Female Fed Judge Demonstrates She Has "something".......

j-huskey

j-huskey

Jafo / Instigator !
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 27, 2001
3,888
8,995
AL
none
#1
Female Federal Judge declares mistrial against the Bundys because of federal prosecutorial misconduct, the prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense.
Along with the failure of federal prosecutors to get their way with the Oregon defendants, and the fbi agent charged with lieing about the Oregon shooting.....
Slowly, ever so slowly, the pendulum of justice begins to swing back to the people.... but, it's happening.
Seems the judge wasn't afraid to show she has a set..... I think we will see more of this in the next three years. yay...
 
Last edited:
#12
That's why the land needs to be given back to the state. The Fed's have no constitutional right to that land.

DuneBoer said:
Then fucking change the law. But none of the real Ranchers that run on public land want that. You see the Ranchers are the ones that plead and and begged the government for the law because of the range being overused and the chaos that ensued.
Click to expand...

 
#13
ArmyJerry said:
That's why the land needs to be given back to the state. The Fed's have no constitutional right to that land.
Click to expand...

Serious question Jerry,
State gets land back from fed, then passes the same kind of law. And this is the case here on land use, the state has just as many fucked up laws as fed.

Does giving the land back to the state really solve the problem when 95% of the land users don't the 5% to fuck it up, and the 95% ask and receive a state level version of the Fed law.

Where does it get "right" for all of us ?

 
#14
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States....
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 2

inconvenient isn't it
 
#15
The opening line on this thread is somewhat misleading. The judge that declared a mis-trial is one of the main causes. She broke numerous laws in her handling of the case. Among them; Extreme limiting of evidence permitted, limiting opportunity for client / lawyer communication, denying defense strategy of legal team, forbidding the lead lawyer ( i forget his name ) from making opening statements.
It seems she was on the thin edge of being removed and charged with several criminal actions. CYA is the call today.
 
#16
cav has been said:
The opening line on this thread is somewhat misleading. The judge that declared a mis-trial is one of the main causes. She broke numerous laws in her handling of the case. Among them; Extreme limiting of evidence permitted, limiting opportunity for client / lawyer communication, denying defense strategy of legal team, forbidding the lead lawyer ( i forget his name ) from making opening statements.
It seems she was on the thin edge of being removed and charged with several criminal actions. CYA is the call today.
Click to expand...

I'm up for changing the title to a more correct interpretation.... suggestion ?
 
#17
Convenient selective reading aint you. Not bad for a foreigner though.

Article 1 Section 8 is the one that applies. ENUMERATED POWERS, if it ain't addressed in this section (or enumerated in this section) the federal government is not in a legal position to be doing what it is doing, period.
  • To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And


DuneBoer said:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States....
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 2

inconvenient isn't it
Click to expand...

 
#18
The question you are asking is if the states finally kick the federal government from their land (other than whats needed and allowed under their enumerated powers), should those states be able to manage the land that the people of those states own? I would say yes why not, they should pass whatever laws for their states land that the people of that state want. the eastern half of our country has been doing it since 1492. Why do you think our fellow citizens in the west should be hobbled by an overbearing and often corrupt/criminal and out of control federal government? That is just not right. You ask where does it get right for all of us? Well you have rights to the land in your state not the land in other states, if you want rights to say what happen to land in another state you need to move there and vote. The fed government cares nothing about you at all, you are chattel, your state cares a bit more about you, your county even more, your town even more. What basis or evidence do you have to show the federal government does a better job or even cares about you?

j-huskey said:
Serious question Jerry,
State gets land back from fed, then passes the same kind of law. And this is the case here on land use, the state has just as many fucked up laws as fed.

Does giving the land back to the state really solve the problem when 95% of the land users don't the 5% to fuck it up, and the 95% ask and receive a state level version of the Fed law.

Where does it get "right" for all of us ?
Click to expand...

 
#19
ArmyJerry said:
Convenient selective reading aint you. Not bad for a foreigner though.

Article 1 Section 8 is the one that applies. ENUMERATED POWERS, if it ain't addressed in this section (or enumerated in this section) the federal government is not in a legal position to be doing what it is doing, period.
  • To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
Click to expand...

here is a wiki of article one in simple language a cave man could understand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution
 
#20
ArmyJerry said:
Convenient selective reading aint you. Not bad for a foreigner though.

