'In my opinion Mr. Finicum was murdered,' says Nevada Assemblyman John Moore

a reply to: diggindirt

Those records become a matter of public record when the case is completed, including appeals. The rights of the accused trump the publics right to know.

It's called -
* - wiki due process..
* - Cornell - Due Process

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.[1] The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the clauses more broadly because these clauses provide four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens.

You want info then go watch the court proceedings.

a reply to: Xcathdra
The documents to which she was referring were documents housed at the refuge which would prove wrongdoing on the part of BLM personnel. They are not part of any case as yet. They are to be used to present to a prosecutor to make a case. Documents they knew were there. Documents that were the very reason for the occupation at that place.
Or are you one of those people that has been sitting around asking why they decided to take over that refuge?
Because that's where they could find documentation of their grievances against the BLM.
I can accept that some journalists were too thick to figure this out but honestly, I expected better of a lot of posters here. Not aiming that at you in particular but seriously!

And there you go, grabbing clauses out of thin air again. Please show how due process preempts the First Amendment. It is in the First Amendment that the right of redress of grievances is proclaimed. Nothing that follows can take that right away. The obligation lies with the government being addressed to redress the grievance. That means they can't ignore the petition/s. That is exactly what happened in this case.
Had the government, be it county, state or federal, replied legally to their petition for redress, they would have a leg on which to stand in court. That's where the advisers of these tin-horn dictators posing as politicians in Oregon, (the un-elected sheriff and the accidental governor) went wrong. They blew off the petitions rather than answering them and addressing the grievances contained therein. Had they said, in legal terms, "So sue us." they could claim that the grievance had been addressed. But as it stands everyone who signed those petitions has a case for the violation of their civil rights under Amendment One.
Tin-horn dictators don't think the Constitution applies to them. It is far past the time that they are reminded to read the Constitution to which they are swearing/affirming an oath. Perhaps it is time to require them to recite the Constitution prior to taking that oath!

a reply to: diggindirt

Lol... good luck with that argument.

Besides they claimed they were there to "protest" for sending the 2 guys back to prison.


So which is it?

a reply to: Xcathdra
And what part of the First Amendment do you not understand?

They have the right to protest (freedom of speech), the right of media to report their protest (freedom of the press), the right to peaceably assemble (the march in Burns and the occupation) and the right to petition (which they did prior to the occupation), and the right to redress of grievances, which was ignored by the people obligated to redress their grievances.
Which of those rights is it that you are willing to remove?
They also had the right to bear arms via the Second Amendment. That's the one that most people seem ready to remove but there is no prohibition on being armed while protesting, or reporting, or practicing your religion, or petitioning for redress of grievances.
All our rights go hand in hand, whether you or the other agents of government like it or not. You can't say that you can only practice one right at a time. That's ludicrous.

a reply to: diggindirt

Protesting occurs when no laws are broken. Taking federal property by armed actions is not protesting. The first amendment is what allowed the militia members to have their own statements from interviews and social media to be used against them in court.

When a "protest" blocks a public right of way or entrance / exit to real property they are not protesting - they are breaking the law because their actions are interfering with the rights of the people who are not part of the protest.

I was not aware they filed court paperwork. You have a source? Also thee is a thing called standing. It means you have to be affected by something in order to challenge it. Just because you think a law is broken or constitution is violated does not make it true and thats something that is looked at when these things are filed.

The 2nd amendment has never been questioned by me. When I have a weapon and act in a manner that threatens others without cause is a crime. Oregon law allows businesses to prohibit the open carry of firearms on their premises.

Walk into a theater and start yelling fire and see what happens. Walk into a hospital and start threatening to blow it up and see what happens. Hold a "protest" on a highway to block it and see what happens. Now do all of the above with a gun strapped to your hip and see what happens.

No one has argued about their rights one at a time. However it would be beneficial to understand your rights and how they apply.

originally posted by: diggindirt
The obligation lies with the government being addressed to redress the grievance. That means they can't ignore the petition/s.

The Supreme court disagrees with you, but what do they know!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: diggindirt
The obligation lies with the government being addressed to redress the grievance. That means they can't ignore the petition/s.

The Supreme court disagrees with you, but what do they know!

You'll have to post a case that deals with civil rights violations by elected government officials rather than one dealing with labor laws and collective bargaining rights by government policymakers to make your point. The case you posted dealt with "government policymakers" ---NOT elected officials. So try again but you might want to actually read and understand the case before you throw it up. Your first attempt was an epic fail.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: diggindirt

Protesting occurs when no laws are broken. Taking federal property by armed actions is not protesting. The first amendment is what allowed the militia members to have their own statements from interviews and social media to be used against them in court.

When a "protest" blocks a public right of way or entrance / exit to real property they are not protesting - they are breaking the law because their actions are interfering with the rights of the people who are not part of the protest.

I was not aware they filed court paperwork. You have a source? Also thee is a thing called standing. It means you have to be affected by something in order to challenge it. Just because you think a law is broken or constitution is violated does not make it true and thats something that is looked at when these things are filed.

The 2nd amendment has never been questioned by me. When I have a weapon and act in a manner that threatens others without cause is a crime. Oregon law allows businesses to prohibit the open carry of firearms on their premises.

Walk into a theater and start yelling fire and see what happens. Walk into a hospital and start threatening to blow it up and see what happens. Hold a "protest" on a highway to block it and see what happens. Now do all of the above with a gun strapped to your hip and see what happens.

No one has argued about their rights one at a time. However it would be beneficial to understand your rights and how they apply.

Holy Cow---as I've begged you on many occasions---please familiarize yourself with what was actually going on. They made their statement in the first press conference. It can be heard here.
www.youtube.com...

Honestly, if you don't know what went on, you look silly when you make such silly arguments. You didn't know they had filed petitions?
Geeze, please. Educate yourself before you go blowing off about armed insurrection that never happened. If you didn't know they had filed petitions, what else don't you know and how badly is your ignorance influencing your arguments? A basic civics class is all that is necessary to know these things. I'm sure there are some available on line since you seem to have missed it at your institution of education.

originally posted by: diggindirt
You'll have to post a case that deals with civil rights violations by elected government officials rather than one dealing with labor laws and collective bargaining rights by government policymakers to make your point.

Wrong again, the Supreme Court stated

Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues.

The case you posted dealt with "government policymakers" ---NOT elected officials.

So again you show you really do not know much... the ones who make policy ARE the elected officials!

Who else do you think decides government policy?

a reply to: diggindirt

Your the one who made the post. I just responded to what you wrote and added the parts you are ignoring.

I find it interesting they filed a petition when they dont recognize the federal government nor its authority.

Try again.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: diggindirt
You'll have to post a case that deals with civil rights violations by elected government officials rather than one dealing with labor laws and collective bargaining rights by government policymakers to make your point.

Wrong again, the Supreme Court stated

Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues.

The case you posted dealt with "government policymakers" ---NOT elected officials.

So again you show you really do not know much... the ones who make policy ARE the elected officials!

Who else do you think decides government policy?

Please read the case, not just the words you found by Googling. It is very clear that there is a difference (at law) between a policymaker and an elected official. The committees referred to in the suit are not elected officials, they are policymakers for a select group of people, teachers in a labor dispute. Words have meaning. Please learn what the words mean prior to attempting to use them in arguments. Policymaker does not equal elected official even though an elected official might be a policy maker as well. That was not the situation in the case you cited. Your lack of education is beginning to be very boring.

a reply to: Xcathdra
And I find it very predictable that you simply chant the mantra of the Cult of Authority and the BigSix without knowing the actual facts of the situation.
Please take the time to learn what actually occurred rather than just sitting and typing up government propaganda time after time. It really is quite mind-numbing to try to read over and over. Just find an on-line civics class, please. A grammar class wouldn't hurt either as you would learn the difference between "your" and "you're". Words have meaning. You need to know the meaning before attempting to use them in order to have effective communication.

a reply to: diggindirt

When they make an argument thats not howl at the moon crazy then maybe ill care what they are complaining about. Thus far all they, and you, have done is cherry pick the constitution and laws that appear to support their backwards / wrong argument while ignoring the constitution and laws that dont support their backwards and wrong argument.

I am not the one who needs a civic lesson. That would be the Bundy's and their followers who apparently never learned one damn thing about their government let alone bothered to read the constitution.

Whose the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows.

In the case of the Bundy's and their followers they are one in the same.


Let me know when the Bundy's hijack an issue from someone who didnt ask for their help and end up getting more people killed because they cant read or use critical thinking skills.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: diggindirt

When they make an argument thats not howl at the moon crazy then maybe ill care what they are complaining about. Thus far all they, and you, have done is cherry pick the constitution and laws that appear to support their backwards / wrong argument while ignoring the constitution and laws that dont support their backwards and wrong argument.

I am not the one who needs a civic lesson. That would be the Bundy's and their followers who apparently never learned one damn thing about their government let alone bothered to read the constitution.

Whose the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows.

In the case of the Bundy's and their followers they are one in the same.


Let me know when the Bundy's hijack an issue from someone who didnt ask for their help and end up getting more people killed because they cant read or use critical thinking skills.

Please show me where in the Constitution there is a limitation placed on the right to petition for redress of grievances.

Let me expand your education by leading you through it word for word.

To petition (a verb transitive, meaning to file a formal, written request)
for (a preposition, means to obtain)
redress verb transitive, a remedy or the means to a remedy on the part of the Government)
of (preposition, means for or about)
grievance (noun, a real or fancied complaint)

The citizen/s must take action in the form of drawing up a petition in order to compel the government to supply a remedy or the means to a remedy for their complaint/s. The use of the verb transitive "redress" is the "guarantee" you seek because it requires action by the body being addressed by the very nature of the word.
Please show me how redress can occur without a response from the government being petitioned.

Again, I am not contending that the government must comply with the requests in the petition/s but they must provide a remedy or the means to a remedy. Do you not understand that the word "redress" is a verb transitive and by its very nature demands action on the part of the recipient of the petition?

Yet again, words have meaning and the authors of the Constitution knew the meaning of those words and used them carefully. The right to petition for redress of grievances had been a part of English law since the signing of the Magna Carta, a document, (one of many) upon which the founders of the US based the tenets of the Constitution. It was from this right that the inclusion of this passage in the Declaration of Independence sprung:

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

At the time of the Declaration, the colonists were under British law, a part of which was the right to petition for redress of grievances as found in the Magna Carta. The colonists were declaring that the King had violated the very law by which he was bound to provide a remedy or a means to a remedy, using that violation as one of many which compelled them to declare themselves independent of a tyrant.

Now please show how we could have a right to petition for redress without the recipients of the petition being obligated to take action since the very word "redress" is a transitive verb. Grammar class would teach you this as well. Words have meaning, even if you and several others on this thread and on other threads don't know the meanings.
Let me post the legal definition again for you.

Redress means to set right, relief or remedy or a means of seeking relief or remedy. It can be putting right a wrong by compensation or compensation for injuries sustained; recovery or restitution for harm or injury; damages or equitable relief. Right to redress refers to the right to a relief or remedy.

definitions.uslegal.com...

In simple terms, if the official to whom the petition for redress is addressed cannot provide the remedy being sought, they shall provide to the petitioner a means of seeking relief or remedy.
The word is "redress" is not the same as "address" a common mistake apparently.

Learn the meaning of transitive verbs.
grammar-monster.com...

originally posted by: diggindirt
Please show me where in the Constitution there is a limitation placed on the right to petition for redress of grievances.

* - Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees
* - The law of South Dakota prohibits sex offenders from circulating petitions.
* - A petition by a prisoner in Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is a prohibited.

Also see the scotus decision linked near the bottom of the page.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Let me expand your education by leading you through it word for word.

To petition (a verb transitive, meaning to file a formal, written request)
for (a preposition, means to obtain)
redress verb transitive, a remedy or the means to a remedy on the part of the Government)
of (preposition, means for or about)
grievance (noun, a real or fancied complaint)

Now that you understand the words the next step for you is to understand how they apply.

originally posted by: diggindirt
The citizen/s must take action in the form of drawing up a petition in order to compel the government to supply a remedy or the means to a remedy for their complaint/s. The use of the verb transitive "redress" is the "guarantee" you seek because it requires action by the body being addressed by the very nature of the word.
Please show me how redress can occur without a response from the government being petitioned.

Wrong - A petition does not have to be acted on or even responded to.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Again, I am not contending that the government must comply with the requests in the petition/s but they must provide a remedy or the means to a remedy. Do you not understand that the word "redress" is a verb transitive and by its very nature demands action on the part of the recipient of the petition?

Wrong - A remedy is not required.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Yet again, words have meaning and the authors of the Constitution knew the meaning of those words and used them carefully. The right to petition for redress of grievances had been a part of English law since the signing of the Magna Carta, a document, (one of many) upon which the founders of the US based the tenets of the Constitution. It was from this right that the inclusion of this passage in the Declaration of Independence sprung:

Words do have meanings. The part you are failing to understand is their application.

originally posted by: diggindirt
At the time of the Declaration, the colonists were under British law, a part of which was the right to petition for redress of grievances as found in the Magna Carta. The colonists were declaring that the King had violated the very law by which he was bound to provide a remedy or a means to a remedy, using that violation as one of many which compelled them to declare themselves independent of a tyrant.

Now please show how we could have a right to petition for redress without the recipients of the petition being obligated to take action since the very word "redress" is a transitive verb. Grammar class would teach you this as well. Words have meaning, even if you and several others on this thread and on other threads don't know the meanings.

While our Constitution had the Magna Carta in mind it has no bearing on the interpretation of our Constitution.
To specifically answer your question -
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - BOROUGH OF DURYEA, PENNSYLVANIA, et al. v . GUARNIERI

"Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues."

If you read the opinion of the court you will find they discuss the same words you do. The difference is they talk about the application of those words with regards to the 1st amendment and how it applies to the people seeking redress and how it applies to the government in answering redress.

= No remedy is required.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Let me post the legal definition again for you.

Redress means to set right, relief or remedy or a means of seeking relief or remedy. It can be putting right a wrong by compensation or compensation for injuries sustained; recovery or restitution for harm or injury; damages or equitable relief. Right to redress refers to the right to a relief or remedy.

definitions.uslegal.com...

In simple terms, if the official to whom the petition for redress is addressed cannot provide the remedy being sought, they shall provide to the petitioner a means of seeking relief or remedy.
The word is "redress" is not the same as "address" a common mistake apparently.

Learn the meaning of transitive verbs.
grammar-monster.com...

Right.. Try again.

A response nor remedy is guaranteed and is not required.

Not
adverb
1.(used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition):
You must not do that. It's not far from here.
2.U.S. Slang. (used jocularly as a postpositive interjection to indicate that a previous statement is untrue):
I just love working overtime without pay. Not!

Required
adj.
1. Needed; essential: missing several required parts.
2. Obligatory: required reading.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Your cited cases are a labor union disputes, same as the Minnesota case which says "government policymakers" cannot violate the Constitution. It is NOT a civil rights case because the employees of the labor union did not swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are not serving as elected officials.
In the case you cited, the Court ruled that his First Amendment was not violated because he had a grievance procedure available to him. Same as with Smith v. Arkansas----labor relations law---a completely different area of law than civil rights laws. They ruled that means of remedy were available, not that means of remedy had not been provided. You really should read the entire case before posting. In this case Google is not your friend because Google doesn't know diddly from squat on areas of the law. These cases DO NOT concern elected officials but hired or appointed employees of government agencies which had in place the "means to a remedy." In both cases, the "means to a remedy" was already available, the claimant simply didn't agree with the remedy offered and sued.
You have yet to cite a Supreme Court case because it doesn't exist where the court ruled that an elected official does not have to redress a petition of grievances.

Again, the word "redress" is a transitive verb. The very word itself requires action. I even provided the link that explains transitive verbs since your education in grammar seems as lacking as your education in law.

What Are Transitive Verbs? (with Examples)
A transitive verb is a verb that can take a direct object. In other words, it is done to someone or something. Most verbs are transitive.

Deny ignorance. I'm trying to help you here. Go ask an English professor if you can't take my word for it or the link which I supplied which tells you in words that a sixth grader could understand.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: diggindirt
Please show me where in the Constitution there is a limitation placed on the right to petition for redress of grievances.

* - Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees
* - The law of South Dakota prohibits sex offenders from circulating petitions.
* - A petition by a prisoner in Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is a prohibited.

Also see the scotus decision linked near the bottom of the page.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Let me expand your education by leading you through it word for word.

To petition (a verb transitive, meaning to file a formal, written request)
for (a preposition, means to obtain)
redress verb transitive, a remedy or the means to a remedy on the part of the Government)
of (preposition, means for or about)
grievance (noun, a real or fancied complaint)

Now that you understand the words the next step for you is to understand how they apply.

originally posted by: diggindirt
The citizen/s must take action in the form of drawing up a petition in order to compel the government to supply a remedy or the means to a remedy for their complaint/s. The use of the verb transitive "redress" is the "guarantee" you seek because it requires action by the body being addressed by the very nature of the word.
Please show me how redress can occur without a response from the government being petitioned.

Wrong - A petition does not have to be acted on or even responded to.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Again, I am not contending that the government must comply with the requests in the petition/s but they must provide a remedy or the means to a remedy. Do you not understand that the word "redress" is a verb transitive and by its very nature demands action on the part of the recipient of the petition?

Wrong - A remedy is not required.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Yet again, words have meaning and the authors of the Constitution knew the meaning of those words and used them carefully. The right to petition for redress of grievances had been a part of English law since the signing of the Magna Carta, a document, (one of many) upon which the founders of the US based the tenets of the Constitution. It was from this right that the inclusion of this passage in the Declaration of Independence sprung:

Words do have meanings. The part you are failing to understand is their application.

originally posted by: diggindirt
At the time of the Declaration, the colonists were under British law, a part of which was the right to petition for redress of grievances as found in the Magna Carta. The colonists were declaring that the King had violated the very law by which he was bound to provide a remedy or a means to a remedy, using that violation as one of many which compelled them to declare themselves independent of a tyrant.

Now please show how we could have a right to petition for redress without the recipients of the petition being obligated to take action since the very word "redress" is a transitive verb. Grammar class would teach you this as well. Words have meaning, even if you and several others on this thread and on other threads don't know the meanings.

While our Constitution had the Magna Carta in mind it has no bearing on the interpretation of our Constitution.
To specifically answer your question -
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - BOROUGH OF DURYEA, PENNSYLVANIA, et al. v . GUARNIERI

"Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues."

If you read the opinion of the court you will find they discuss the same words you do. The difference is they talk about the application of those words with regards to the 1st amendment and how it applies to the people seeking redress and how it applies to the government in answering redress.

= No remedy is required.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Let me post the legal definition again for you.

Redress means to set right, relief or remedy or a means of seeking relief or remedy. It can be putting right a wrong by compensation or compensation for injuries sustained; recovery or restitution for harm or injury; damages or equitable relief. Right to redress refers to the right to a relief or remedy.

definitions.uslegal.com...

In simple terms, if the official to whom the petition for redress is addressed cannot provide the remedy being sought, they shall provide to the petitioner a means of seeking relief or remedy.
The word is "redress" is not the same as "address" a common mistake apparently.

Learn the meaning of transitive verbs.
grammar-monster.com...

Right.. Try again.

A response nor remedy is guaranteed and is not required.

Not
adverb
1.(used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition):
You must not do that. It's not far from here.
2.U.S. Slang. (used jocularly as a postpositive interjection to indicate that a previous statement is untrue):
I just love working overtime without pay. Not!

Required
adj.
1. Needed; essential: missing several required parts.
2. Obligatory: required reading.

See, you've been thinking Google is your friend and it's not.
Federal prisoners are prohibited because they already have at hand a means to a remedy, access to attorneys and a law library inside federal prisons. It is a built-in "means to a remedy."
The South Dakota law has never been challenged to the best of my knowledge. Do you have a link to the Supreme Court case that declared it legal according to the Constitution?

Again, please find a legal dictionary definition that defines the word "redress" as an intransitive verb. Or---explain to me how a transitive verb can lack action.
Honestly, you should have learned the parts of speech and what they mean---in fifth grade.

a reply to: diggindirt

Its a Supreme Court ruling addressing the Constitutional aspect of redress. Because its a Constitutional issue it applies to everyone / every state.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - BOROUGH OF DURYEA, PENNSYLVANIA, et al. v . GUARNIERI

"Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues."

One - The bolded part is key.
Two - A supreme court decision addressing / defining the constitution applies to all is also key.

Dust off your civics book and re-read it.

Well, when you are of the opinion that the government does not have to address grievances for actions that they themselves have done, then it is clear Robert LaVoy Finicum was murdered by cheap thugs.

What a cheap argument.

a reply to: Xcathdra

And you fail to notice the "government policymakers" wording of the ruling. Apparently you don't know the difference between "government policymakers" and elected officials of government who have sworn an oath to the Constitution.

Your argument is beyond silly, and to keep repeating that "government policymakers" are equivalent before the law to elected government officials is ludicrous.