It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
43
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
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.


So in other words this is yet another attempt to use personal opinion instead of facts and law? He was not murdered and the militia can make their cases to the judge during their trials.

If you dont like scotus decision then get involved in government and support candidates who share your view. Its not enough to remain intentionally ignorant while not understanding what it is you are arguing about.




posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

You mean the Supreme Court? They are not policy makers nor are they elected. Brush up on the Constitution - Article III - Judicial branch.

As for your oath comment you are once again replacing law with opinion. Once again we are back to you attacking things you don't agree with and blaming people who dont agree with you.

My argument is based on facts. Maybe do some research once in a while before trying to argue your case. It might reduce your ability of picking and choosing what works for your position while ignoring the rest.

Example - You trying to argue that the scotus case only applied to labor / policy makers.

You do understand we live in a Constitutional Representative Republic and not a Democracy right? Those "policy makers" answer to the branch of government they work for. All executive entities answer to the President / Vice President. The same holds true for the other 2 branches, answering to Congress and the Courts.

All answer to elected officials, who in turn works on behalf of the American people, who voted them into office to represent them.

True story.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: GeisterFahrer
a reply to: diggindirt


Tell me guys..

Did the Bundys petition the government over their issues?
Did Finicum?
Did ANY of the militia people?

When the Bundy's say they don't recognize the Federal government it leads me to believe the answer is no, they did not make an attempt.

It's says a lot about their cause when the people they came to "stand with" wanted nothing to do with them.

Please link to the sources if you find any.
edit on 20-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The Supreme Court are judges. You've truly gone off the rails now.

I guess the grammar stuff that you can't understand is sending you round the bend.

Of course the policymakers are responsible to the government agency that hired them. Who suggested any different? Not me. I said they can't violate an oath they didn't take. Simple common sense.

They are hired to make policy, no oath to the Constitution required. I don't see what you can't understand about a policymaker not being equal to an elected representative in terms of the law.

I can take you into dozens of government offices where policymakers work and ask them if they were required to take an oath to the Constitution when they accepted the job. I'll bet you the cost of a big ole beef burger not a one of them was asked to stand and take an oath to the Constitution before accepting the job. You cannot violate an oath you didn't take. How hard is it to understand that?

An elected official takes an oath to the Constitution. That official therefore can violate that oath.


I suppose it is the simple things that are most confusing when you are attempting to make something far more complicated than it really is. Maybe this will help---elected officials are "sworn in" before assuming office, meaning that they swear to uphold the Constitution of the US and usually, the state in which they are being sworn. Policymakers are hired. See the difference? I really don't know how to make it any simpler. Sworn to uphold v. hired for policy making.

Now I'm done with that argument. If you don't get it, I'm truly sorry for you.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 03:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: GeisterFahrer
a reply to: diggindirt


Tell me guys..

Did the Bundys petition the government over their issues?
Did Finicum?
Did ANY of the militia people?

When the Bundy's say they don't recognize the Federal government it leads me to believe the answer is no, they did not make an attempt.

It's says a lot about their cause when the people they came to "stand with" wanted nothing to do with them.

Please link to the sources if you find any.


I'm going to lay this out for you one more time. With video. I've asked you on numerous occasions to please do some research and pay attention to what went on before the media got involved. Apparently you're incapable of that depth of research.



Did the Bundys petition the government over their issues?

Yes, thousands of people signed those petitions. Even the county sheriff doesn't dispute that fact.
www.youtube.com...

It was also announced at the first press conference:
www.youtube.com...
The petition is read aloud. I'm sure with some Googling you can find the text. That's your homework if you want it in text form. They tell who is has been addressed to and the names of the groups involved. Individual names are not read off since there were said to be over 100k signatures that were collected over several months.

This journalist actually reports on it also, having done the research Ammon asked them to do at the press conference.
www.youtube.com...




When the Bundy's say they don't recognize the Federal government it leads me to believe the answer is no, they did not make an attempt.


First, supply a video where the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom say they don't recognize the Federal government.