Article 1 Section 8 is the one that applies. ENUMERATED POWERS, if it ain't addressed in this section (or enumerated in this section) the federal government is not in a legal position to be doing what it is doing, period.
  • To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
Click to expand...

Yes, Washington DC I know. Before the Louisiana purchase. Some things after this have happened for example where the Bundys moved to in 1949 in Nevada. All that land was taken from Mexico before Nevada was even a state by federal troops. Never was the states. Nevadas state constitution recognizes the the feds ownership of the land within their borders. if that isn't enough, the SCOTUS has ruled time after time that feds can own land and they cite the Property Clause. I know the SCOTUS said slavery was legal at one time but they don't now. If these so called constitutional groups are so sure of hanging their hat on Article one section 8 then they should nut the fuck up and sue the gov. no lawyer will touch it because time and time again it has been proven in the SCOTUS its a loser. If you live in New Jersey or Texas where there is no public land then none of this means shit. I love public land. I like being able to use it.Yes the federal laws governing public lands uses to include logging, grazing and mining are restrictive but because people will extract everything they can from the land if there is no control. Ever spent anytime in a third world county? Thats what was happening here out west before the Taylor Grazing act was passed in 1937. The land was so over grazed and over used that responsible Ranchers begged the government to do something. Our state owned rangelands where I live are a free for all. They are overgrazed weed patches. In short, We need to log more on federal land, we need to graze more on federal land. We need to lobby congress against the ridiculous state environmental laws. Instead all the constitutional groups want to "Just take it back" or give it to the states. None of these groups have the sack or the brains to just take it back. The last motherfuckers I would trust to manage the land for the public would be the Bundys.
 
#21
There is a shit ton of public land in NJ and in Texas. I have spent time all over this shithole planet , with a M16 in teh Army and with a checkbook in business. Third world all have one thing in common, corrupt national governments, but your contention has nothing to do with the USA. We have the eastern half of the country where cows are also raised, your state owned land needs to be managed better you should petition your own goddam government, dot corrupt the Constitution because your state is fucked up. We have huge state land here in Texas, Big Bend state park and Big Bend national park are right next to each other, I ride dirt all over that place. In short the feds should not own that land your hatred for the bundys is clouding your judgment here, you are willing to let the government break the law by abridging its constitutional authority and undermine the whole principal of our republic over a guy grazing his cows on a patch of shitty desert? When the states became states that land became theirs, once it ceases to be territory all land reverts to the state and the people. You call out people that believe in the constitution like there is something wrong with them, I will tell you they are not the problem, cowardly fucks that give up their liberty for the sake of convenience and feeling better about their envious selves in their miserable lives are the problem not them.If the shoe fits, put it on and stick it up your ass, if it doesnt, no offense.

For the record, I supported Bundy until he left his own ranch, also not happy he put people in a position to be gunned down without being able to defend themselves.
 
#22
I disagree with you. Its America. I hope some group realizes this has to be fought in the courts. Strutting around with an AR in camo isn't going to prove anything. The Bundys cherry pick parts of the Constitution like some evangelist preacher cherrypicks scripture. I believe in the Constitution its the supreme law of the land. It supersedes all state law. Out west is no comparison to the piddly tracts of public land back east. We have to abide by the law until it is changed. We don't get to pick and choose which laws we follow. Don't work that way. If you don't like the law change it. I work with people everyday out here that are fantastic stewards of the land. They pay their grazing fees to the gov. They own hundreds of thousands of acres of "shitty desert"not just a 160 like Bundy does. Around here a 160 is a feedlot.They work with the feds. They pay taxes and provide jobs.

I maintain as does the SCOTUS and the state of Nevada that the Property Clause allows the feds own land.

For the record, anyone that uses women and children as human shields are fucking cowards. Even after they had guns pointed at them, the feds held their fire. Try that anywhere else with a cop and see what happens.

