Justin Moore
New member
Judge Declares Him "Dangerous to Society" and Locks Him Up Until Sentencing
by Angel Shamaya
January 23, 2002
PHOENIX, Arizona (KeepAndBearArms.com) — What began as an undercover operation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in April 2000 concluded with a "guilty" verdict from an Arizona jury today — Bob Stewart's detention hearing is expected on the 1st of February, and his sentencing hearing takes place some time before April of this year. (If you have no idea who Bob Stewart is or what this is all about, links below lead you to many past stories covering this case.)
According to Mr. Stewart's wife Naomi, mother of their three young boys, the judge declared Bob "a flight risk and a danger to society," and sent him straight to jail to await sentencing. Said Mrs. Stewart, "they wouldn't even let me give him a goodbye hug before they took him away."
"They wouldn't even let me give him a goodbye hug before they took him away."
—Naomi Stewart, after watching her husband being whisked off to jail to await sentencing for the "crime" of exercising his second amendment rights
Mr. Stewart's court-appointed defense attorney, Mr. Haney, stood up in Stewart's defense, telling Judge Roslyn O. Silver that Stewart was obviously the model case of "non flight risk" — Bob Stewart worked on his own defense, attended every court hearing and responded to all motions on time, managed his household and replaced lost income, all on his own recognizance. The judge said Stewart's deliberately flaunting the laws and the views he's expressed in defiance of those laws led her to conclude that he needed to wait behind bars for sentencing.
Originally investigated by BATF because his .50BMG gun kits were thought by the federal agency to be "readily converted" into guns, Mr. Stewart's aggressors conveniently dropped all concerns over the kits and their alleged "ready conversion". During their invasion of his home and workshop — a "raid" in which one agent pointed a machinegun at their 7-year-old boy — BATF allegedly found numerous firearms, five of which were unregistered machine guns. Stewart's "jury of his peers" found him guilty of being a felon in possession of guns and of five counts of possessing unregistered machine guns.
THE LAST DAY IN COURT
Yesterday was the final day of courtroom proceedings before the case was handed to the jury. During the final day, Stewart called his witnesses, closing arguments were presented from both sides, and the judge gave the jury its "jury instructions." ...
STEWART'S WITNESSES
Bob Stewart opted to call two people to the stand. The first was the undercover federal agent who purchased a Maadi-Griffin .50 caliber kit from Stewart. The next was the case agent who oversaw the investigation.
The undercover BATF agent who pretended to be a customer of Bob Stewart's was a fellow by the name of Scott Tannabe (sp?). Stewart asked the agent how many times he attempted to entice him to break the law by completing his gun kit — the agent confessed to having done so a number of times. (Why it is legal for a government employee to entice his boss, a citizen, to break the law is a mystery, and a sickening one — any law enforcement officer who manages to lead someone into violating a law should be guilty of the same violation.) The agent also referenced Stewart having told him that most federal gun laws were illegal, at which point Stewart mentioned Marbury vs. Madison. ("All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." —Marbury vs. Madison) Mr. Tannabe, like most of the anti-second amendment organization for which he gets paid to deceive, showed no remorse for having helped secure a conviction against Stewart — all in a day's work, right Scott?
Then Stewart called agent Bettendorf to the stand. Bettendorf was the case agent over the investigation against the gun kit maker. Stewart asked Bettendorf why no fingerprints were taken off of any of the guns allegedly found in the raid. Bettendorf replied that the number of guns and the fact that they were found in Stewart's vehicle, bedroom and garage workshop relieved the BATF of the need to produce fingerprints. Stewart then asked Bettendorf if, prior to the investigation, the BATF had ever had a definition of the term "readily converted" — that question was struck from the record as "irrelevant" after a hearty objection from the prosecution. When Stewart attempted to go into the issue of BATF's jurisdiction as related to interstate commerce, he was barely allowed to get one answer to one question from Bettendorf, for the same reason: "not relevant to this case; the court has already ruled on the issue of jurisdiction."
Stewart asked Bettendorf how many agents were involved in the investigation prior to the actual raid on June 16, 2000 — there were six agents involved (one to record the conversations coming through the wire agent Tannabe was wearing; one to monitor the operation, etc. etc. — your tax dollars at work). Stewart again asked why an administrative resolution to the issue of the gun kit wasn't sought — Bettendorf said that Stewart's prior conviction relieved the BATF of any need to simply make a phone call over the issue, for a man-to-man chat about the BATF's concerns. (Bettendorf, like the other agent, appeared as if he truly believes Bob Stewart should rot in jail for merely possessing a few guns — nevermind the fact that there is no injured party in this case, and that Bob Stewart has never hurt a flea.)
JURY INSTRUCTIONS
There were a couple of arguments between the defense and the prosecution over some of the jury instructions. Most notable was the fact that the jury wasn't allowed to consider whether or not Stewart had been entrapped. Stewart was definitely entrapped, but because the charges brought against him don't directly relate to the way he was entrapped, the judge said the whole issue, like so many others that could have helped Stewart's case, were "irrelevant." To quote Judge Silver: "There is no rational basis that the jury could find that the defendant was entrapped." And given the fact that the jury only heard a fraction of the defense Bob Stewart should rightly have been allowed to present, she's probably technically correct.
The judge read several pages of instructions to the jury before closing arguments were presented. Included in those instructions were the following:
"The government must prove that the defendant knew he possessed the guns involved in the charges." (I saw no such proof. The BATF, with its $760 Million budget, didn't even take fingerprints from any of the guns Stewart allegedly possessed.)
"The government must prove that the defendant knew the machineguns allegedly in his possession were capable of automatic fire." (No such proof was presented in this case. None.)
"You must apply the law as I give it to you." (That is a total crock of bullpuckey; a jury can judge a law, and nullify a bad law — and unless Judge Silver got her license to practice law from a Cracker Jack box, she knows it.)
"To find the defendant guilty of violating Title 18, Section 922(o) — possession of unregistered machinegun — you must believe that the defendant knowingly possessed a machinegun and that he knew it was a machinegun." (I saw no evidence presented that conclusively "proved" both requirements.)
"The boundaries of the federal District of Arizona is the border of the State of Arizona." (If that is so, Judge Silver, why wouldn't you let Bob Stewart challenge that so-called "fact" in your courtroom?)
"You may not consider punishment when deliberating on your verdict." (In other words, the fact that a guilty verdict could amount to this man being sent to prison for the rest of his natural life is, like so much else in the judge's mind, "irrelevant.")
CLOSING ARGUMENTS
Prosecution
Federal prosecutor in this case, Mr. Batista, was given first crack at swaying the jury toward a guilty verdict. Mr. Batista was reasoned, logical, calm, collected, dispassionate, respectful, methodical, ordered and very cool-headed. Though few if any of the 30 or so people in attendance on Stewart's side of the aisle agreed with what he was saying, it's likely we all agreed that he presented his arguments well. There was one moment when his speech produced audible frustration from the audience, however — he told the jury that Bob Stewart's gunkit was for .50 caliber machineguns. When Stewart objected and stated that the kit was a single shot rifle, the judge overruled his objection, telling the jury to use their own recollection to recall the facts in the case. There were several frustrated sounds coming from our camp, of course. The basic message was that it's okay to misrepresent the facts in a case during closing arguments. Prosecutor Batista quickly corrected himself to the jury. Other than that, he nailed his closing arguments quite convincingly, wrongheaded, unAmerican "laws" notwithstanding.
Defense
Bob Stewart's closing arguments in defense of himself, on the other hand, were very personal, impassioned and loaded with emotionality. First, he sought to explain the nature of the previous felony conviction — and was prohibited by the judge from doing so. He likely wanted to cover the nature of the entrapment and the so-called "plea" bargain that took place a few years ago. Stewart explained that he was a school teacher prior to getting into gun design and was told that line of discussion was irrelevant. When he stated that his rights had been restored and thus shouldn't be facing a "felon in possession" charge, the prosecution objected, and the judge sustained the objection, telling the jury to ignore that statement as irrelevant.
by Angel Shamaya
January 23, 2002
PHOENIX, Arizona (KeepAndBearArms.com) — What began as an undercover operation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in April 2000 concluded with a "guilty" verdict from an Arizona jury today — Bob Stewart's detention hearing is expected on the 1st of February, and his sentencing hearing takes place some time before April of this year. (If you have no idea who Bob Stewart is or what this is all about, links below lead you to many past stories covering this case.)
According to Mr. Stewart's wife Naomi, mother of their three young boys, the judge declared Bob "a flight risk and a danger to society," and sent him straight to jail to await sentencing. Said Mrs. Stewart, "they wouldn't even let me give him a goodbye hug before they took him away."
"They wouldn't even let me give him a goodbye hug before they took him away."
—Naomi Stewart, after watching her husband being whisked off to jail to await sentencing for the "crime" of exercising his second amendment rights
Mr. Stewart's court-appointed defense attorney, Mr. Haney, stood up in Stewart's defense, telling Judge Roslyn O. Silver that Stewart was obviously the model case of "non flight risk" — Bob Stewart worked on his own defense, attended every court hearing and responded to all motions on time, managed his household and replaced lost income, all on his own recognizance. The judge said Stewart's deliberately flaunting the laws and the views he's expressed in defiance of those laws led her to conclude that he needed to wait behind bars for sentencing.
Originally investigated by BATF because his .50BMG gun kits were thought by the federal agency to be "readily converted" into guns, Mr. Stewart's aggressors conveniently dropped all concerns over the kits and their alleged "ready conversion". During their invasion of his home and workshop — a "raid" in which one agent pointed a machinegun at their 7-year-old boy — BATF allegedly found numerous firearms, five of which were unregistered machine guns. Stewart's "jury of his peers" found him guilty of being a felon in possession of guns and of five counts of possessing unregistered machine guns.
THE LAST DAY IN COURT
Yesterday was the final day of courtroom proceedings before the case was handed to the jury. During the final day, Stewart called his witnesses, closing arguments were presented from both sides, and the judge gave the jury its "jury instructions." ...
STEWART'S WITNESSES
Bob Stewart opted to call two people to the stand. The first was the undercover federal agent who purchased a Maadi-Griffin .50 caliber kit from Stewart. The next was the case agent who oversaw the investigation.
The undercover BATF agent who pretended to be a customer of Bob Stewart's was a fellow by the name of Scott Tannabe (sp?). Stewart asked the agent how many times he attempted to entice him to break the law by completing his gun kit — the agent confessed to having done so a number of times. (Why it is legal for a government employee to entice his boss, a citizen, to break the law is a mystery, and a sickening one — any law enforcement officer who manages to lead someone into violating a law should be guilty of the same violation.) The agent also referenced Stewart having told him that most federal gun laws were illegal, at which point Stewart mentioned Marbury vs. Madison. ("All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." —Marbury vs. Madison) Mr. Tannabe, like most of the anti-second amendment organization for which he gets paid to deceive, showed no remorse for having helped secure a conviction against Stewart — all in a day's work, right Scott?
Then Stewart called agent Bettendorf to the stand. Bettendorf was the case agent over the investigation against the gun kit maker. Stewart asked Bettendorf why no fingerprints were taken off of any of the guns allegedly found in the raid. Bettendorf replied that the number of guns and the fact that they were found in Stewart's vehicle, bedroom and garage workshop relieved the BATF of the need to produce fingerprints. Stewart then asked Bettendorf if, prior to the investigation, the BATF had ever had a definition of the term "readily converted" — that question was struck from the record as "irrelevant" after a hearty objection from the prosecution. When Stewart attempted to go into the issue of BATF's jurisdiction as related to interstate commerce, he was barely allowed to get one answer to one question from Bettendorf, for the same reason: "not relevant to this case; the court has already ruled on the issue of jurisdiction."
Stewart asked Bettendorf how many agents were involved in the investigation prior to the actual raid on June 16, 2000 — there were six agents involved (one to record the conversations coming through the wire agent Tannabe was wearing; one to monitor the operation, etc. etc. — your tax dollars at work). Stewart again asked why an administrative resolution to the issue of the gun kit wasn't sought — Bettendorf said that Stewart's prior conviction relieved the BATF of any need to simply make a phone call over the issue, for a man-to-man chat about the BATF's concerns. (Bettendorf, like the other agent, appeared as if he truly believes Bob Stewart should rot in jail for merely possessing a few guns — nevermind the fact that there is no injured party in this case, and that Bob Stewart has never hurt a flea.)
JURY INSTRUCTIONS
There were a couple of arguments between the defense and the prosecution over some of the jury instructions. Most notable was the fact that the jury wasn't allowed to consider whether or not Stewart had been entrapped. Stewart was definitely entrapped, but because the charges brought against him don't directly relate to the way he was entrapped, the judge said the whole issue, like so many others that could have helped Stewart's case, were "irrelevant." To quote Judge Silver: "There is no rational basis that the jury could find that the defendant was entrapped." And given the fact that the jury only heard a fraction of the defense Bob Stewart should rightly have been allowed to present, she's probably technically correct.
The judge read several pages of instructions to the jury before closing arguments were presented. Included in those instructions were the following:
"The government must prove that the defendant knew he possessed the guns involved in the charges." (I saw no such proof. The BATF, with its $760 Million budget, didn't even take fingerprints from any of the guns Stewart allegedly possessed.)
"The government must prove that the defendant knew the machineguns allegedly in his possession were capable of automatic fire." (No such proof was presented in this case. None.)
"You must apply the law as I give it to you." (That is a total crock of bullpuckey; a jury can judge a law, and nullify a bad law — and unless Judge Silver got her license to practice law from a Cracker Jack box, she knows it.)
"To find the defendant guilty of violating Title 18, Section 922(o) — possession of unregistered machinegun — you must believe that the defendant knowingly possessed a machinegun and that he knew it was a machinegun." (I saw no evidence presented that conclusively "proved" both requirements.)
"The boundaries of the federal District of Arizona is the border of the State of Arizona." (If that is so, Judge Silver, why wouldn't you let Bob Stewart challenge that so-called "fact" in your courtroom?)
"You may not consider punishment when deliberating on your verdict." (In other words, the fact that a guilty verdict could amount to this man being sent to prison for the rest of his natural life is, like so much else in the judge's mind, "irrelevant.")
CLOSING ARGUMENTS
Prosecution
Federal prosecutor in this case, Mr. Batista, was given first crack at swaying the jury toward a guilty verdict. Mr. Batista was reasoned, logical, calm, collected, dispassionate, respectful, methodical, ordered and very cool-headed. Though few if any of the 30 or so people in attendance on Stewart's side of the aisle agreed with what he was saying, it's likely we all agreed that he presented his arguments well. There was one moment when his speech produced audible frustration from the audience, however — he told the jury that Bob Stewart's gunkit was for .50 caliber machineguns. When Stewart objected and stated that the kit was a single shot rifle, the judge overruled his objection, telling the jury to use their own recollection to recall the facts in the case. There were several frustrated sounds coming from our camp, of course. The basic message was that it's okay to misrepresent the facts in a case during closing arguments. Prosecutor Batista quickly corrected himself to the jury. Other than that, he nailed his closing arguments quite convincingly, wrongheaded, unAmerican "laws" notwithstanding.
Defense
Bob Stewart's closing arguments in defense of himself, on the other hand, were very personal, impassioned and loaded with emotionality. First, he sought to explain the nature of the previous felony conviction — and was prohibited by the judge from doing so. He likely wanted to cover the nature of the entrapment and the so-called "plea" bargain that took place a few years ago. Stewart explained that he was a school teacher prior to getting into gun design and was told that line of discussion was irrelevant. When he stated that his rights had been restored and thus shouldn't be facing a "felon in possession" charge, the prosecution objected, and the judge sustained the objection, telling the jury to ignore that statement as irrelevant.
