Replies

Hitched this to your handle, just because you seem to have an interest and appear on other threads.

Ashton Lundeby Update: Less Than Meets The Eye riffs from yesterday's report out of South Bend. The comment section includes this:

I was listening to his family members on the radio this morning, and as the story "evolves" they admit, well, yeah, actually his mom DID get a call informing her when the hearings were ... Well, yeah, he DID make a threat and his mom told him to stop ... Geez. Until I see some sort of issue where the govt is overstepping its bounds, Iâ€™m going to sit and watch this one and root for the "good guys."
Comment by Big Dave â€” May 8, 2009 @ 6:30 am

Now, obviously these folks haven't looked up the statutes that pertain to charging and trying juveniles for federal offenses, so they miss the question about the March-May detention without starting a trial, and other possible deviations from the normal procedure. Don't get me wrong, I think the kid is a skunk, but by deviating from statutory law, the Feds may have queered their case altogether. The statute says trial w/in 30 days of detention, or dismiss.

"Not charged with a USA PATRIOT Act violation" only deals with a labeling technicality. What legal process was employed post detention to justify relocating him? What date was the 18 USC 844(e) charge filed? Has he been convicted of any felony before this? (which is a prerequisite for trying him as an adult, the way I read the law) What argument does the government forward to surmount the 30-day to trial or dismiss statute?

Feds deny Patriot Act link to teen held in South Bend - Jeff Parrott - South Bend Tribune (May 8, 2009)

Capp said he has filed a charge alleging violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 844(e), which "prohibits sending false information about an attempt to kill, injure or intimidate any individual or to unlawfully damage any building through an instrument of interstate commerce."
The boy's mother has told WRAL-TV in Raleigh, N.C., that she believed he was being held under the Patriot Act, the federal law enacted after Sept. 11, 2001, that allows prosecutors to detain terrorism suspects without affording them rights typically granted to suspects, such as the right to be formally charged in a reasonable period of time.

Those two points of view are not necessarily contradictory. The answer turns on the date the 18 USC 844(e) charge was formally leveled against the defendant.

Reporters are such dumb-asses. How hard is it to look up the US Code sections relating to juvie detention? It took me about 20 minutes to find the relevant sections and link them in this thread. I have not seen that basic degree of investigation in evidence anywhere else.

The lesson is that the news is designed to MISLEAD. If you want to know what's going on, you MUST conduct independent research. If the news gets it right, its an accident.