@DCGoldPants Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 The NM rancher's spread is not too far from me. I have a strong urge to go camp on his Forest Service allotment and raise a ruckus. Send you in with crates of bootstraps to drop off. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted January 24, 2016 Author Share Posted January 24, 2016 How about that? They,(Bundy Militia),spent a lot of time talking to ranchers in the area to get them to tear up their leases with the BLM. Had a big ceremony yesterday and a few were even calling it "Historic". Only 1 rancher showed up and he's that guy from New Mexico. Now there are continuing rumors that 8 dumbasses from Utah did the same thing yesterday in Cedar City or somewhere near there. Backstory to that one is that there were rumored to be as many as 50 ranchers called in to the meeting they had last week to get them to do so. Not a very good turn out needless to say. Old Lavoy has stated that next week more will follow suit,(and they'll be from Oregon this time),but we'll see. The downside to that whole spectacle yesterday,is that the same family with 10 kids that showed up at Cliven's standoff did in fact,show up yesterday and may be staying there as well. There are also more militia showing up both there and around town. They also introduced their new Judge. Joaquin Mariano DeMoreta-Folch and his assistant,Lee Arthur Rice II, who will be convening,(immediately I guess),one of those citizens grand juries so they can start trying folks like Sheriff Ward and others. Could be interesting to see what happens if they try to "arrest" those they find guilty. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) They also introduced their new Judge. Joaquin Mariano DeMoreta-Folch I'm positive that this "judge" has no jurisdiction according to Bundy et al. NO JOAQUINS in the CONSTITUTION, and he is probably an IMMIGRANT, so he has no power. GO STAND OVER BY THE FBI, "JUDGE" DEMORETA-FOLCH. YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY HERE BECAUSE WE SAY SO. Edit: I guess I misread that. The ****ing rancher hillbillies have established their own kangaroo court and appointed this nitwit to be the judge. Hilarious. These guys are the BEST. http://www.wethepeoplecommonlawgrandjury.com/file/09_08_2015_Joaquin_DeMoreta_-_Out_of_Control_Government%22.html His website is on par with Icy Hot Stuntaz. Edited January 24, 2016 by PleaseBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted January 24, 2016 Author Share Posted January 24, 2016 More on "Judge Joaquin" and the Common Law Jury. http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/oregon-occupiers-common-law-grand-jury/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter And there's Joaquin's assistant,Lee Arthur Rice II. https://twitter.com/larcreative https://www.facebook.com/lee.rice2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 The whole thing is puzzling. These guys obviously believe very strongly in something, it's just hard to tell what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted January 24, 2016 Author Share Posted January 24, 2016 This is a bit of long read,but might help in understanding these guys some. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Judge Joaquin and the Common Law Jury sounds like a cheesy musical act. Like if Judge Judy had a live musical intro like a late night show, that would be it. And they'd play a little riff whenever she handed down her decision. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 I know we all like a good laugh but these guys are no joke. A few years ago I started a sovereign cItizens thread after a piece aired on 60 minutes. Good reading in that thread if you can find it but definitely read the SPLC link that PCS posted above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 I know we all like a good laugh but these guys are no joke. A few years ago I started a sovereign cItizens thread after a piece aired on 60 minutes. Good reading in that thread if you can find it but definitely read the SPLC link that PCS posted above Agreed. I had one teach an IT class I was in one time. They skirt the law, don't pay taxes, don't get licenses, don't even accept payment through normal payroll. Crazy ****s who don't obey US law. To each their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Wait, they can appeal to make your sentence longer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 More on "Judge Joaquin" and the Common Law Jury. http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/oregon-occupiers-common-law-grand-jury/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter The article is really short, and I can't quote the part that's important to my post, without quoting almost all of it. He tracks its origins back to the Magna Carta, British common law and the U.S. Constitution and he warns, the jury meets in absolute secrecy. “The media, you cannot ask the question to them. That’s a felony,” he told reporters.“So make sure (you know) what you are doing because if you ask me: How many? What they say? Why they vote? You’re committing the crime of felony and I will hold you accountable,” said DeMoreta-Folch. Grand juries held under U.S. law also meet in secret. But after an indictment, they’re followed by a trial. DeMoreta-Folch said common law grand juries deliver an indictment and that’s it. Punishment can involve placing a lien on a person’s property. He said the jury is considering quote “multiple constitutional crimes” against local officials on behalf of the Hammond ranchers. As I read those quotes, there's a thought that's occurring to me. The short version of it is . . . . Is this terrorism? Now, after my initial outrage, when this story first broke, I've been making a conscious effort to cut these guys a lot of slack. I've tried to act like a (once) card carrying ACLU liberal hippie, and consider this to be one of those legal protests who, while you may think that the protesters are jerks, the goal of freedom obligates one to tolerate their jerk-ness. But I read those quotes, and part of my mind is drawing parallels to ISIS. And then other parts of me say that the only "threat" they're leveling, here, is to file a bunch of nuisance lawsuits against a bunch of people. And tells me that I should be making the effort to think of them as being more like Westborogh Baptist Church. I guess the followup question, to "is this terrorism?" is "should the government be treating it like terrorism?" At least a little. Maybe we shouldn't be hauling "Judge Joaquin" off to GTMO for a waterboarding or federalizing the National Guard. (Or maybe they should. At least the latter.) But should they be, say, monitoring all communications? (Possibly without warrants?) Kinda goes to the question of "where's the line at?" and "what's the appropriate response?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 I know we all like a good laugh but these guys are no joke. Too many people are not taking this seriously. They are a bunch of guys with guns telling the rest of us that they get to make the rules, and now they're taking over building and land, making threats to the people we pay to protect us. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 One thought that's been slowly percolating in my head, for some time, now, is that the dangerous people here aren't the yahoos out at the bird sanctuary. It's the biker gang that's trying to take over the town. The folks out at the sanctuary aren't threatening anybody. The folks driving the out of state pickups around town are. They're threatening civilians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Oh not to mention they use children as shields. I feel like we know other people that do that... oh yeah, middle eastern terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Oh not to mention they use children as shields. I feel like we know other people that do that... oh yeah, middle eastern terrorists. Cults tend to as well 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Wait, they can appeal to make your sentence longer? No. They can appeal when the judge makes an error in the sentencing, and gives you less than the statutory minimum. It's a limited exception - most of the time the prosecution can't appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Agreed. I had one teach an IT class I was in one time. They skirt the law, don't pay taxes, don't get licenses, don't even accept payment through normal payroll. Crazy ****s who don't obey US law. To each their own. I have had to parse down their "legal" arguments for my court several times. Needless to say it's a bunch of word salad and everyone has a good laugh. However, when they start pulling guns on CHP officers who ask to see their driver's license, or start recording hundreds of fake liens and then try to foreclose on against the home of some poor county clerk, the laughter stops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dchogs Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 the feds cannot allow armed thugs to intimidate the public, to threaten and intimidate local officials, and to seize government land. kangaroo courts judging the police on "crimes" against the ranchers? these yahoos are all worried about muslims taking over the US and imposing sharia law... it seems as though they are afraid of their own reflection. time to quit playing. no one into the building at all; no supplies. women and children given immunity (even the women heavily involved). any man coming out unarmed is arrested for trespassing. anyone coming out armed gets 10s to drop the weapons before the snipers fire. end this circus now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 Make no mistake. The people in that Refuge are dangerous. Ammon Bundy said it himself a week or so ago. They are not protesters. They have a job to do and they're going to do it. The Bundy's are mix of both of the above. They mix and match their own beliefs with those of the Sovereign Citizens movement and others. They are excellent manipulators. On the one hand they'll publically tell you no weapons necessary,(Cliven),and then stand back as others take up said weapons and are ready to use them. Wink wink nudge nudge. They don't necessarily get along with the other militia's,but are willing to have them be their lap dogs. In this case however,there is a very clear difference between Cliven and his sons. His son's have absolutely stated that there will be armed intervention by them,(or those with them), if the Feds make any move towards them or any ranchers who the Feds try to penalize for going along with them,(this includes the Rancher from New Mexico. Who,by the way,is an ex con). Members of the group in the refuge include guys who have openly stated that killing cops would be okay,a couple of ex cons and one guy who some believe could turn out to be the next Timothy McVeigh. They're emboldened now,not so much because of lack of action,but by some of the support they're getting. Fringe,far right GOP'ers in a few states,(Montana,Oregon,Tennessee,and Nevada), have publicly supported these guys. Then there's the more than likely hidden support their getting from others. Hell Dean Heller called them patriots in 2014 before Cliven revealed what a racist pos he is. This plays into the current attempt at land grab by states to a certain degree as well. Add to that,yesterday,the Grant County Sheriff,(nearby county to Harney),publicly backed the Bundy's and even stated that the Feds would have to give them a couple of things to help end it,(Release the Hammonds and for the FBI to leave). He also has stated he will not assist the Harney County Sheriff during this time,(one of the few to do so). It's been noted by a few also,that they do have their pride and are not particularly happy with not being taken seriously. Which they should be. There's bad potential all over the place on this one. Now the guys in town,Oath Keepers and Idaho 3 percent,have backed down a bit starting today. They went from going around town open carrying rifles,declaring there would be civil war if the FBI acted against the Refuge,and following around and taking pics of all the FBI and other LE's in the area,to reducing their numbers in the area,(they say because the FBI has),to understanding that the Bundy's are being provided a lot of rope that they are using quite well. See what happens on that front within a day or two as the demand for action continues to increase. Oh. Btw. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/25/3742331/militia-says-it-will-take-up-arms-to-defend-flint-if-necessary/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) However, . . . start recording hundreds of fake liens and then try to foreclose on against the home of some poor county clerk, the laughter stops. This might be betting way too technical or complicated for what you want to get involved in, but could you (or somebody else) provide some more detail on that? I mean, for one thing, to try to record a lien on somebody's property, doesn't one have to show up at the courthouse with an actual court order (from an actual court), ordering it? And wouldn't somebody who tries to do that, without said legal backing, be guilty of felony theft? Edited January 25, 2016 by Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 I think part of the problem is that we tend to doubt the sincerity of people's political arguments. A good example of what I'm talking about can be seen in the abortion debate. One side hears "women's rights" and hears "kill babies to avoid consequences". The other side hears "this is murder" and thinks "they want to punish women". We refuse to accept the other as sincere and assign motives that we suspect, or would rather believe, are true and argue those instead. If you don't how I characterized a side of that debate, I apologize, I'm simply seeking to make a useful example. The more extreme the arguments the more incredulous we become. These guys can't really believe what they are saying. They can't be serious. They are seeking attention or driven by some other motivation. This is a political stunt. If however we accept what they are saying at face value and choose to accept that these beliefs are sincerely and passionately held, their actions make sense. Even bringing children makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Not really sure why their hypothetical sincerity makes a difference. To invent a fictional extreme, if somebody is going around killing Jews because he thinks they're actually lizard people from Planet X, the fact that his actions are perfectly consistent with his delusion does not in any way justify his actions. (Although I suppose it might determine which kind of room he gets locked up in.) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Yeah I'm also not sure what your point is Destino. I completely agree with you that opposing sides of a political issue tend to demonize each other unfairly, when both are generally trying to do what they believe is looking out for the common good. That wouldn't have any bearing on my belief that anti-abortion activists who occupied a Planned Parenthood clinic and refused to leave should be prosecuted. I can intellectually understand that these people have motivations for their actions (bogus as they may be) but I don't think anyone (or at least the most active posters) in this thread doubts that. People aren't saying these are publicity stunts...most of the people who are still posting in this thread are considering the "militia" dangerous loonies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 I have had to parse down their "legal" arguments for my court several times. Needless to say it's a bunch of word salad and everyone has a good laugh. However, when they start pulling guns on CHP officers who ask to see their driver's license, or start recording hundreds of fake liens and then try to foreclose on against the home of some poor county clerk, the laughter stops. Or their strategy of drowning the court in documents. The link above talks about a few cases that were eventually dropped by the courts because they couldn't handle all the paperwork. 1200 documents when it should be 7 or 8 Also? The credit lien used as a weapon is bad too These clowns are straight up terrorists. Pretty sure Wealey Snipes fell for their ideology at one time iirc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 I think I mentioned that earlier in the thread. Why waiting them out could be problematic since they do very much believe in what they're doing. Ammon was asked if he was aware of what laws he was breaking and he said they hadn't broken any. When he asked the deputy Sheriffs in Burns why the FBI was there,they answered because the Refuge was under their jurisdiction. Bundy and a couple of others with him adamantly stated no it wasn't. It wasn't Federal Land. They very much believe that. And after being on the twitterverse during this,there's plenty of folks out there who also very much believe this. And they'll jump through hoops to defend it. I'll add that's what makes he and others like him dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now