). My neighbor left his unsecured and I called him to tell him and he gave me permission to "fix" it for him. Before securing it properly, I was able to do some quite advanced things that would have GREATLY aided an intruder in doing some very malicious things that would have appeared as though it originated at their residence, when in fact I was a full two doors down...which is 200 yards in this instance. Bear in mind that since I "owned" the WAP, I would have certainly cleared it's logs and disabled them completely afterwards, had I been up to no good.

I had a WAP signed out from work for home use, and over an 8 month period, I detected three unsuccessful unauthorized usage attempts. Nobody was within sight on our road and it's a very "sparse" neighborhood, so I can only suppose it was a neighbor, and was possibly in error.

The kid needs to see his lawyer...NOW.
10 posted on 05/05/2009 1:38:39 PM PDT by hiredhand (Understand the CRA and why we're facing economic collapse - see my about page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65
I read somewhere a post from someone who claimed to be a local cop, who wrote that they had webcam video of the kid calling in bomb threats while eating pizza and laughing about it.

For what it’s worth...

I'm not saying that I have any particular opinion of whether he is guilty or not. I think I mentioned in a previous posting that I have a grand view in detail of a 6000 user network and know good and well what they do when they think nobody is watching. Truth be known, I'm probably biased against him. My issue is that he was denied due process.

If law enforcement has video evidence, then he'll get everything he deserves for calling in a bomb threat. But the precedent is bad no matter how you view it.
11 posted on 05/05/2009 1:42:43 PM PDT by hiredhand (Understand the CRA and why we're facing economic collapse - see my about page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa
Well...let's think about that one. I'm holding a Colt Series 80 .45 ACP now...and I just returned from the other room where there's an Armalite M-4 clone. They're either real or I'm hallucinating! :-)
12 posted on 05/05/2009 1:45:16 PM PDT by hiredhand (Understand the CRA and why we're facing economic collapse - see my about page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hiredhand

This whole thing feels a little off kilter somehow...

Is it an example the DHS keeping an eye out for ‘right wing extremists’? I mean the kid’s room is full of flags and he is being home schooled. If you are a LLL, that certainly qualifies as extremists.

Still...I can’t shake the feeling that whole story about the kid isn’t out in the open yet...


13 posted on 05/05/2009 2:45:42 PM PDT by goldfinch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiredhand

I agree. He’s just a dumb kid, not an Al-Qaida terrorist. The Patriot Act was not intended for this.


14 posted on 05/05/2009 2:46:10 PM PDT by stinkerpot65 (Global warming is a Marxist lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hiredhand
When a topic like this comes up on FR, I read the source article thoroughly several times and look for incongruities and factoids that don't seem to add up. In the first sentence in the article, the reporter notices that American flags are everywhere in the kid's bedroom -- on the wall, on the bed, even on the floor (on the floor?). The reporter didn't ask but I will -- was the bedroom overflagged the night the kid allegedly made the call?

This article immediately brought to mind the case of David Kernell. You remember him, the son of a Tennessee state legislator who hacked into Sarah Palin's email account last fall. He admitted the break-in and was charged with several felonies and is to be tried in October. I hope that no one on this thread thinks that charging Kernell with several felonies was a violation of his due process.

I would like to put in a good word for the Patriot Act, imperfect as it is. Making bomb threats and plotting to fly airplanes into buildings are terrorist acts. Congress would not have passed the Patriot Act and the President would not have signed it into law unless they believed that we needed stronger protection against terrorism.

Mom says that someone else hacked into his IP and he has been arrested without due process. Excuse me, but due process is a two-way street, Ma'am. The lad doesn't have to prove or disprove anything. In our system, the authorities have to prove that he committed the crimes he has been charged with. And unless they have evidence that he committed said crimes, they aren't going to get a conviction. And there would have been no point in bringing charges in the first place nor to maintain the charges. Remember Mike Nifong, former Durham County District Attorney?

Note that young Lundeby, who by the way is home-schooled, has been sitting in a juvenile facility since February 25.

If Ashton Lundeby is tried and acquitted, a lot of decent people will raise a heckuva stink and President Obama and AG Holder will be blamed as they should be.
15 posted on 05/05/2009 4:05:23 PM PDT by normanpubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiredhand

I need to correct dates in my post #15. The alleged bomb threat was made February 15, 2009 and he was arrested on March 5, 2009.


