Oregon protest leader Ammon Bundy is arrested, says source

a reply to: Phage

It's certainly interesting to see what persons agenda is when they choose their "side" based the rumours and not actual facts yet. None of us still really know what happened yet when it comes to Lavoy, prudence would be to wait before making a decision, even the patriot network people are saying to wait before making a decision because none of us were there.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Phage

You...were...not...there. It bears repeating.
You have just declared yourself judge and jury. Now be seated.

LOL, and hows is that?

By deeming what occurred as murder by law enforcement before knowing all the facts.

*Phage beat me to it*

a reply to: Gryphon66

Nope, not kidding. Yes, the Courts will decide any wrongdoing here, not you.

HELLO! That is what I said. I made no such claims as being Judge and Jury here. You are the one blown this out of proportion not I.

Thanks for the totally unnecessary reminder about basic ATS protocols. YOU addressed me, I answered.

If you don't like my answers to your loaded irrational questions, with all due respect, please stop addressing me.

Also, get the boards out of your eyes before going after the splinters in anyone else's.

You Sir are the one braking ATS protocols.

The fact is, You have not address me "with any courtesy" on this board. Pot calling kettle.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

By deeming what occurred as murder by law enforcement before knowing all the facts.

I am going by one witnesses account that I find very credible. If I am wrong I will be happy to admit it.

a reply to: Informer1958

I made no such claims as being Judge and Jury here.

You declared law enforcement guilty of murder.
You declared the deceased innocent.

a reply to: Informer1958

Good heavens.

You've stated repeatedly that Fincom Finicom was murdered. Are you not reading your own posts?

As to the rest, believe me, I'm addressing you with far more decorum than your comments merit in my opinion.

Solution: Stop addressing me and you will have nothing more addressed to you from me.

a reply to: Informer1958

You can believe what you want to believe.

That said, a trial hasn't even occurred and you're saying this was murder.

You are in fact acting as judge and jury.

Just add in what punishment you want to see handed out and you can hold the title of executioner as well.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

The founding fathers controlled all of the local, non Tory, courts

No. Really, really. No. The government is given no power over the actions of the court.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

The Supreme Court was taken as an advisory body to help settle disputes between states. If it had been any more than that, the Constitution would not have been ratified.


[Fact]
Before the Revolutionary War the founding fathers controlled all of the American, non Tory, courts. Smugglers and tax evaders were almost always acquitted or not sentenced for voilating royal decrees. That is why the Red Coat Army was used so openly.
[/fact]

Those trials are most of the reason for trial by jury and the 6th amendment.

The law is only as just as the jury says it is.

a reply to: Phage

You declared law enforcement guilty of murder.
You declared the deceased innocent.

Yes I am guilty of that. I am going by an witness account of the unfolding event that I find credible.

Yes I am declaring the deceased is innocent, and I may be wrong, however according to this credible eyewitness he was unarmed and shot point blank 6 time in cold blood.

Please remember, I did say I could be wrong.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You're utterly mistaken. Your quote is both out of context [strikeand is not a citation of law.

First, both the US Constitution and State Constitutions apply in this situation as noted. Dual Sovereignty, remember?

The derivation of police power from those Constitutions and from the Common Law has already been explained to you.

Your other examples sound like something out of a comic book frankly.

Bored now.

ETA: Tacitly, your quote refers to aspects of the common law regarding citizen's arrest, which does not apply in the situation under discussion, thus, out of context.

The Constitution allows the breaking of unjust laws by way of the 6th Amendment.

Common Law gives everyone police power. Police are paid to actively attend to police duties so that all other citizens need not attend to them.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

The Supreme Court was taken as an advisory body to help settle disputes between states. If it had been any more than that, the Constitution would not have been ratified.

False.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Judicial power does not mean "advisory." It means, when it gets down to it, the Supreme Court wins.

Maybe you should have gone collegiate.

a reply to: Informer1958

Please remember, I did say I could be wrong.

Noted.
Just now, you did.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Solution: Stop addressing me and you will have nothing more addressed to you from me.

I didn't address you until you just wrote to me again. Uh, is having the last words that important to you?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

The law is only as just as the jury says it is.

Juries do not evaluate whether laws are just; they evaluate charges brought and evidence presented.

Juries do not have the powers of either referendum or judicial review.

.... and I'm out. Best.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Gryphon66

Solution: Stop addressing me and you will have nothing more addressed to you from me.

I didn't address you until you just wrote to me again. Uh, is having the last words that important to you?

You seem blissfully unaware of the irony involved here.


I'm not the topic. Please stay on topic, and please don't address me further.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

You can believe what you want to believe.

Thank you.

Remember this thread is not about me.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

By the by, a general observation ... have you noticed that inside of every revolutionary is a frustrated policeman trying to get out?

Ironic, isn't it? Your comments here are spot on and entirely relevant to the topic at hand.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

The Supreme Court was taken as an advisory body to help settle disputes between states. If it had been any more than that, the Constitution would not have been ratified.

False.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Judicial power does not mean "advisory." It means, when it gets down to it, the Supreme Court wins.

Maybe you should have gone collegiate.

A fool would think that the states got together and gave away their power to a new experiment in government.

Or an obedient college student.

It is against ATS TC to discuss other members in the thread forums period.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

A fool would think that the states got together and gave away their power to a new experiment in government.

Or an obedient college student.

Or, maybe they just ratified it without reading it.
Homework is hard.