 
#23
You state above numerous times you do not believe in the Constitution. Your argument about huge tracts of land with no one there is really a circular argument because no one can move there as the feds illegally control that land, if you gave the land back to the states you would have people there so don't brag on how huge the land is, I rode all of it numerous times on road and off road, all the way to Alaska, your pissant state is nothing compared to Ak. so get off your large tracts of land high horse, it has no bearing on this discussion.The feds use women and children as shields all the time and they have no problem shooting kids and women, hell they even burn them to death en mass.You are right though, the Constitution supersedes all state law, but you fail to realize it supersedes any Unconstitutional Federal law the same way. And Unconstitutional law is not a law at all. You have a slavish mentality that puts all our liberty at risk. Again with the grazing, the feds should not be involved at all. I don't care what Scotus says, they are democrats and republicans in Robes, the Constitution does not really need a lot of interpreting for a person of average intelligence, that was by design. I find that when they start interpreting things that are pretty plain they are up to no good and issue rulings that favor government power not delegated in our Constitution. The SCOTUS has long ago lost any credibility in ruling under the Constitution, they let Obamacare pass through as a tax in stead of ruling against it as compelling economic activity which is akin to slavery. Again you are envious of the Bundys and disdain people who love the Constitution, you would burn that document just to get a little pleasure at seeing the Bundys suffer, I bet you cheered when Randy Weavers Old lady and son were shot down and when the FBI attacked the Waco compound the first and second time, lord knows we cant have citizens cherry picking their rights.

My view on the Bundys is that the Sheriff of his country should have handled everything, same with Waco, and Ruby Ridge, the locals handle this stuff better that the jack booted thugs.
 
Last edited:
#24
ArmyJerry said:
You state above numerous times you do not believe in the Constitution. I believe in the Constitution just not the Bundys interpretation of it. Your argument about huge tracts of land with no one there is really a circular argument because no one can move there as the feds illegally control that land, if you gave the land back to the states you would have people there so don't brag on how huge the land is If I wanted to live with a bunch of people I would move back east., I rode all of it numerous times on road and off road, all the way to Alaska, your pissant state is nothing compared to Ak. so get off your large tracts of land high horse, it has no bearing on this discussion.The feds use women and children as shields all the time and they have no problem shooting kids and women ​​​​​​​Like I said people who who use women and children as shields are cowards doesn't matter who they are, hell they even burn them to death en mass.You are right though, the Constitution supersedes all state law, but you fail to realize it supersedes any Unconstitutional Federal law the same way. And Unconstitutional law is not a law at all. You have a slavish mentality that puts all our liberty at risk. Again with the grazing, the feds should not be involved at all.The Ranchers solicited congress to deal with the grazing problem out west. Congress wouldn't have done shit if they had not pressured them.I don't care what Scotus says, they are democrats and republicans in Robes, the Constitution does not really need a lot of interpreting for a person of average intelligence, that was by design. I find that when they start interpreting things that are pretty plain they are up to no good and issue rulings that favor government power not delegated in our Constitution. The SCOTUS has long ago lost any credibility in ruling under the Constitution, they let Obamacare pass through as a tax in stead of ruling against it as compelling economic activity which is akin to slavery.I agree Again you are envious of the Bundys and disdain people who love the Constitution, you would burn that document just to get a little pleasure at seeing the Bundys suffer , I bet you cheered when Randy Weavers Old lady and son were shot down and when the FBI attacked the Waco compound the first and second time, lord knows we cant have citizens cherry picking their rights. Now you are being a dick. I took an Oath to defend the Constitution. Randy Weavers deal was over a shotgun barrel that was 2 inches too short. All gun laws in my opinion are unconstitutional just don't agree with you on certain points.

My view on the Bundys is that the Sheriff of his country should have handled everything, same with Waco, and Ruby Ridge, the locals handle this stuff better that the jack booted thugs. ​​​​​​​I agree with you but in the case of the Bundys the Sheriff would not deal with it. The Sheriff would not intervene. I hear the new Sheriff has a different opinion.
Click to expand...

Last but not least. I believe we need a constitutional convention in this country. Our rights are being eroded and the states need to reaffirm themselves. The peoples voices in rural America are not being heard. Things like this need to be addressed win lose or draw I'm willing to role the dice with a Constitutional convention. The fear is a runaway convention. Well if that happens we can have a revolution and get it over with.

Jerry, you are an asshole. I know this because I am an asshole. Being an asshole is not an easy job as you very well know. I wish I was setting with you in an exclusive establishment and Tiffany was serving us single malt wearing that little outfit the she wears. We would have a helluva talk over a Montecristo White. I'm glad we live in a country where we can have differing opinions. God bless you sir and your family. May you have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

To recap, I am right and you are wrong.