16 posted on 05/05/2009 4:35:11 PM PDT by normanpubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

the tenth-grade home-schooler is being held on a criminal complaint that he made a bomb threat

So we are supposed to ignore this because he is homeschooled?

Slap the little terrorist into home-prison.

He can continue to cry to mommy from jail.

17 posted on 05/05/2009 4:39:14 PM PDT by humblegunner (Where my PIE at, fool?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: normanpubbie
I would like to put in a good word for the Patriot Act, imperfect as it is. Making bomb threats and plotting to fly airplanes into buildings are terrorist acts. Congress would not have passed the Patriot Act and the President would not have signed it into law unless they believed that we needed stronger protection against terrorism.

Well if you think it is OK to chuck the 5th Amendment in the name of "terrorism", why not the 2nd Amendment as well? I am sure Obama and company would be glad to outlaw guns in the name of "terrorism".

As far as good intentions go, Bush and the Congress passed the Patriot Act without caring whether it was constitutional or not. Hopefully the right to due process will be restored at some point by the courts.

Now they are talking about right-wing extremists and under the Patriot Act, the government can now hold anyone they please in prison for the rest of their natural life without any trial or reason for detainment. I recommend you not attend any tea-parties while Obama is in power.
18 posted on 05/05/2009 6:02:50 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
So we are supposed to ignore this because he is homeschooled?

No, but we are not supposed to take the word of the authorities at face value either. The FBI are pathological liars and I would not believe anything they say without a ton of corroboration. In addition, he is entitled to 5th amendment protections just like any other US citizen.
19 posted on 05/05/2009 6:05:55 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: normanpubbie
-- If Ashton Lundeby is tried and acquitted, a lot of decent people will raise a heckuva stink --

Has he been charged? I mean, is there an indictment, you know, citing the law that waws broken, and so forth? Two months in the slammer is quite a long time.

20 posted on 05/05/2009 6:18:07 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: normanpubbie
-- If Ashton Lundeby is tried and acquitted, a lot of decent people will raise a heckuva stink --

But if he's not charged, just held for say 3 months or 6 months or 24 months, then released (but still under suspicion, put on no-fly lists, etc.) everything would be "cool" because he wasn't convicted.

21 posted on 05/05/2009 6:58:35 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hiredhand; microgood; Cboldt
I found four news stories on Google about Ashton Lundeby. Three of them seem to have been lifted wholesale from the April 29 WRAL-TV web article. The web article was quite one-sided, quoting only the mother and a local civil and criminal law attorney who basically said the same thing. We did not hear any dissenting view. Ms Lamb seemed to cherry-pick the information to write into the article. One of the things the reporter left out was information about the charges and any indictments which have been issued. One article did say that the court hearing had been pushed back. Sorry, but I have never trusted sloppy, one-sided reportage.

Ashton is being held (bond denied?) in a state juvenile facility in South Bend, IN. Why Indiana? According to the video, that is where the alleged threat(s) was/were made. If the mother is in North Carolina and the son is in Indiana 750 miles away, it's hardly surprising that she has had limited or no contact with her son since his arrest.

The video showed a shot of the search warrant (with some parts apparently redacted) which showed the Lundeby home address. The warrant was issued by a U.S. District Court judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina. A judge (possibly the same one) later issued a gag order in the case. Perhaps in addition to the gag order, the relevant legal papers have been sealed as well. But that doesn't mean that Lundeby has no due process rights. I bet it turns out that he has been arrested, charged, arraigned, and indicted on one or more federal charges.

There is a link in the WRAL-TV article to the DOJ's page on the Patriot Act. According to their description, the Act allowed the authorities to issue a search warrant in North Carolina related to crime(s) which occurred in Indiana. This step was apparently not possible before the Patriot Act was put into law.

And I'm not buying the story that the Patriot Act supersedes any part of the Consitution. Period.
22 posted on 05/05/2009 10:28:25 PM PDT by normanpubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: normanpubbie
I found the same reporting pattern you did. Everything based on that April 29 story.

The charge of "denied due process" is vague. If somebody says "zero due process," that is obviously incorrect. Same with "unconstitutional," absent a fact pattern and case site to support it. As we know, Padilla in the US, and even others outside the US (GTMO) have all the due process they are entitled to "within the constitution." Military detention (Lundeby isn't), being held for months without being charged for trial, etc. are not unconstitutional denials of due process.

There is no doubt he's been arrested. There is agreement that a physical search was conducted pursuant to a warrant. He is being held by the Feds for making bomb threats over the internet, so the observation there was no bomb-making material is a non-sequitur - the threat alone is sufficient basis for detention (like uttering "bomb" in an airport, in a way that incites the TSA to concern)

The reference to National Security Letters implicates a sort of "due process" concern (snooping outside of court supervision); but "due process" as a buzz-phrase isn't usually associated with government snooping, and there is no allegation that probable cause to conduct a physical search was bootstrapped from an unconstitutional search or seizure.

-- One of the things the reporter left out was information about the charges and any indictments which have been issued. --

Agreed. Formal charges and speedy trial are aspects of law enforcement that people usually sweep into "due process." Without a formal charge, a captive can't defend. But filings in this case would be sealed as the suspect is a child; and the report says "held on a criminal compliant," which may be styled as an indictment. We also don't know about access to legal counsel.

-- I'm not buying the story that the Patriot Act supersedes any part of the Consitution. --

Parts of it are untested, and strike me as problematic in light of the Constitution. But this story is too vague to be useful as a basis for debate on the question.

I'd like to know the nature of the bomb threats. The schools get them here every year, and it'd be great to lock the little cretins up for a year or two, 1000 miles from home, to teach them a lesson.

23 posted on 05/06/2009 2:38:16 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: normanpubbie
The case of Timberline High School student Josh Glazebrook may be useful as a parallel. Charged with bomb threats using the internet, caught, 90 days in juvie.

A google search using "bomb threat" "internet" turns up a few cases, and of course "bomb threat" on its own turns up thousands.

24 posted on 05/06/2009 2:50:45 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
The points in your posts are all well-taken and reasonable, and I thank you for that.

One intriguing question is why the Feds have pushed back the court date. Is it because they do not presently have enough evidence against Ashton for a conviction, or are they looking at related acts? We don't know. BTW, the gag order protects the defendant as much as it does the authorities.

The mother mentioned the IP issue. Could there have been a proxy IP in the mix? We don't know.

Re legal counsel: A court hearing date has been set. This implies that someone is looking out for him, even if it is only the judge.

There is an old legal maxim which looks like it applies:

If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the law is on your side, argue the law. If neither, pound the table.

I figure that this case will end up like Mr. Glazebrook's, with a sentence of time served and probation, with an expungement when Ashton turns 18.
25 posted on 05/06/2009 5:39:08 AM PDT by normanpubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: normanpubbie
-- One intriguing question is why the Feds have pushed back the court date. --

I don't even know what the purpose of that court date is. Was it to be a bond hearing? An arraignment? Presentation of a plea bargain? Presumably the government has sufficient evidence to support detention and indictment. But even so, there is no constitutional impediment to holding a person without charge for some period of time, and this case is far from reaching that duration - see Padilla.

-- the gag order protects the defendant as much as it does the authorities --

The ostensible function of a gag order is either to protect the defendant's privacy, or to preserve a "state secret" or ongoing investigation that aims to obtain evidence about people not yet detained pending charge. What we know of this case, it is the act of a lone wolf, so there isn't any ongoing investigation to compromise. The defendant's mother seems to want publicity and is willing to give up the privacy interest. Makes sense, the kid is in jail, and his friends and neighbors know why. At this point, the only interest being protected by the gag is the government's credibility.

-- A court hearing date has been set. This implies that someone is looking out for him, even if it is only the judge. --

The judge is impartial, and in practice tends to favor the state. A lawyer is an advocate, a counterbalance to the government-advocate. Again, I don't know that his interests are not represented by counsel, but the law says if he is a criminal suspect, he has the right to an attorney. Again, this right doesn't pertain to all of us, depending on the rationale the government uses to justify detention. If he's a terrorist suspect, then permitting him access to non-cleared counsel is a risk.

-- I figure that this case will end up like Mr. Glazebrook's --

That, of course, depends on having evidence to support a conviction, etc. If the government determines it doesn't want to risk a trial, then it may just release him with a "you're darn lucky to be free."

26 posted on 05/06/2009 6:00:13 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: normanpubbie
-- If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the law is on your side, argue the law. --

Mom and her friends seem to be arguing both in this case. As to the facts, they offer an alibi and an alternative suspect; and as to the law they imply the process is not following the criminal law pattern of arrest, bond, indict/charge, and trial.

27 posted on 05/06/2009 6:08:44 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Here's the point that I was making about the gag order. Without a gag order, we might see young Lundeby's police interrogation, jailhouse pictures, etc. night after night on the Nancy Grace show. Think Casey Anthony. In that case, the meter reader is my prime suspect, not Anthony.

As for the alibi and the "some other dude did it," those are assertions, not facts. If the Lundebys can back up the assertions solidly, the Feds don't have a case.

I found another article by a William Norman Grigg on Lew Rockwell's website, with more details furnished by Mom. Grigg refers to the "Stalinist (sic) Patriot Act" which tells you where he's coming from. Grigg asserts that a criminal complaint has been filed but the lad has not been charged yet. As I said before, I figure that an arrest warrant was served, he was charged under a criminal complaint, and was later indicted by a federal grand jury.

I have to wash my hands thoroughly after visiting Rockwell's site.

If Ashton didn't commit this/these crimes, my heart goes out to him. If he did, he won't get any sympathy from me.
28 posted on 05/06/2009 9:44:53 AM PDT by normanpubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: normanpubbie
-- Without a gag order, we might see young Lundeby's police interrogation, jailhouse pictures, etc. night after night on the Nancy Grace show. --

It'd be the first time for a bomb-hoaxer, that I know of. This kid isn't the first to figure out it's easy to cause some panic and action with a phone call, note, or internet-based posed (e.g., MySpace)

-- As for the alibi and the "some other dude did it," those are assertions, not facts. --

I was just saying that the defendant is arguing the facts, not that the defendant had them right. IOW, this doesn't come off as the prototypical "pound the table" situation.

-- I figure that an arrest warrant was served, he was charged under a criminal complaint, and was later indicted by a federal grand jury. --

I've seen no evidence of an indictment, but yours is certainly a reasonable assumption. Would you find the story newsworthy if the fellow was held this long w/o an indictment?

-- If Ashton didn't commit this/these crimes, my heart goes out to him. If he did, he won't get any sympathy from me. --

Goes to my point that cretins who are suspected of calling in bomb threats ought to, as a matter of routine, be moved a few hundred miles from home with all form of communication being "under seal." It'd make the little bastards toe the line.

But aside from the determination of actual guilt or innocence, the story does present an accusation that the criminal justice system has some "optional procedures" that result in a claim of violation of some imagined due process right. That's novel in this case, not appearing in any of the bomb threat cases that I've casually bumped into.

29 posted on 05/06/2009 9:59:27 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
I figure that we have about exhausted this subject, but the question you posed in your most recent post deserves an answer:

Would you find the story newsworthy if the fellow was held this long w/o an indictment?

If there was only this single incident, yes. But there may be more to this case. Of course, if a sitting Grand Jury is hearing more testimony in the case, or sits only periodically, it could take months for an indictment to be issued.

One element that I do find curious in this case is the almost complete lack of local press coverage. From what I can tell, only WRAL-TV did any original reporting on it. Where are the other TV stations and the Raleigh News-Observer? Yes, I realize that Lundby's case lacks the sex and race angles of the Duke lacrosse case, but still...
30 posted on 05/06/2009 3:45:17 PM PDT by normanpubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: normanpubbie
-- One element that I do find curious in this case is the almost complete lack of local press coverage. --

So much for the Nancy Grace angle, eh! Padilla didn't get much coverage past the initial arrest. If there is no public activity in court, the media has nothing to report.

On your information, I too read the stuff at lewrockwell. The boy had court-appointed counsel the day after he was apprehended. His mother was forbidden to communicate with him for a three-week period, and was not given a "reason" for the firewall.

On the point of "it could take months for an indictment to be issued," a criminal defendant is usually arraigned within days of apprehension. A delay of 60 days is very noteworthy. It's not possible to prepare a proper formal defense until there is a formal charge. Still, the question remains hypothetical at this point, because the evidence is equivocal on whether or not he's been formally charged. I think he hasn't, which is the attribute what drives the current news. But it's possible he has all of the formal charges, and is just attempting to discredit the government via media.