Had you simply watched the videos that have been posted numerous times on numerous threads, you wouldn't be asking these silly questions and making your silly assumptions. Too much tv, not enough research.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
Now I'm done with that argument. If you don't get it, I'm truly sorry for you.


Your argument makes no sense and you have hopped around on different topics with the frequency of a bad ham radio. You ignore anything that disproves your perceived reality and thats a problem and will continue to be one if you insist on ignoring the facts.

Good luck.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 04:18 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Their Redress - -



Friday, December 11, 2015
NOTICE: Redress of Grievance
We the People - United Individuals of these States United: Coalition of Western States (COWS), Pacific Patriot Network (PPN), Bundy Family and Supporters, Oregon Oath Keepers, Idaho III%, Central Oregon Constitutional Guard, Oregon Tactical, Oregon Bearded Bastards, Liberty Watch Washington, Nevada Committee for Full Statehood, Rural Heritage Preservation Project, Liberty For All (LFA) [continuous names below]
December 11, 2015
NOTICE: Redress of Grievance
Notice to agent is notice to principle; notice to principle is notice to agent

Sheriff David Ward, Commissioner Dan Nichols, Commissioner Pete Runnels, Justice of the Peace Donna Thomas, District Attorney Tim Colahan, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, Governor Kate Brown

Dear Sirs,

After extensive research on the Hammond case, We the People of these States United have reason to believe that Dwight and Steven Hammond were not afforded their rights to due process as protected by the United States Constitution.

We have principled evidence that Dwight and Steven Hammond committed no crime in the act of performing the prescribe burn and back fire, that the U.S. Government does not have authority to enforce Territorial law under Article Four within the State of Oregon, and that the County of Harney and State of Oregon failed to protect the Hammond's rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. USC 42.1986, 18.242, 18.121, 42.1983, 42.1985,

We hold compelling evidence that the U.S. Government abused the federal court system, situating the Hammond family into duress as effort to force the Hammond's to sell their Steen Mountain property to a federal agency.

We have substantial evidence that the U.S. Attorney’s Office exploited an act of Congress, imposing cruel and unusual punishment upon residents of Harney County.

We hold substantial evidence that inside the borders of Harney County the U.S. Government is acting outside the authority enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.

We secure evidence that the U.S. Attorney’s Office independently prepared the indictment against Dwight & Steven Hammond, and that the Grand Jury did not properly assemble or investigate before the indictment. We have no evidence that the Grand Jury participated in the indictment altogether.

We have sure evidence that U.S. Congress does not have authority to legislate minimum sentences, requiring Dwight and Steven Hammond to serve five years in a federal penitentiary.

We hold confirming video evidence of federal agents exhibiting a culture of intimidation toward individuals and businesses within the borders of Harney County. That federal agents, by fire destroy private property, and that the Hammond family are being denied the same protection of the laws that are enjoyed by federal agents.

We have supporting evidence that Judge Hogan controlled the narrative and did not allow full disclosure in the courtroom. We have additional evidence that Dwight and Steven Hammond were sentenced for something different than what they were found guilty of.

We hold sounding evidence that Dwight and Steven Hammond are victims of cruel and unusual punishment, and that the U.S. Justice Department is violating the 8th Amendment.

We hold sure evidence that Dwight and Steven Hammond are being subject for the same offense twice put in jeopardy. Including that the Ninth District Court of Appeals is in violation of the 5th Amendment.

We have obtained appalling evidence that the U.S. Attorney’s Office threatened the Hammond family with early detention and further punishment, if the Hammond family continued to communicate with a certain individual. This evidence foundationally speaks against the U.S. Attorneys Office in their gross effort to infringe upon the Hammond’s right to free exercise of speech. 1st Amendment, USC 18.242

In a commitment to expose the truth and administrate justice, We the People of these States United insist that you immediately assemble an independent Evidential Hearing Board (EHB) comprised of the people of Harney County in accordance with Common Law principals. That the Evidential Hearing Board call witnesses and investigate each of these allegations publicly. That the Evidential Hearing Board make public conclusions in writing upon their findings. That the Harney County Board of Commissioners and the Sheriff’s Department enforce the conclusions of the Evidential Hearing Board in support of the United States Constitution. We further insist that the Hammond family be protected from reporting to federal prison until all allegations can be determined.

