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.

 

Accused Oregon refuge occupier cites devil, demands damages from U.S.

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

So, no evidence for your claim that the Bundy Gang filed petitions?

No video?

Nothing?

The Magna Carta? Well, maybe if the Bundys travelled back in time to the Year of Our Lord 1215 you'd have a point.

(You wouldn't.)

Why don't you "do a bit of reading on the matter" and stop with the arrogant nonsense remarks directed at me?

You made ridiculous spurious claims about the right to petition.

Offer some legitimate proof or evidence of your spurious claims.

Even given the stated silliness that the right to petition is "the right to submit a list of signatures" ... you still have ZERO EVIDENCE that the Bundys ever did that in any shape, form or fashion. Telling me to look up a non-existent document that you claim exists is obvious and direct bovine fecal matter.

And for godsakes you just cited the Magna Carta and implied that as somehow governing Americans, even the Bundy Gang in 2016.

I'm not the one that needs to learn basic civics.




posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

One of the many documents on which our Constitution is based is the Magna Carta. You should have learned that in civics class too. But you can read the writings of the founders if you don't believe me. To understand the documents you must understand their foundations.
The recitation to the abuses is in the first press conference as well as the names and positions of government agents to whom the petition of grievances was addressed.
www.youtube.com...
The listing can be found starting at about 7:35.
I'm sure that if you wish to obtain a copy of the documents they can found by a bit of Googling.

Which of my claims was ridiculous? Please, if you want discussion, calm down with the hyperbole. Which right are you suggesting we give up? The right to petition for redress of grievances? Why? Who took it? When was it removed from the First Amendment?



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



Me thinks she should observe her rights and stop talking.. Its only going to make things worse for her while painting her supporters as, well, hitching their wagons to a loon... Certainly calls her observations during the standoff into question...

The moment she started referencing the bible and 666 well you know that person is right in the head. If she does go to court you can expect a very weak defense from her lawyers .
edit on 18-2-2016 by TaleDawn because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2016 by TaleDawn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: TaleDawn

Funny enough trying to make the argument she is making, is crazy.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Does the Magna Carta govern any US citizen? Yes or no.


originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66
Our right to petition for redress of grievances comes from the Magna Carta.


That was your asinine statement.

The Magna Carta is one part of a long line of documents and practices that came down to American law (originally established as English colonies) within the English Common Law.

No, it is inaccurate in every way to state or imply that the wording of the Magna Carta has any real jurisdiction over any American citizen in 2016.

It would be as accurate as saying that the Ten Commandments governs our criminal system.

I'm really surprised you didn't drift off into vague claims about the "organic law" which governs us.

That would actually be an argument with a slight bit of merit.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Can an "insanity" plea be entered against the defendants will? Because there's no way she'll willingly admit that she's crazy. I've met people that seriously claim that they see demons and angels every day and are attacked constantly by unholy forces... try telling one of those people they should go seek some help.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: diggindirt

Peaceful assembly?

wtf?


diggindirt's definition of "peaceful assembly" doesn't match up with reality. The armed, forced, and felonious takeover of a federally owned building is one gun shot away from terrorism.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Yeah. Let's ridicule the people who actually made a stand for a perfectly legit cause and laugh about their 'insane flaws'. Low and behold, at least something remotely funny to rock a boring world with!

Well played, one witness account less to care about...

Now enjoy your religious freedom and your legal rights to raise hell via odd compensation demands! Sort of.


Sincerely,
The worthless scum below you.




posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: centarix


Only dangerous people belong in jail. Shawna Cox is not dangerous. Therefore, Shawna Cox does not belong in jail.


Um... No... People who belong in jail are lawbreakers which Shawna Cox is.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Having read the article the following can be stated:

1) She is in for a world of hurt, cause the Judges in her case will reject all of her arguments and even may inform her that the Bible is not the law of the land, but the laws and the Constitution. A prosecutor may even hand her a copy of the Constitution and ask her to point out any and all bible kind of passage in the document, including where any and all reference to God may be found.

2) She could also be going for a guilty by reason of insanity plea kind of thing. By seeming crazy and using such as an excuse, she could get a lighter sentence or even time in a state mental institution for such.

3) Should she continue on, it could set a legal precedent that could harm many in the country, especially if she wins or loses her case. The use of religion, as an excuse to break the law, never holds weight and will not go far. If she pushes it, it could be good for some, cause then it would open up the doors legally, and invalidate many of the current and passing laws on the books, giving those who such would affect greater legal standing.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
If Shawna Cox was standing in front of me right now I would plead with her to find expert counseling and mentoring and to not make any more waves right now because she has so much to contend with today and into the future.

I care about people. I even care about people I don't know. I was brought up to care about others. I've already stated I don't condone what the occupiers did and how they went about it but Shawna believes what she did was right, she is still a human being unlike so many sociopaths and psychopaths that occupy the Internet, and from what I read she is the mother of 13 children. Her life is important to them.

I don't know. This black and white thinking people engage in on the Internet doesn't match up with the very grayness of life on planet Earth.

The repercussions for what she engaged in are massive and I hope her life isn't completely ruined for the rest of her days. I certainly wouldn't want to be someone who seeks to beat her into the ground because I didn't agree with her choices. I don't know if she feels if she could have done things differently would she have or if she would do the same thing again for her principals.

I'm not a bleeding heart but I do have compassion for others. There's really no point in my posting this commentary at ATS but there it is.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
yep, that`s Exactly what she is trying to do, it`s going to take more than this though so I would expect more strangeness from her.


edit on 18-2-2016 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
The recitation to the abuses is in the first press conference as well as the names and positions of government agents to whom the petition of grievances was addressed.


So the nutters had a whine to various people. That does not mean those people havee to respond to that whiine!


Which right are you suggesting we give up? The right to petition for redress of grievances? Why? Who took it? When was it removed from the First Amendment?


It is still there, but nowhere in the constitution does it say that any petition must be answered!



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: centarix


Only dangerous people belong in jail. Shawna Cox is not dangerous. Therefore, Shawna Cox does not belong in jail.


Um... No... People who belong in jail are lawbreakers which Shawna Cox is.
Okay, you want to lock up perfectly safe people in cages, and I find it excessively violent and dangerous to my security. This is why libertarians and authoritarians should not live in proximity to each other. Intentional communities are a good thing. There are good communes, there is the Free State Project, there is Kentucky for conservative authoritarians, New York for liberal authoritarians, and it goes on.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

This is just so bizarre on so many levels that I don't know what to think. Cox's attorney said she had no part in this. Why would Cox not let her attorney handle it? (And as you say exercise her right to remain silent) Perhaps she does not trust her attorney?

If we take it at face value, she needs mental/emotional help; perhaps the traumatic events of the last couple months were too much for her. Or perhaps she was given some kind of psychoactive drugs for the stress, and this was the result of an adverse reaction? (I've known of people doing some pretty bizarre things on Ambien for example...)

Perhaps it is meant to be symbolic? A mockery of the governing parties? Of the legal/justice system itself?

Is it possible that some hoaxster filed this in her name? Or a rogue federal official? An effort to discredit her personally, everyone associated with her, the militias -- make them look like whacko crazy religious nutjobs?

This is just bizarre.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 04:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Regarding her lawyer its entirely possible she didn't want to be involved in that particular attempt. On the conspiracy side it could be her lawyer stayed out of it to give the appearance that she thinks her client has gone crazy to file that paperwork, lending unofficial support.

As for needing help thats simple enough - The court can order a psyche evaluation before any main trial portion starts.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


On the conspiracy side it could be her lawyer stayed out of it to give the appearance that she thinks her client has gone crazy to file that paperwork, lending unofficial support.


Didn't think of that! Sneaky, sneaky...



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: centarix

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: centarix


Only dangerous people belong in jail. Shawna Cox is not dangerous. Therefore, Shawna Cox does not belong in jail.


Um... No... People who belong in jail are lawbreakers which Shawna Cox is.
Okay, you want to lock up perfectly safe people in cages, and I find it excessively violent and dangerous to my security. This is why libertarians and authoritarians should not live in proximity to each other. Intentional communities are a good thing. There are good communes, there is the Free State Project, there is Kentucky for conservative authoritarians, New York for liberal authoritarians, and it goes on.


What are you talking about? The way the system is setup is if you break the law, you go to jail. You can make all this noise about not deserving to go to jail, but that is a bunch of phooey. The fact is, she and her cohorts broke a bunch of federal laws. Whether you agree with those laws or not is irrelevant. She has to face the music now. That's how these things work. You rock the boat for your causes, expect to pay the price afterwards.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

The only thing that makes sense to me is her lawyer doesn't want to be involved in such a complaint. I wouldn't.

I will say all sorts of efforts have begun to discredit her even more.

I suspect there will be more arrests. I don't think we've seen the last of the fall out.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: Boadicea

The only thing that makes sense to me is her lawyer doesn't want to be involved in such a complaint. I wouldn't.


I wouldn't either... but we are talking about a lawyer here. I've seen attorneys do some really sleazy stuff with virtual impunity. It's not a coincidence that congress is filled with lawyers, and there's a good reason for all those lawyer jokes. Like what's the difference between a dead dog in the road and a dead lawyer? There's skid marks in front of the dog. If her lawyer wants that "win" bad enough, who knows what she'd do? Including advising her client to feign incompetence.

And we should remember that this is a court-appointed attorney. She works for the government. She knows which side her bread is buttered on.


I will say all sorts of efforts have begun to discredit her even more.


Those efforts began immediately. And that's why I wonder if Shawna Cox is the one who really filed that counter-complaint. She has access to legal representation. There is no good reason for her to have done that. But for someone wanting to discredit her, this filing sure does the job.

I have no idea how court filings work, and if any identification is required for such filings. If not, then anyone could have filed this in Shawna Cox's name. I find it interesting that the attorney has said she wasn't involved, but as far as I know, the attorney hasn't confirmed that Shawna Cox actually filed it. I haven't seen confirmation from Shawna herself either. But it's only been a couple days, so maybe we'll get more information from Shawna and her attorney soon.

My biggest fear is for Shawna herself. She is one ordinary woman going through extra-ordinary circumstances, some very traumatic circumstances (both witnessing LaVoy's murder and then her son-in-law's horrific death), with the full weight and force of the world's superpower bearing down on her. Knowing the fickleness of families, we can assume that at least some members of her family are very critical of her involvement. I am sure she's quite worried about what (other) punitive measures her ruthless adversary may take -- not against her, but her family. That's a whole lot of pressure for one person. She may be feeling quite overwhelmed, perhaps even desperate.

Now, add in any psychoactive drugs she may have been prescribed for this stress, and the possible adverse side effects, and anything is possible. Especially because her faith precludes any mind-altering substances -- even caffeine! -- I doubt she has ever indulged in any kind of psychoactive substances before, and might be very ill-prepared to handle the effects.


I suspect there will be more arrests. I don't think we've seen the last of the fall out.


I'm surprised there haven't been more arrests. I suspect the feds have a long list of folks they'd like to arrest -- and thow away the key! I also suspect that they didn't expect this level of fallout, and are treading somewhat carefully now.




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join