The April 29 story is starting to spread on the internet, and according to that lewrockwell page, a hearing is scheduled for May 27. The story may attract more investigation and more independent commentary as a result of those developments. I'm going to file it in the back of my mind, and endeavor to obtain an accurate impression of what happened. I think the USA PATRIOT Act and MCA provide a dangerous combination of "law," for one reason because they give the supposedly independent courts so little room/basis to object to a factually unfounded/unjustified detention.

31 posted on 05/06/2009 4:16:58 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: microgood

Not really. Bill Ayers needs to be picked up. Otherwise it looks like REAL BOMBERS have more rights than those who are merely thought to have made a bomb threat (real or not).


32 posted on 05/06/2009 4:42:50 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: normanpubbie
So, it took 18 days for LEOs to bother with the case?

I doubt they waited that long for Brent Kimberlin ~ but he was tossing dynamite (and later on became the Algore's best buddy during the campaign).

That's the fishy part ~ 18 days delay.

33 posted on 05/06/2009 4:48:00 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: normanpubbie
If you don't secure your home network there are other people who will use it.

That particular problem appears to have broken the back of the music producers and distributors who were busy suing everybody and anybody for "downloading" copyrighted tunes without permission.

I would imagine by now the federales have figured the problem out and know how to get around it ~ and I would be wrong. The federales still need a warrant to access the internet to see if, in fact, who it is who is actually doing the communicating. I'm not sure the federales are in a position to protect the innocent.

At the same time they delayed 18 days before bothering to respond to the bomb threat ~ which is something that should bother all of us.

34 posted on 05/06/2009 4:57:38 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; Cboldt
Muawiyah, LEO didn't wait 18 days to work on the case. Of course they immediately checked to see if the bomb threat was real or bogus; it took the rest of the time to identify the alleged perp and get enough evidence for a search warrant and an arrest. This strengthens my previous contention that there may be more to this story than has been reported.

Cboldt, as we all know, the criminal justice system works as follows: Authorities determine that a crime has been committed. Then they conduct a preliminary investigation to identify the perpetrator of said crime. An arrest is made and the arrestee's premises are searched using a warrant signed by a judge. Within a specified period of time (which varies among jurisdictions) the arrestee must be arraigned before a judge at which time formal charges are laid. In the case of serious crimes, either a Grand Jury must issue an indictment or a preliminary hearing must be held before trial. It can take months to empanel a special Grand Jury or schedule evidence presentation before a sitting Grand Jury. I believe that Ashton was arraigned in mid-March regardless of what any partisan claims. Since Federal judicial proceedings are sealed for juveniles, I can't prove my assertions but then no one can disprove them either.

Cboldt, like you I would like to get to the bottom of this story and am willing to wait for the court hearing which will presumably occur on May 27. And in the past 24 hours the number of hits for Ashton Lundeby has gone from four to hundreds. Nancy Grace, are you listening?

Please check out this link from the Indianapolis FBI office dated March 6:

http://indianapolis.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/ip030609a.htm

Note that the press release cites "similar threats" in addition to the February 15 bomb threat.

It's been fun but I'm clocking out of this thread. Folks, thanks for the civil discussion!
35 posted on 05/06/2009 8:40:46 PM PDT by normanpubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
There's recent news on this young man at -

The-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner
36 posted on 05/06/2009 9:30:45 PM PDT by hiredhand (Understand the CRA and why we're facing economic collapse - see my about page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: normanpubbie
-- Since Federal judicial proceedings are sealed for juveniles, I can't prove my assertions but then no one can disprove them either. --

Well, there's a rub. Are the proceedings routinely sealed from the juvenile's parents as well as from the public?

-- It can take months to empanel a special Grand Jury or schedule evidence presentation before a sitting Grand Jury. --

IOW, you find this delay to be within the norm. I think this delay (if there hasn't been a formal charge) to be troubling. It's a radical outlier compared with timelines in the other bomb-threat cases - quick trial and conviction after identification and capture

The 700 mile relocation is also unusual, although the FEDs certainly have the power and superficial justification for doing so.

The government ought to at least level one charge so defense can begin its advocacy process. If it has other charges "in the wings" it can bring them later, and often does. See "amended indictment" and "further indictment."