 
#25
CON CON would likely be the end of our Republic. We would likely end up with a democracy,East and West coasts controlling the middle. A dozen cities controlling the entire country. The thought of Chicago for instance decreeing how folks in several western states live is utterly repugnant.
 
#27
We need to put down those that profess to act under the guise of law while knowing they are acting in an unlawful/unconstitutional manner.Progressivism in our country is only 100 years old. It can be nipped in the bud through the means given us by our founders, violence or voting. We should invoke article 5 first, convention of the states, then put down with violence any actors that show themselves to willing to undermine the Constitution, private individual or extra constitutional government organizations (most of the fed government). Article 5 is the key, there is no constitutional mechanism to turn us into a democracy, that is a false flag thrown out there by swampian basterds.

I am an asshole and unbudgeable when it comes to this subject, I am not a sunshine patriot or a summer soldier. I truly do want to live long enough to see the Collapse of DC, the whole goddam swamp. I think its at 50% that will happen. DC is the biggest danger our country faces today, and probably ever faced. Never liked the swamp but with the latest revelations on the surveilling and the FBI, NSA, DNC, SWAMP and RNC Cabal aligned against a duly elected president, I see danger and opportunity at the same time


DuneBoer said:
Last but not least. I believe we need a constitutional convention in this country. Our rights are being eroded and the states need to reaffirm themselves. The peoples voices in rural America are not being heard. Things like this need to be addressed win lose or draw I'm willing to role the dice with a Constitutional convention. The fear is a runaway convention. Well if that happens we can have a revolution and get it over with.



Jerry, you are an asshole. I know this because I am an asshole. Being an asshole is not an easy job as you very well know. I wish I was setting with you in an exclusive establishment and Tiffany was serving us single malt wearing that little outfit the she wears. We would have a helluva talk over a Montecristo White. I'm glad we live in a country where we can have differing opinions. God bless you sir and your family. May you have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

To recap, I am right and you are wrong.
Click to expand...

 
#28
cav has been said:
CON CON would likely be the end of our Republic. We would likely end up with a democracy,East and West coasts controlling the middle. A dozen cities controlling the entire country. The thought of Chicago for instance decreeing how folks in several western states live is utterly repugnant.
Click to expand...

Then, we could just have our second revolution. Mob rule democracy is enough to make me puke too. My state is run by three counties or one area code.
 
#29
I am not so eager to bear arms against fellow citizens even though I despise what they are trying to do. That in my opinion is the last act. I doubt that the foreign countries that despise us, despise our freedoms, despise the way we live would stand idly by and watch us settle our differences internally. Too much to gain by stepping in and laying waste to the remnants. A lose lose deal in my never humble opinion.
We only have one area code...... CRAP I've been oppressed, someone stole my birthright, I need redemption....or beer
 
#34
ArmyJerry said:
Our government is an absolute danger to us and our fellow citizens. Poor dude gets killed by criminal government agents. sad.
Click to expand...

I assume you are talking about Levoy Finicum? He got EXACTLTY what he wanted. Suicide by cop. "Criminal Gov Agent"s Really? Have you seen the video of the suicide?

To recap. The Oregon Police shot Levoy with a 40 after he failed to follow commands in executing an arrest warrant. Levoy was armed with a pistol and repeatedly reached into his pocket where the weapon was. The case was investigated by Deschutes County DA's office. Not the local SO not the FBI. The DC DA uncovered what the FBI did. The Amateur Hour EEO snipers who couldn't make a head shot at 80 meters. Fucking jokes that they are. Of course the mighty FBI Snipers LIED about it when they were asked if they fired their weapon. Fuck them prosecute them send them up the river. Bottom line OSP took care of business while the FBI was making noise and not hitting shit. Simple. Suicide by cop. Watch the video.
 
#35
#36
looks like an execution to me, suicide by cop my ass, this is a set up execution.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEswP_HSFV4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6xD9Ssa7hI​​​​​​​


DuneBoer said:
I assume you are talking about Levoy Finicum? He got EXACTLTY what he wanted. Suicide by cop. "Criminal Gov Agent"s Really? Have you seen the video of the suicide?