We need not remind you of your lawful duty to act on these matters as insisted, nor of the consequences if you knowingly neglected your duty. USC 18.2382, 18.2071, 18.2076, 42.1983, 42.1985, 42.1986

In light of the information presented, we require your thoughtful response within 5 days of the date of this notice. If we do not receive your response within 5 days, we will have no choice but to understand that you do not wish to do your duty and are content in acting in negligence to your solemn oath to the people who have placed you in this fiduciary position and in defiance of your obligation to defend the Rights and Liberties of the people. Therefore, govern yourself accordingly.

Respectively,

We the People - United Individuals of these States United


Lol ok...

The reason they were ignored is because there was no due process violation and we know this because their case went to the US Supreme Court.

Secondly explain how a person can file a redress of grievance for another person. Based on the response of the Hammonds, who wanted nothing to do with the Bundy's and their action, pretty much destroys their entire "petition".

Third their entire complaint is based on their ignorance of the Constitution / Law / Case Law. As has been stated many times you cant pick and choose what parts of the Constitution / Law / Case law you will follow and what you will ignore. This was evident when the guy made the same mistake you did saying the government is required to reply / act when in fact they don't. Even more so when the petition is dealing with a topic they are not legally involved in (Hammonds situation).

So, again, you cant ignore the parts you dont like. If you or the Bundy's really cared then you would challenge the system based on whats affected you and not hijack a situation you arent involved. If you guys are so big on the Constitution then actually learn it, especially when accusations are being brought to bear.

If they have all this "evidence" then why have they not turned it over to the Hammond's lawyer?

They want a spot light while betraying the stated reasons they are there IE: They want attention. Secondly "insisting" / demanding, citing laws that don't apply, using the phrase "we require" followed up at the end with a veiled threat its no wonder they are being ignored.

The Bundy's are their own worst enemies.
edit on 20-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
Again, had you watched the videos I posted you would not be asking silly questions. You have not watched them. This I know because there wasn't time for you to have watched them before you posted again. You are being deceitful in pretending to have done so.

You haven't supplied the link to the video where Citizens for Constitutional Freedom say they don't recognize the Federal government. Why would they reference a document they don't recognize? I'll be waiting for that video where they make such a statement. Let me make this clear: I'm waiting to hear from their mouths, not the mouths of media, that they do not recognize the federal government. Until you can find and post a link to such a video, our conversation had come to a close.

The Cult of Authority will always defend the bullies who are employed by government. I expect no less of them.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 04:56 AM
link   
As for not recognizing the Federal Government -

April 2014 - A rancher's armed battle against the US government is standard libertarian fare

This started in 1993 with Cliven Bundy when they refused to pay grazing fees -

$1.35 per month for each of his cow and calf pairs


Why? -

Bundy claimed the BLM had no right to charge him due to a thoroughly debunked, but eternally-circulating, libertarian theory that the US Constitution forbids federal ownership of land.

and

His refusal to recognize federal lands, for example, is in direct contradiction with the Nevada State Constitution.


and -

In his own words: "I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing."

His interview on radio - danaloeschradio.com...

Ammon Bundy -

The federal government does not have authority to come down into the states and to control its land," Bundy said.


Redress of Grievances - Like I have been saying - Source with video

When Kelly asked Bundy why he doesn't go through the courts, Bundy said, "The plaintiff is the federal government, yet the prosecutor is also the federal government...there is no proper redress."


So no he / they have not used established means to fight this.


Documents -
Threat to Harney County Sheriff's Office from Bundy-



edit on 20-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Next time wait for my response before falsely accusing me of something I didn't do.

I await your apology.
edit on 20-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
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.


So in other words this is yet another attempt to use personal opinion instead of facts and law? He was not murdered and the militia can make their cases to the judge during their trials.