37 posted on 05/07/2009 4:00:46 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: normanpubbie
Of course, if a sitting Grand Jury is hearing more testimony in the case, or sits only periodically, it could take months for an indictment to be issued.

Not if he's in jail it won't. That's a speedy trial violation. The indictment has to issue thirty days from arrest under federal law.

38 posted on 05/07/2009 4:08:56 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: normanpubbie
I used google and the terms "bomb threat" "arraigned" in a search for typical timelines (on your representation that in some cases, special grand jury, the delay can be months while the person is incarcerated awaiting indictment). As a bonus, I ran into information that pertains to the "sealing" of evidence and activity from the public and the parents.

Framingham, Mass - 2005: Email threat on May 18, arrest on "Wednesday" (Before May 28), and arraigned on "Thursday." 15 year old, unnamed perp. Come to think of it, the typical extent of "sealing" is to keep the perps name out of the public eye, and not the fact that a crime was committed, a perp ID'd, and to chronicle the wheels of justice. It is, IMO, unusual to wholesale seal off the indictment, criminal complaint, etc.

Carrollton, MI - 2008: Telephone threat on Feb 25, Arraigned/bond set Mar 6, prelim hearing of Mar 17.

Pittsfield, Mass - 2004: Oral threat, arrest, and arraignment all w/in a week.

NYC (Penn Station) - 2005: Oral threat, arrest and arraignment all w/in a week.

Philadelphia, PA - 2004: Oral threat, arrest and arraignment all w/in a week.

Grand Rapids, MI - 2008: telephone threat, arrest an arraignment w/in 15 days max

Those aren't cherry-picked examples. Others will find the same thing I did, should they take the time to conduct the search and peruse the news. I was amazed at the number and variety of bomb threats.

39 posted on 05/07/2009 4:42:39 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: normanpubbie
-- One intriguing question is why the Feds have pushed back the court date. Is it because they do not presently have enough evidence against Ashton for a conviction --

No, that's false. All they need to justify arraignment is sufficient ALLEGATION, which will subject to proof by the evidence during the course of trial, to support the specific statutory violation. The statutory violation here is a no brainer, see previously cited "bomb threat hoaxes" for examples. The elements of the crime are few and simple. The threat, and who made it.

If the evidence is not sufficient to support a finding of guilt to some legal standard, the the trial result is "not guilty." That is, no conviction.

If the standard for arraignment was "enough evidence to (always) support conviction, there would not be any "not guilty" verdicts, except by jury nullification.

40 posted on 05/07/2009 4:54:05 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: normanpubbie
-- either a Grand Jury must issue an indictment or a preliminary hearing must be held before trial --

My understanding is that "criminal complaint" and "indictment" are roughly interchangeable (one or the other, depending on the max penalty); and that the "preliminary hearing" (which is always post-arraignment, usually w/in weeks) is an entirely different activity. The functions of the preliminary hearing are to generally review the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence, and to set parameters for discovery.

The timeline (order) is not fixed as in "arrest then indict" vs. "indict then arrest," so a months long investigation while the suspect is free doesn't pose the "why are you holding me, and how do I defend myself" issue at all. The intention is often that the suspect be completely unaware of being under suspicion and investigation. That fact pattern is not indicated in this case.

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
United States Attorneys' Manual - Title 9 (Criminal)

Detention of Juveniles

The juvenile statutes provide for release of a juvenile pending trial to his parents, guardian, custodian, or other responsible individual unless the magistrate determines, after a hearing at which the juvenile is represented by counsel, that detention is required to secure his timely appearance before the appropriate court or to insure his safety or that of others. 18 U.S.C. § 5034. ...

The juvenile statutes have their own speedy trial provision. Juveniles who are held in custody pending trial must ordinarily have their proceedings commence within 30 days. 18 U.S.C. § 5036.

18 USC 5036

If an alleged delinquent who is in detention pending trial is not brought to trial within thirty days from the date upon which such detention was begun, the information shall be dismissed on motion of the alleged delinquent or at the direction of the court, unless the Attorney General shows that additional delay was caused by the juvenile or his counsel, or consented to by the juvenile and his counsel, or would be in the interest of justice in the particular case. Delays attributable solely to court calendar congestion may not be considered in the interest of justice. Except in extraordinary circumstances, an information dismissed under this section may not be reinstituted.

41 posted on 05/07/2009 6:11:30 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: normanpubbie
-- I figure that we have about exhausted this subject ... It's been fun but I'm clocking out of this thread. --

ROTFL.

42 posted on 05/07/2009 6:14:21 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Title 18 - Part IV - Chapter 403 - JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (includes process for "tried as adult")
18 USC 5035 - Detention prior to disposition
A juvenile alleged to be delinquent may be detained only in a juvenile facility or such other suitable place as the Attorney General may designate. Whenever possible, detention shall be in a foster home or community based facility located in or near his home community. The Attorney General shall not cause any juvenile alleged to be delinquent to be detained or confined in any institution in which the juvenile has regular contact with adult persons convicted of a crime or awaiting trial on criminal charges. Insofar as possible, alleged delinquents shall be kept separate from adjudicated delinquents.

I'm thinking there must be a parallel set of laws to cover this case, because it sure doesn't appear to be tracking the ordinary criminal statutes.

My first reaction was to correlate "juvenile delinquent" with petty activity, but the law defines it as the violation of a law of the United States committed by a person prior to his eighteenth birthday which would have been a crime if committed by an adult. This includes everything up to and including cold murder.

43 posted on 05/07/2009 6:29:33 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: normanpubbie
Let me stick with my 18 days ~ the reason is they didn't have any idea who the perp was UNTIL they had done extensive investigation of everyone who could have possibly been the perp ~ and that took a pile of warrants ~ and more than likely more than one judge involved.

Bomb threats are always serious ~ even if they're fake and there's absolutely no information in either story (the one you suggested, or this one) to tell us that anything at all was done about the "threat".

Notice that Bill Ayers, who actually laid bombs on folks is still walking around. This kid who didn't have a bomb but pretended he did is in jail.

Do you have any idea what kind of impression that makes on kids? Just think of the logical conclusion a teenager might draw.

44 posted on 05/07/2009 7:02:08 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
"Shouldn’t be too difficult (for a techie) to prove that someone hacked into her son’s IP address. I would think the government would check that angle out to make sure they had the right person. Something seems a bit fishy here."

If the boy has a wireless router how does the government prove this boy did anything unless there is evidence on HIS personal computer.

Then you have to prove he actually did the keystrokes.

How does the government prove this?

45 posted on 05/07/2009 7:06:04 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (will work for bailout bonus.... Twitter: maddawggmorgan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Translation - “Got my ass kicked. I’m out of here!” :-)


46 posted on 05/07/2009 7:25:08 AM PDT by hiredhand (Understand the CRA and why we're facing economic collapse - see my about page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
-- Then you have to prove he actually did the keystrokes. --

My take is that the threat was communicated using VOIP. Agreed, still some keystrokes, somewhere (or an analogue to keystrokes).

FWIW, the evidence in this sort of case is always somewhat circumstantial - see RIAA efforts against copyright piracy. But circumstantial evidence can be and often is strong enough to obtain a conviction.

See too, even if the kid is completely innocent in fact, a substantial number of people will maintain that he is guilty, because innocence hasn't been proven and there is some smidgen of circumstantial evidence linking the kid to the crime. The federal government will take and hold that position, for example.

47 posted on 05/07/2009 7:47:20 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
How does the government prove this?

I haven't the foggiest idea. Either the government hasn't done the investigation they should, or they are not sharing what they know. Either way, this boy deserves to be defended by an attorney.

48 posted on 05/07/2009 9:18:47 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: hiredhand

Good post. The mom’s defense may sound shaky to some but the reality is unsecured networks are so common that finding and sometimes using them has become a hobby for some people. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardriving)


49 posted on 05/07/2009 11:14:23 AM PDT by BinaryBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BinaryBoy
Good post. The mom’s defense may sound shaky to some but the reality is unsecured networks are so common that finding and sometimes using them has become a hobby for some people. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardriving)

The gaps that were present in the original posting are definitely being filled in, and they leave some large questions. As word of this spreads, pressure on the authorities will grow. There is an underlying problem here of the abuse of authorities rooted in their lack of understanding the technology well enough to base a decision. Worse than this, they took somebody's word (the FBI according to the last article) for it, and this "word" was patently incorrect.
50 posted on 05/07/2009 12:13:19 PM PDT by hiredhand (Understand the CRA and why we're facing economic collapse - see my about page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson