An indictment that came back pretty fast
I'd love to get a lawyer's take on this. The biggest sticking point is the obstruction charge, because there were no employees stationed at the refuge to interfere with.
And why hasn't this been used before to prosecute those who take over other public facilities like statehouses, etc.?
And why hasn't this been used before to prosecute those who take over other public facilities like statehouses, etc.?
Under tyranny, whatever government does is legal because it is government. They have so many overlapping, contradictory laws and regulations that they can "get" anyone for anything they want. How long before this forum is deemed part of a "conspiracy"?
"'Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?' said Dr. Ferris. 'We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against—then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.'" - Atlas Shrugged
It's absurd: a five-year sentence of a fire that didn't hurt anyone and was set to protect their property. The AS quote applies.
This is what the statists do to innocent people when they have power.
The Constitution is supposed to protect us against this stuff. But it doesn't work if the judges tasked with applying it are all biased and evil. At that point it really is necessary to open the fourth box. The Bundys were right. I was wrong to say their action was premature.
The refusal of the higher court to consider this abomination only multiplies the injustice, taking it to the highest levels of sanction.
Trying to directly take on the Federal government with a defiant "occupation" out of frustration over having no recourse is hopeless and only sets them up for more persecution -- like the Federal ambush-murder and the rest of the grasping for the maximum punishment mentality intended to intimidate everyone.
Adding insulting injury to injury by smearing them in the media so that few ever hear what has been happening only serves to further bury the Hammond story and the century of progressive Federal lands tyranny.
Agree with the Bundy group's methods or not, it is obvious (to us) that they and those supporting either them or the more passive peaceful protests are being driven to distraction by this nightmare universe of compounded injustice of A is non-A. Their plight is being generally ignored and they become more desperate as what little they try to do is further used against them to drive the stake in deeper. It truly is a nightmare universe.
The whole case was an example of just how bad the system has degenerated.
(It's the opposite of what jury nullification should do, that is, prevent corruption of the justice system.)
"Our founding fathers created a system of government consisting of three branches: legislative, judicial and executive." Actually, this had been going on for quite some time, i.e. all the way back to the original Roman Republic. The founding fathers built upon these precedents. And can we have any mention of legislative, judicial, and executive branches in both State and federal government with separation of powers between them both horizontally and vertically?
"Under our system of government, the judicial branch is given the authority to interpret the Constitutionality of our laws." Well no, The Supreme Court assumed that duty in Marbury v. Madison.
"We are a nation of laws, and the executive branch cannot override the laws passed by the legislative branch, " Uhh, maybe it is just this very infraction that is part of the root cause of this situation? And when the systematic pattern of abuse no longer serves these purposes, it is the right of the people to change it. Liking taking over forts and arsenals like the founding fathers did?
"disrespected Native American heritage and intimidated and harassed local residents and officials." Wha? I would say that it is the federal government itself that originally disrespected Native America heritage. And just who has been harassing local residents?
hmmm
Hmmmmmm.....We call them reservations.
descendants of Original Inhabitants call them something entirely different.
Our government is ignoring reality and reason and is using force and fraud to "re-create reality".
I can only hope that an Objectivist Lawyer can weigh in on their defense.
Of course, it's all for your own good, to "save the union."
Strike for Constitutional rights: BAD
Strike for fuzzy left wing ideology: GOOD
Wait a minute, now that I come to think of it........
http://freedomoutpost.com/2016/02/ore...
with LaVoy Finicum who was killed. . it's sad that the feds
are so arbitrary and heavy-handed with us commoners. -- j
.
See this for a great backstory:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2...
explained that it was appropriate for the prosecutor
to appeal the case to get a longer sentence, and
they succeeded. it sux. -- j
.
1) the new case was brought five years after the original was over and done.
2) the new case brought up charges based on terrorism, which weren't in the original case at all. My understanding is that the terrorism charges must accompany the originals because they are crimes of motive - not crimes of commission.
It stinks to high heaven if you ask me.
Arrest for suspicion of terrorism retained
Arrest for suspicion of supporting terrorism added
No change in 100 mile rule from border or coastline for suspension of all civil rights
Arrest for suspicion of carries no civil rights requirements and the time factor your talking about for trial, charges, sentences went up to ten plus years.
It's a whole new world living in a dictatorship.
advice, so we could ask him. -- j
.
Just ask Killary. She should come up with something as contorted.