If you dont like scotus decision then get involved in government and support candidates who share your view. Its not enough to remain intentionally ignorant while not understanding what it is you are arguing about.


The only person who has remained ignorant of the law throughout the entire discourse in this thread, are those claiming Robert LaVoy Finicum was NOT murdered.

He was murdered. Get over it.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Does anyone know if John Moore has been harassed for his statement? I'm going to have to look later.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Opinion is not a substitute for law and there is nothing to get over. He died because apparently acting like a loon didn't work out so well. I look forward to your argument with the state of Oregon when you tell them he was murdered and demand people be tried for it.

Make sure you cite your opinion so the people who actually know what they are doing can have a good laugh when they send you packing.

Anything on topic?



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: tweetie
Does anyone know if John Moore has been harassed for his statement? I'm going to have to look later.


I have not seen anything for harassment...



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Anything on topic?

I just thought I'd chime in here and remind everybody that the thread topic is:
'In my opinion Mr. Finicum was murdered,' says Nevada Assemblyman John Moore
Your string of, 'well the fourth amendment doesn't apply to people' antics, while amusing, does sort of take us around the barn I think in terms of discussing the original topic. I think that's part of why I've been sitting back off of this thread a little.

Fourth amendment though: you look at it, and it would certainly apply to the notion that a man should be able to encounter the authorities in a way that doesn't involve him being summarily shot down into the dirt if he fidgets or something. Secure in their persons, hmmm.

Anyhow, there's this guy who is a Nevada state assemblyman and retired military special operative who thinks poor Mr. Finicum was murdered. I wonder what the rest of the pros think about it.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The only item I see right now is he was barred from entering Oregon to attend Cliven Bundy's arraignment. He'd promised he would be there for the arraignment because Cliven is one of his constituents.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a man should be able to encounter the authorities in a way that doesn't involve him being summarily shot down into the dirt if he fidgets or something.


It does. However when a gun nut runs from the police, then gets out of his car and starts reaching for a gun you really should expect police to be allowed to go home that day'.

All his fault for acting like a dick.
edit on 20-2-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Check the snarkiness and your amusement at the door. Making that comment when you dont understand whats being talked about with reference to the 4th amendment makes you look silly and foolish.

The 4th doesnt apply to the individual and its been explained. Read it and tell me how a private citizen gets a warrant? The 4th explains the restrictions placed on the government and what a government agent acting under color of law must do to obtain a warrant.

It says absolutely nothing in terms of restrictions for an individual.

The 4th amendment applies to the government and not the individual.

In case you forgot The Constitution places restrictions on the government and does NOT grant "rights" to the citizens. Those rights are present and the constitution is a protection against government action.

Make sense or do I need to explain how the 4th amendment applies to the government and not the individual?

I deal with this on a daily basis and know what I am talking about.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: tweetie

Barred from entering Oregon?

You got a link to that? Absent being on probation / parole you cant be kept from crossing state lines nor can you be barred from entering a city.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: tweetie

Barred from entering Oregon?

You got a link to that? Absent being on probation / parole you cant be kept from crossing state lines nor can you be barred from entering a city.


Must be a new and different set of laws than the ones you know of.
koin.com...




Brian Crist, Chief Pretrial Services Officer confirmed that Cox is now under the agency’s supervision.
Cox must also “find and maintain” gainful full-time employment, approved schooling or a full-time combination of both while on release. Her travel has been limited to Kanab, Utah, Fredonia, Arizona and Multnomah County, the latter for court appearances only. Cox will not be allowed to travel internationally while the case is pending.
The judge ordered that Cox neither own, possess, nor control any type of weapon while on release. Cox will also be under GPS monitoring and is under “home detention,” according to court documents.
Cox is also prohibited from having any contact with any of the co-defendants in the case, including Ammon Bundy.


ETA: Oops, these are the conditions of the release of Shawna Cox. She's not been convicted of any crime so I guess the feds are making up laws as they see the need.
edit on 21-2-2016 by diggindirt because: clarity




top topics



 
43
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join