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 ...
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)
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.
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.
ROTFL.
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.
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.
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?
Translation - “Got my ass kicked. I’m out of here!” :-)
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.
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.
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)
Those claims led the office of US Attorney David Capp to issue a press release today [May 7, 2009] insisting that the arrest and detention of Ashton Lundeby "is unrelated to the PATRIOT act."http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/026683.html : William Grigg"The juvenile has appeared in court on three occasions, once in North Carolina for an initial hearing and a detention hearing, and twice in Indiana for a continued initial hearing and a status hearing," the press release relates. "At each hearing, the juvenile was represented by counsel.... The juvenile is presently housed in a juvenile facility in the Northern District of Indiana where he does not have contact with adult offenders. His mother has been apprised of each court appearance and has attended the hearing in North Carolina; she did not appear at either of the hearings in Indiana."
The website for the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Indiana does not link to the press release, or even acknowledge that one exists. The press release page has no releases past February, 2009.
U.S. attorney addresses case of North Carolina boy held in South Bend - May 7, 2009
Beth Boehne - WSBT South Bend
According to the release by U.S. attorney David Capp, his office "previously announced that a juvenile was arrested pursuant to a federal warrant. The arrest stems from a false bomb threat directed to Purdue University on Feb. 15 and similar threats directed to other schools."The FBI, the Purdue University Police Department and the Tippecanoe County prosecutor's office conducted an extensive investigation into this matter, resulting in that arrest. Over recent days, several media sources have reported information that is incorrect.
"Accordingly, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana wishes to further announce that a juvenile information has been filed and is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. That charge alleges a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(e), which prohibits sending false information about an attempt to kill, injure or intimidate any individual or to unlawfully to damage any building through an instrument of interstate commerce. This charge is unrelated to the Patriot Act.
"The juvenile has appeared in court on three occasions, once in North Carolina for an initial hearing and a detention hearing, and twice in Indiana for a continued initial hearing and a status hearing. At each hearing, the juvenile was represented by counsel. The government has filed a motion with the Court seeking to transfer the juvenile to adult status for prosecution pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 5032; that motion is pending before the Court and is scheduled for a hearing during the month of May.
"The juvenile is presently housed in a juvenile facility in the Northern District of Indiana where he does not have contact with adult offenders. His mother has been apprised of each court appearance and has attended the hearing in North Carolina; she did not appear at either of the hearings in Indiana. The juvenile facility where he is housed permits family visits.
"Because the statutes governing juvenile proceedings limit public disclosure of information related to a juvenile case, the United States Attorney declines any further comment."
And a link to 18 USC 844.
"The charge is unrelated to the PATRIOT Act" doesn't explain the process for detention (750 mile relocation) and the timeline for speedy trial (30 days MAX, starting from date of detention) deviating from the statutes previously cited.
I wonder when the 18 USC 844(e) charge was filed. Today? Held 60+ days w/o being charged?
However, a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an act after his sixteenth birthday which if committed by an adult would be ... an offense described in section ... 844 (e) of this title ... and who has previously been found guilty of an act which if committed by an adult would have been one of the offenses set forth in this paragraph or an offense in violation of a State felony statute that would have been such an offense if a circumstance giving rise to Federal jurisdiction had existed, shall be transferred to the appropriate district court of the United States for criminal prosecution.
I have the impression that the government is playing word games, keying off an ill-informed expression about resort to the USA PATRIOT Act. I think it's a bit unfair to lay all the blame for less-than-perfect-precise description at Mrs. Lundeby's feet. This is from the late-April news-report that kicked off the internet firestorm:
"They're saying that 'We feel this individual is a terrorist or an enemy combatant against the United States, and we're going to suspend all of those due process rights because this person is an enemy of the United States," said Dan Boyce, a defense attorney and former U.S. attorney not connected to the Lundeby case. ..."There's nothing a matter of public record," Boyce said "All those normal rights are just suspended in the air." ...
Boyce said the Patriot Act was written with good intentions, but he said he believes it has gone too far in some cases. Lundeby's might be one of them, he said.
"It very well could be a case of overreaction, where an agent leaped to certain conclusions or has made certain assumptions about this individual and about how serious the threat really is," Boyce said.
That said, one of the "beauties" of the USA PATRIOT Act is that it enables holding a suspect w/o charge, for an indefinite period, upon certain statements by the investigating and prosecuting authorities that aim to keep the suspect OUT of the criminal justice system. The rationale being that a terrorist who gets into the criminal justice system will have too many rights; and it is better to use a different system of detention, trial and punishment.
At this point we are talking about detention, not trial. I have no quarrel that making the bomb threat using the phone is a federal offense, and that's the case even if the phone threat is phoned to the building across the street. All telephone, mail, and IP-based bomb-threats are in the scope of Federal action, according to statute.
-- Note how much William Grigg of lewrockwell.com backed off in today's column compared to yesterday's? --
Yes. He's a typical media dumb ass. I also notice a substantial volume of useless cruft keying off "technical errors" as though pointing out a technicality addresses the substantive questions. The basic substantive questions are not being fully answered.
FWIW, I intend to confine my comments relating to this case to this thread. I'm not going to bounce all over threads with my observations, findings, opinions, etc.
Otay!
I neglected to ask if you could account for his relocation, in light of this provision of statutory law:
... Whenever possible, detention shall be in a foster home or community based facility located in or near his home community.18 USC 5035
And then there is the speedy trial provision in the same chapter, that requires the government to bring the defendant to trial w/in 30 days of commencement of detention. "If an alleged delinquent who is in detention pending trial is not brought to trial within thirty days ... " blah blah blah ... case dismissed.
16yo kid in prison for 2 months now as terrorist under Patriot Act@discarded lies
#2 Jason at 4:05 am on May 04, 2009
What a pack of lies, The same kid they showed in a picture on her bleeding-heart news report was doing illegal prank calls for months.
I was one of the people working with police.
We saw the same kid eating pizza on webcam and making bomb threats willingly and laughing at them and asking for donations to keep making more.#3 Jason at 4:06 am on May 04, 2009
Also, he is being held in Indiana because the first call he made that I got in contact with police for was a University in Indiana. Since then, I provided them with location, IP and recordings of the calls. Including 5 school bomb threats in one night.
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.