To recap. The Oregon Police shot Levoy with a 40 after he failed to follow commands in executing an arrest warrant. Levoy was armed with a pistol and repeatedly reached into his pocket where the weapon was. The case was investigated by Deschutes County DA's office. Not the local SO not the FBI. The DC DA uncovered what the FBI did. The Amateur Hour EEO snipers who couldn't make a head shot at 80 meters. Fucking jokes that they are. Of course the mighty FBI Snipers LIED about it when they were asked if they fired their weapon. Fuck them prosecute them send them up the river. Bottom line OSP took care of business while the FBI was making noise and not hitting shit. Simple. Suicide by cop. Watch the video.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#37
If Levoy was a black kid I’m sure you would think it was ok.

Rule of law. Legal warrant. Reached for his weapon multiple times. Levoy got what he wanted. I doubt you would react that way if you were in that situation. But, who knows.
 
#38
Reached for his weapon after they were shooting at him while he was driving down the road,, too bad he didn't keep driving. The new method for serving warrant, shoot the suspect dead then hand him the warrant, you are a pos. What the fuk does a black kid have to do with this police murder? You are one simple minded POS.
 
#39
He drove away after he was given lawful orders. He tried to run a roadblock and almost ran over an officer. Please don’t call me names. It’s hurtful. You know it would be completely palatable to your simian brain if Levoy was a negro boy.
 
#40
you mean as they were shooting at him, they were firing at him as he drove up on the police, he should have kept going, why would he stop when they are firing on him. a set up murder, by intent or not that is how it played out. the cops murdered this guy,
 
#46
DuneBoer - if a person has their hands up to show they are not a threat, and a Cop wants to shoot at their feet to make them dance, they don’t get to use the excuse that the ‘perp’ dropped his hands while dancing when they execute him.

No different here. The shots were fired to produce a result.


ETA - I am not a supporter of Finnicum. I am a supporter of Law (not the rule of man) and Law Enforcement in pursuit of Due Process. What happened that day did not appear to resemble the best practices of Law Enforcement in pursuit of Due Process.

At the point of the vehicle stop Finnicum seemed to be emotionally driven - to the point of recklessness. However, the process and those in charge of the process would seem to have been driven by things other than ‘Law Enforcement’ / Due Process. The tone was set at the point of the initial vehicle stop when Ryan Payne put his hands out the window, and someone in LE fired a round into the passenger side mirror - alea jacta est. What possible reason / justification was there to fire a round? Setting up a ‘road block’ on the apex of a corner? The road bock should have been set at the end of long straight stretch. Setting up on the apex looked more like an ambush point. Note too, as he is rounding the curve, LE is firing on him - b/c he is not stopping - b/c they set up on the apex (circular reasoning that produces a predictable outcome - its a feature, not a flaw). Now, you have an emotionally charged Finnicum who has just driven into the bank (avoiding hitting any LE), rounds coming into the vehicle, Finnicum exiting with his hand up, and yet screaming 'shoot me'. It was a shit show all the way around. However the process sure seems to have contributed to the outcome. It is arguable that those in charge of the process either understood this, or should have understood this, and if they truly didn’t - they were’n't the folks that should have been running the show.

And as Forest Gump would say, that’s all I have to say about that.
 
Last edited:
#47
This is not necessarily a done deal. The prosecution can appeal, but its chances are very small. This is certainly a black eye on the prosecution, but it is a common Brady occurrence

On a perhaps more interesting note is the fate of Finicum. We often caution that not all the facts are in (and we often quickly judge) and the prosecution of one W. Joseph Astarita presents a rare instance of careful crime scene dissection before the public eye. We should watch this one for a few reasons, not the least of which is that things are not always what they seem... whether you are on the Pro Finicum, or Kill Finicum side it is unlikely that you know exactly what happened on scene. We will have a pretty good picture when this is all over.


http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-sta...nt_3d_ani.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Death From A Distance
FBI Arrests Wisconsin Judge, Alleging She Obstructed Arrest Of Illegal Alien
Replies
56
Views
2K
Darryle
Darryle
PatMiles
Ban on Guns in Post Offices Is Unconstitutional, US Judge Rules
Replies
20
Views
1K
Gunfighter14e2
Gunfighter14e2
jff_stvns
Busted ! 3 poachers inter the “ Found Out ‘’ phase.
Replies
15
Views
2K
Average guy
Average guy
Graywolf.260
Proud Boy
Replies
23
Views
2K
Jgunner
Jgunner
Maggot
The criminality of Ebay
Replies
24
Views
4K
Holliday
Holliday
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts