Oregon protest leader Ammon Bundy is arrested, says source

a reply to: diggindirt

The 1st amendment and below:

Lying during an investigation is not against the law however law enforcement has to be careful what they are lying about and why. Its usually brought up in court by the defense if for no other reason than to make a juror think the entire investigation/ prosecution is based on those lies.

Now lying in court is another story all together.

* - Frazier v. Cupp 394 U.S. 731 (1969) - Supreme court ruling that allows law enforcement to lie in order to get a confession. It also covers a lie in order to obtain evidence.
* - Lying to a Suspect: How Far Can an Investigator Go?

The case involved the interrogation of a homicide suspect who was falsely told that an accomplice had already implicated the suspect in the killing. This lie persuaded the suspect to confess to the homicide. The Supreme Court ruled that such use of trickery and deceit can be permissible (depending on the totality of circumstances) provided that it does not shock the conscience of the court or community.

* - Massiah v. United States 377 U.S. 201 (1964) - Ability of the police to use a witness in order to obtain evidence.

* - Matter of DAS, 391 A.2d 255 - allows police to fabricate evidence in order to support a deception (IE - Police tell a suspect they recovered evidence with his fingerprints in hopes the suspect confesses).

Deceptive actions taken by law enforcement during investigations will come under scrutiny by the defense and the court. If something improper occurred as a result of that deception then the courts deal with that aspect which can result in evidence obtained from those deceptions being inadmissible / barred from discussing it in court (fruit of the poisonous tree).

There are restrictions to what an officer is allowed to lie about. One of the tests courts use to decide -
Shocks the Conscious.

A phrase that can refer to any situation that seems grossly unjust to the observer. Judges often use this phrase as a test to determine which situations are so unjust or wrong that the court must intervene. If some event shocks the conscience of the court, the court will look for some remedy to fix the problem. See, e.g., excessive verdict.

The ability to lie is restricted to investigations. The law prevents law enforcement from lying in court (obvious). I have seen defense attorney's ask officers if they have lied during the investigation during court proceedings and the officer responds yes. Depending on the questions asked by defense the prosecutor will ask follow up questions to place the lie into context IE what was the lie? Why was it used? What were the results? etc...


Are there any lawyers around to answer this question / correct my response.

a reply to: Xcathdra
"Shocks the Conscious"

...
If some event shocks the conscience of the court, the court will look for some remedy to fix the problem.
...

Do you seriously believe that "the court" has a conscience? A court is a thing, not a person. See how very twisted a mind would have to be to believe that stuff? You would also have to believe that a Congress had a conscience!


Thank you for providing one these cases. This is one area in which we must seek reforms. The acceptance of the idea that lying is a good thing if the "proper authorities" use it should shock anyone with a passing knowledge of the Constitution. I'm guessing the founders didn't foresee the need to make laws against lying (bearing false witness) since it was already prohibited by the Ten Commandments. I'm reminded of an observation by John Adams.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
– John Adams

originally posted by: diggindirt
Do you seriously believe that "the court" has a conscience? A court is a thing, not a person. See how very twisted a mind would have to be to believe that stuff? You would also have to believe that a Congress had a conscience!

The "court" refers to the judge. That distinction has been around before the US achieved independence. Just as hearing people / talking heads on tv referring to "Congress", which is also referring to the members.

If a verdict is reached and a person is convicted and during the trial the judge allowed or disallowed evidence in favor / against their client it can be appealed through the state system and once that's run its course they can go federal.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Thank you for providing one these cases. This is one area in which we must seek reforms. The acceptance of the idea that lying is a good thing if the "proper authorities" use it should shock anyone with a passing knowledge of the Constitution. I'm guessing the founders didn't foresee the need to make laws against lying (bearing false witness) since it was already prohibited by the Ten Commandments. I'm reminded of an observation by John Adams.


“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
– John Adams

Your welcome for the info. As I said the use of lies is restricted to investigations and even then its being done to a person who is suspected of a crime. If people commit a crime not everyone is going to tell the police the truth, which means law enforcement needs to develop a plan of action to get the person to trip up / change a story they already told / discrediting alibi's etc etc...

Based on the comments I will say its not something done on a daily basis by officers. When it is done it comes under scrutiny by the Judge / PA / Defense counsel. While I understand your concerns I do ask to keep it in perspective as not everything is a sinister plot by the police.

Also - Examples
Murder - Some wingnut kills a 24 year old lady. The investigation identifies a suspect yet the suspect thinks he committed the perfect crime and is home free. An attempt should be made to find any cracks in the suspects story / evidence that could be exploited by presenting fake evidence, suggesting he didn't commit the perfect crime. Sometimes that's enough to get the suspect to do / say something that results in enough evidence to prosecute.

Abductions -
An abduction occurs and the first 24 hours are critical. You find the suspect but not the child he took. Why would we not do everything we can legally do, including lying, to find the child?

If you were the father in either scenario above would you want the police to do everything in its power to resolve the crimes? If police lied in order to gain info / evidence tying the suspect to the crime so they can be prosecuted would your view on police and their ability to lie change?

Criminal / suspects / witnesses lie all the time. Why should we not have the ability to do the same while investigating them if done within the established guidelines?

I get the impression, respectfully, that you are only seeing this from one side and that is police can't be trusted to use this and if they do then they are using it for sinister purposes. In reality, using the 2 examples I gave you above, a murder / child abductor could go to prison and the child could be found alive and returned safely home.

Can it be abused? - Sure and it has happened however the actions of one officer should not be applied to all law enforcement. I don't think I could handle the aftermath of working a child abduction case and not doing everything within my power to find the child. If the child is saved by me telling the suspect a lie then so be it. If I didn't lie, knowing that I could, and we find the child dead then I would hold myself just as accountable for that death as the suspect.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I realize that you cannot make any kinds of final statements regarding this issue.

However, let me say that I appreciate your detalied understanding and very rational explanations thus far.

It is my understanding, that from the point that Mr. Finicum resisted arrest, as well as fleeing the scene (of the initial stop), (and at least in my understanding) assaulting the officers at the roadblock with the truck, the use of deadly force was authorized ... I mean, hundreds of people have been justly killed by LEOs for a lot less (and it wasn't on video.)

Is this understanding completely off-base?

a reply to: Gryphon66

The only "assaulting an officer" I saw was an officer running directly at the truck...just saying.

a reply to: Olivine

originally posted by: Olivine
Cliven Bundy is at it again.
He sent a certified letter to the sheriff that "we the people" will continue to occupy the refuge.
....Does he not realize that "We the People" already own the refuge?

Hi, Olivine, I wanted to get back to your replies. MARA....Make America Rational Again! Yes, I am tired of living in a culture awash in logical fallacies.

To "we the people", I think "we" is in the sense of the royal "we"! "We" demand freedom to do whatever "we" want with "our" land!

In re to this thread, from a previous source I cited,

Public lands in the United States are commons like nowhere else on the planet. These lands and their ideal are uniquely democratic and provide for an unmatched sense of freedom for all of the citizens of the United States.

However, the seditionists of the West outright reject this premise and are claiming these public lands for themselves and their economic interests – whether they are ranchers or international conglomerates. Each have enlisted the support of seditionist splinter groups like the Oath Keepers who decide for society what is constitutional, recruit current law enforcement at all levels of government, and have been successful at enforcing those beliefs using the threat of violence.
......
According to excommunicated LDS member and Historian Michael Quinn, the Church has a “prosperity” doctrine, whereby making money becomes a spiritual affair.

“Theologically, Mormonism has never accepted the “worldly” distinctions between secular versus religious, civil verses theocratic, mundane versus divine. An 1830 revelation (to Joseph Smith) declared: “Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither [unto] any man, nor children of men….””[18]

This has equated to a considerable financial empire, as the LDS Church has become, like the Koch family, one of the wealthiest for-profit organizations on the planet.
.......
Understand we are talking about LDS businesses as private corporations, not as a religious organization. As such, the Church has no requirement for public disclosure of financial information. And, they do not.

Winter and others have detailed some of the known investments, including Deseret Management Corporation and AgReserves. AgReserves and the agricultural interests of the for-profit arm of the Church are among the largest agricultural enterprises in the nation. The Church owns the largest cattle ranch in the country, Deseret Ranch and Citrus of Florida, and owns several other large ranches throughout the west including in Utah, Nevada, Oklahoma, California, and a 288,000 acre spread in the Sandhills of Nebraska.[20] Of course, the western ranches include federal grazing rights.

The LDS Church is also the largest producer of nuts in the country via their South Valley and Deseret Farms holdings in the Central Valley of California and Arizona. They have many additional holdings under a number of different names that produce a variety of agricultural products from potatoes in Idaho to peanuts in Texas to pears in Oregon.

In short, the LDS Church has a private, economic interest in public lands issues and how these relate to their for profit agricultural enterprises.

And, so do the Kochs.

Koch Industries’ agricultural holdings are among the largest in the nation. Their Matador Cattle Company that operates adjacent to Yellowstone National Park is #7 in the country and they also own large ranches in both Kansas and Texas. [21] [22]

Their holdings also include the timber giant Georgia-Pacific. With this enterprise, their concern is both timber production and biofuels and how both are affected by both the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts. [23] Of course, their energy interests also come into play.

To the point, the Church and the Koch Brothers will oppose any policies that negatively affect their financial portfolios. It is any wonder they oppose any law or regulation that would affect these interests?

And, they both have never been shy engaging their supporters in the political process – even fomenting sedition – to protect their interests. The creation of the American Lands Council is indicative of their combined efforts.

a reply to: Gryphon66

When you originally brought up Cleon Skousen, I was racking my brain, because I just knew I had seen that name before! And here on ATS. .....well, embarrassed to report back, but, ....

originally posted by: desert
If you go back to page 5, you will find where this thread's author is coming from. The partial list he gives comes from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen, a book from 1958, and a favorite of members of the John Birch Society. Maybe he read them on Glenn Beck's or Sean Hannity's website, or Rushonline, or Rense, or elsewhere. We can laugh at this thread's topic, but these people are serious. This, my friends, is what is thrown at you, what you are up against.

The Gay Conspiracy in Vehicles pg 9



What I hadn't known then but now know, thanks to you, was his work on.... wreck of....The Constitution.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Is this understanding completely off-base?

More or less no - you got it.

It's called totality of circumstances. You have to take everything into account - from them seizing the buildings, to stealing the vehicles, to comments made on tv / to other people, to knowing they are armed, to some saying they won't go without a fight. All of that coupled with the actions leading up to the shooting is taken into account. For something like this you can't just take the shooting, you have to take everything prior to it leading up to the shooting.

As i've said before if someone police are dealing with claims they are former special forces and a black belt in karate it does not matter if they are telling the truth. Those statements will be taken seriously, even if the person is lying to the police about it. Those statements change the dynamics of the situation.

When reviewing use of force by law enforcement the standard is what did the officer perceive when the use of force occurred.

Each individual officer will formulate a mental line in the sand for lack of a better word. That mental line is where an officer thinks - If the suspect ignores verbal commands and comes closer I will shoot / if the suspect is heading towards the car the moment he makes it to point A while ignoring commands I will shoot / If the suspect is walking towards a group of civilians and gets to point A while ignoring commands I will shoot etc etc...

The officer(s) that fired will have to justify their actions...

I will say there is a difference between watching a video after the fact and being there in person dealing with the situation. It's one of the reasons I try not to second guess an officers actions.

They were present and I was not. 20/20 hindsight cannot be used to review an officers use of force. Some people say he was not reaching for anything while others say he was. What matters is what did the officer(s) who fired see?

I know people dont like that but that is the standard set by the courts. Its a key reason why the laws require a person to comply with lawful commands given by police. If someone has an issue with police action the proper place to argue is in the courtroom with a judge and not roadside with an officer.

I am sure other leo's and lawyers will have their opinions as well so I encourage people to ask them their thoughts to gain differing perspectives.

originally posted by: Excallibacca
a reply to: Gryphon66

The only "assaulting an officer" I saw was an officer running directly at the truck...just saying.

Or desperately trying to get out of the way of the truck that was barrelling at the roadblock?

Charging the roadblock in a vehicle while evading arrest is the assault. Did you see that happen?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

I will say there is a difference between watching a video after the fact and being there in person dealing with the situation. It's one of the reasons I try not to second guess an officers actions.

They were present and I was not. 20/20 hindsight cannot be used to review an officers use of force. Some people say he was not reaching for anything while others say he was. What matters is what did the officer(s) who fired see?

Perfectly stated as is your entire post. Thank you so much for such an exhaustive answer.

My greatest concern here (aside from simply "the truth") is that the histrionics associated with the hype around this is going to result in even MORE of these situations in which MORE citizens are going to lose their lives some of whom will be (as opposed to this case) totally innocent.

... and of course that these folks are mandating whole-scale rebellion against local, State and the Federal governments, which I've always mostly written off to bluster ... until now.

This is going to get serious.

a reply to: desert

Yes. I know. I'm reading his books now. These are being used as the "text books" or "Bibles" for a MULTITUDE of contemporary events that we are seeing.

... and that's terrifying. Thanks for the link!

a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree to an extent. The issue I am seeing is distrust on both sides. Communication from both sides is required. Only by talking can some of these issues be resolved which can go a ways in restoring trust / faith in government. Its not something that can be fixed over night however it might prevent the needless loss of life.

It must be a 2 way conversation though and should start with both sides respecting the others point of view regardless if they agree with it or not. You will always have people on both sides that are incapable of doing that for whatever reason and we need to deal with them as the issues come up.

As for my comment on totality of circumstances and what people say and how its perceived -
Prosecutors use refuge occupiers' own words against them

Court documents against the 11 occupiers under arrest show that FBI agents have carefully scrutinized social media postings, interviews and online talk shows that were broadcast from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge during the standoff that began nearly a month ago.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Agreed. We can all become better listeners.

Also, some folks need to learn the nature of "public declaration."

Thanks again.

a reply to: Xcathdra
I agree fully with your observations. This part:

It must be a 2 way conversation though and should start with both sides respecting the others point of view regardless if they agree with it or not. You will always have people on both sides that are incapable of doing that for whatever reason and we need to deal with them as the issues come up.

is the tricky part. It's tricky because the people who should be listening on the government side are politicians or are answerable to same. When they feel threatened, not physically, but their job or status, they clam up and blow up like big ole toads. I've watched it happen.
Show them clear evidence of illegality and they go all red in the face and begin with the name calling.
Hold a public meeting with a large turn-out of people, a meeting which the government officials have refused to attend, and they issue statements to the newspaper on the order of, "That's just a bunch of radicals that don't want to pay taxes."
Hold a second public meeting with an even larger crowd and the threatening phone calls start coming to the leadership. People who did nothing but attend the meetings out of curiosity get "cautioned" about associating with "radicals." Then a strange, unsolicited package is delivered to a member of leadership's house. Well, whaddaya know, it's got illegal substances in it.
Fortunately, in the instance described above, we had an honest sheriff who did listen and who did take the steps needed to make the elected and appointed officials back off.
We the people spoke the truth and proved that we did so. They lied, it was proven in court. They lost in court and when elections rolled around every single one of them was removed from office.
But that was local. It doesn't work that way with feds. As they have proven in this case. Numerous calls for negotiations by the protesters went unanswered, were put off.
This all stems from a federal prosecutor who is crazy as a betsy bug and nobody did anything about it.
www.oregonlive.com...

But the five-year sentence mandated by terrorism law also concerned people. Among the critics: the federal judge who presided over the Hammonds' trial in Pendleton.
U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan said at the men's original sentencing in 2012 that such a term would be unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment. "It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience," Hogan said before sentencing Dwight to three months and Steve to one year.

Amanda Marshall, then U.S. attorney for Oregon, said she recommended the government challenge Hogan's sentence as illegal. "If the government stands by and doesn't pursue the statutorily mandated sentence in this case, what kind of precedent does that set?" Marshall asked. Hogan, she said, imposed "an unlawful sentence."

Ms. Marshall has some serious issues---serious enough to be investigated by DOJ until she "took leave."
www.oregonlive.com...

And she's not the only federal attorney involved in the case who is under investigation for various misbehaviors.
www.oregonlive.com...

Apparently some people who have been abused by these crooks are tired of it and are speaking out. Others have been frightened to the point of being mute.
As much as a lot of people would like to make this issue about grazing rights, it goes far deeper and is far dirtier than any pile of cow manure you've ever seen---and smells far worse.

a reply to: diggindirt

If I may point some things out -

Here are the facts of the case -

• They were charged with Arson
  
• They had a jury trial
  
• They were found guilty for the 2001 charges
  
• They were found guilty for the 2006 charges
  
• The 2012 trial was for the arson charges from 2001 and 2006.
  
• The witnesses who testified against the accused were family friends as well as family members.
  
• A Federal fire crew who were staged on federal land close to their property, who were sleeping, had to be relocated as the fires set by the accused were endangering their lives.
  
• They were found guilty by a jury of their peers.
  

What people miss is the defense lawyers argued the 5 year sentence was unconstitutional and the trial judge agreed. The 9th circuit court of appeals heard the case and ruled:

“given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.”

...is not a violation of the Constitution. They vacated the trial judges ruling and the 2 were to be re-sentenced in compliance with federal law. The defense appealed the 9th circuits ruling to the US Supreme Court, who declined to hear the case, leaving the 9th circuit's ruling in place. Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken then re-sentenced them for arsons they committed on federal lands. They were re-sentenced and given the absolute minimum sentence, 5 years, and credit for time served.

The Constitution was not subverted in any way and both people exercised their rights to appeal the decisions to the top court. Due process was present every step of the way. Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken was responsible for re-sentencing only. There were no new charges issued nor were any terrorism charges used (See law section below).

The law -
* - 18 USC 81 - Arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction
* - 18 USC 844 - Penalties
* - Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 - (page 84 Sec. 708. Enhanced Penalties for use of Explosives or Arson Crimes) **PDF LINK**

Above you have the federal law for Arson (1st link), the penalties if convicted of arson (2nd link). The third link is where people are coming up with the terrorism fallacy. The 3rd link was passed in 1996 as a response to the 1st attacks on the WTC. If you read through it you will notice changes to a lot of laws, including penalty updates, which is key.

An Act - To deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty,
and for other purposes.

Go to link 2 - penalties for arson. Read the sentencing requirements.
Go to link 3 - Enhanced penalties - Page 84 - read the changes the 1996 law made.

Compare the sentencing guidelines from link 2 and 3 and you will notice they are identical.

People trying to make a terrorism argument are being intentionally dishonest and anyone doing research can see this. Using the title of a bill that updated the law in an attempt to paint a false picture is just sad to be honest.

As for the links dealing with the prosecutors I am kind of lost as to its relevancy to whats occurring. The incidents look like they were handled / resolved (going back several years when the issues cropped up). If you can explain your rationale to help me understand?

Does the info above help clarify / explain whats going on in the legal realm? Can you explain to me, with regards to only this case, what exactly the issues are that some people are having with it?

Other Sources -
* - US Attorney's Office District of Oregon - Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Re-sentenced to Five Years in Prison
* - Hammonds, local supporters distance themselves from militia groups

The Hammonds’ attorney, Alan Schroeder, said Wednesday that the Hammonds appreciate the support they’ve received from groups and individuals, but reaffirmed that militia members do not speak for them and that they intend to serve their time.

* - Writ of Habeas Corpus Order to Show Cause and writ of Certiorari **PDF LINK ** Newest petition 2016 -filed in Dec 2015
* - DOJ Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson on Federal Lands(2012)

a reply to: Xcathdra

The sentencing judge, on the bench for decades, doesn't know and understand the Constitution. I understand that is what you are saying.
I'm saying that the corruption in the federal prosecutors office and the collaboration between that office and BLM is the reason these men were charged in the first place. It is also the reason they were convicted by that jury. It is done all the time. Lie, cheat and fail to provide defense evidence in their favor. The links I supplied above tell just a teaser of the tale. The investigations are on-going. You know when it gets bad enough for the DOJ to investigate their own people---there's some deep doo-doo and they're busy with the air fresheners.
The fact remains that they were re-sentenced under the mandatory sentencing laws passed to "stop" terrorism. Mandatory sentencing is authoritarian and must be repealed. It makes money for private prisons (and their Congress critter investors) but does absolutely nothing to deter crime or terrorism.
No matter how many times you repeat the OFFICIAL STORY, you can't make it right or moral because the Feds are wrong and are violating the rights of citizens on a daily basis.

You are very good at making the authoritarian arguments because you are part of the power structure. I understand that you want to protect that power. It must be awesome indeed to be able to use force on others to bend them to your will and point to a decision by one or more of the Black Robed Tribe as your justification.
Better stock up on air fresheners---the smell of corruption is nasty when it is exposed.

originally posted by: diggindirt
I'm saying that the corruption in the federal prosecutors office and the collaboration between that office and BLM is the reason these men were charged in the first place.

Wrong, how about the reason they were charged in the first is that they lit fires....

It is also the reason they were convicted by that jury.

Still wrong, the reason they were convicted by a jury is that they lit fires....

originally posted by: diggindirt
The sentencing judge, on the bench for decades, doesn't know and understand the Constitution. I understand that is what you are saying.

No I am saying the original judge's ruling was a violation of sentencing guidelines.

originally posted by: diggindirt
I'm saying that ... by that jury.

Its not the reason they were charged and its not the reason they were convicted. They were charged because they broke the law. They were convicted because the jury found them guilty.

originally posted by: diggindirt
It is done all the time. Lie, cheat ... fresheners.

Well no it doesn't happen all the time. There is nothing to support your claim they "lie, cheat and fail to provide evidence. How do I know you are wrong with the evidence?

Because the defense would have filed a motion for a Brady violation, which can cause a case to be thrown out of court. It's a violation of 42 USC 1983 or in other words a violation of civil rights / 6th amendment.

originally posted by: diggindirt
The fact remains that they were re-sentenced under the mandatory sentencing laws passed to "stop" terrorism. Mandatory sentencing is authoritarian and must be repealed.

Until it is the guidelines are lawful, as the courts stated, and the judge did not have the authority to rule the way he did. They were re-sentenced using the correct criteria.

originally posted by: diggindirt
It makes money for private prisons (and their Congress critter investors) but does absolutely nothing to deter crime or terrorism.

Out of the hundred or so Federal prisons 14 use contract administration. Those facilities hold the bulk of illegal aliens who committed Federal crimes, who were found guilty, and will be deported once their sentence is up. The remaining facilities are run by the Bureau of Prisons using federal corrections officers. These facilities are not associated with the Immigration facilities and have nothing to do with immigration laws.

originally posted by: diggindirt
No matter how many times you repeat the OFFICIAL STORY, you can't make it right or moral because the Feds are wrong and are violating the rights of citizens on a daily basis.

Except for the fact these 2 were found guilty of arson - twice. Their rights were not violated.

originally posted by: diggindirt
You are very good at making the authoritarian arguments because you are part of the power structure. I understand that you want to protect that power. It must be awesome indeed to be able to use force on others to bend them to your will and point to a decision by one or more of the Black Robed Tribe as your justification.
Better stock up on air fresheners---the smell of corruption is nasty when it is exposed.

You don't know me for starters. As for the rest you may shove it where the rest of your crap comes from.

Being educated should be a goal for everyone. Those who refuse to educate themselves and cherry pick the Constitution / Federal law to suit their argument while ignoring anything that doesn't is part of the problem.

I've made my argument and linked you to the laws.

Feel free to link me to your sources that show the laws in question are invalid.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Xcathdra, I have always valued your rational contributions on ATS.

I would like to share a find with you. It is off topic, and I won't discuss it here, but it just shows how extremist thought can take this country to a place we might not want. An ember from an unattended campfire can start a conflagration, and if citizens don't attend to the fire that's out there now, we will be in for one hell of a fire that could remake America.

a reply to: desert

Interesting read... I don't care much for Cruz and what he is discussing / advocating is a violation of the Constitution and over 200 years of case law. In case he forgot several states tried something similar during the 1860's and it didnt end well for them. It was attempted again in the 1960's and again the result was not favorable.

A state cannot just secede from the Union unilaterally and that was reinforced after the civil war. A vote is required by the whole nation and only with congressional approval.

The last time a state ignored federal law resulted in that state's national guard units being federalized in order to support US Marshal's who were going to enforce federal law.

I get it that people are pissed at the federal government and I am one of them. I just think we have not exhausted all legal means to fix the problem. The silver bullet is for people to vote.

In the words of the comedian Gabriel Iglesias: