Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
The Bundys
Posted on August 29, 2016by David Robinson
https://mainerepublicemailalert.file...anna.png?w=640 Anna von Reitz
Many people have asked me what our Living Law Firm has done or is doing for the Bundys and others involved in the Oregon Wildlife Refuge Stand-Off.
.
Even I have wasted time and money writing letters and making phone calls and posting on Facebook to no avail—- and just like Thomas Deegan in West Virginia, you can’t help Stubborn and Wrong.
.
Just recently I have had word that one of the Bundys might be starting to listen, but only because they have run out of money to pay “real” attorneys.
.
Sigh.
.
The Bundys are being prosecuted under the false presumption that they are
“United States Citizens” or “citizens of the United States” when they are not.
.
United States Citizens have never been protected by the guarantees of The Constitution, so, as long as you agree that you are a United States Citizen— guess what? There’s no use arguing any “constitutional” defenses. And there is no use arguing that they are being wrongfully prosecuted, because as “United States Citizens” they are subject to every little jot of Federal Code and Statute. That includes “federated” State Statutes, too.
.
Now, have you ever seen a snake try to eat something grossly much bigger than itself so that the intended food gets stuck on its fangs? Unless some kind soul comes along and unlocks its jaws, the snake will thrash around and starve to death.
.
What should happen is that the Bundys and their friends should go into court and say, “Your Honor, there’s been a mistake here, and we made it. We were misinformed about several things. We were told that we had to sign up for Social Security, that it was mandated for us by our government—- and that turns out not to be the case. We were told we had to have Driver Licenses, too, and that turns out not to be true, either. We aren’t United States Citizens. We are United States Nationals so far as international affairs are concerned, and here at home we are what you call American State Nationals. We are sorry about the confusion.
.
Here’s the Social Security Cards we were given and the Driver Licenses, too. And here’s the Birth Certificate our parents were given as the insurance indemnity receipt guaranteeing the well-being and safety of our “cargo”. We were never told what it was until very recently. We thought it was just a record of us being born.”
.
All that should take about 30 seconds, cost virtually nothing, and requires only three documents.
.
“Now, your Honor, this has all been a big mistake— a case of mistaken identity. We must be set free and our losses made whole.”
.
Remember that old snake trying to eat the world? That’s the look on the judge’s face right about now. He and his cohorts have knowingly prosecuted their employers under false presumptions. Their court and the corporation they are working for are on the stick for it.
.
Unless they want to commit war crimes in open court—- crimes that carry the death penalty— they truly do need to do a double flip spin in the air, 180 degree flip-flop in front of God and the whole world— and release the Bundys and their friends and return all their losses, plus damages.
.
The Bundys and their friends actually are the Landlords who are owed the Wildlife Refuge and every other particle of land in the western states. The Federales are just employees, working under contract as property managers.
.
But as long as you put up with this crappola and let the Feds pretend that you are one of them and subject to their rules, you look like a small and tasty bite.
.
Let’s take this a little bit farther—
.
What if there was a man in your community who was known to be a murderer, a bully, and a thief? What if he was also so slick, so cunning, and so adept at pressuring people and buying them off and threatening them, that no matter what he does—- even murder in broad daylight— like Waco and Ruby Ridge
he continues to get away with it?
.
Okay, what if it isn’t a man? What if it is an organized crime syndicate, set up like the mafia, operating as a corporation? And what if that corporation is operating under color of law, pretending to be part of your legitimate government simply because they have a contract to provide “governmental services”?
.
Hmmm?
.
That’s what we’ve got here. That’s what we are dealing with.
.
The private, for-profit corporation literally calling itself the “GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES” —- this is no joke—-is listed on Dunn and Bradstreet. And under “GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES” you find numerous subsidiaries including the “BLM” and the “FBI”.
.
“NORTHERN TRUST” is listed as the owner/operator of the “IRS” and the “AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION”.
.
Now, you can go up against these groups of criminals with fists and pitchforks, or you can object to their criminality and liquidate them—-expose them for what they are and how they are operating, bring charges against them, and “pull their charters”. Suddenly, they have no funding, no way to pay for their mercenaries, and no way to harm anyone, unless their shadowy bosses have grit enough to go one on one with Clive Bundy.
.
And I really don’t think they do. That’s why they are hiding behind legal pretenses and false fronts in the first place. That’s why they are so scared of guns.
.
So what I am very broadly suggesting—-again—-to everyone concerned, is to take a bit of advice from George V, the British Monarch primarily responsible for this latest round of thuggery on our soil—–don’t get mad. Keep calm and get even.
.
If any of my readers have direct contacts with the Bundy Clan, or Thomas Deegan, or Schaeffer Cox, or others facing federal prosecution, please forward this blurb to their attention.
.
It’s a very simple, direct, and effective solution. It costs virtually nothing. It’s peaceful. Almost effortless. What more could you ask for?
.
And what do you have to lose?
.
If I am right, you get your freedom— freedom like you have never had before; you get your losses repaired, plus damages, which after what you’ve gone through would be very nice, indeed.
.
If I am wrong, well, there will be some British Subjects set up for the gallows of the new Nuremburg Tribunal, and you can hardly be worse off than you already are.
.
If you have already been tried and convicted “by mistake” submit the paperwork for a mis-trial hearing based on new information and challenge the court’s jurisdiction.
.
Please note that this will not work for people who legitimately are United States Citizens or “citizens of the United States”—– which includes federal civilian and military employees, African Americans, federal welfare recipients (Retirees— remember you are retired and those aren’t Social Security “Benefits” you are receiving if you paid in and were vested in the Social Security System.) or political asylum seekers or if you are knowingly and willingly operating a federal franchise corporation.
.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bigjon
The Bundys[FONT="]Posted on August 29, 2016by David Robinson[/FONT]
https://mainerepublicemailalert.file...anna.png?w=640 Anna von Reitz
Many people have asked me what our Living Law Firm has done or is doing for the Bundys and others involved in the Oregon Wildlife Refuge Stand-Off.
.
Even I have wasted time and money writing letters and making phone calls and posting on Facebook to no avail—- and just like Thomas Deegan in West Virginia, you can’t help Stubborn and Wrong.
.
Just recently I have had word that one of the Bundys might be starting to listen, but only because they have run out of money to pay “real” attorneys.
.
Sigh.
.
The Bundys are being prosecuted under the false presumption that they are
“United States Citizens” or “citizens of the United States” when they are not.
.
United States Citizens have never been protected by the guarantees of The Constitution, so, as long as you agree that you are a United States Citizen— guess what? There’s no use arguing any “constitutional” defenses. And there is no use arguing that they are being wrongfully prosecuted, because as “United States Citizens” they are subject to every little jot of Federal Code and Statute. That includes “federated” State Statutes, too.
.
Now, have you ever seen a snake try to eat something grossly much bigger than itself so that the intended food gets stuck on its fangs? Unless some kind soul comes along and unlocks its jaws, the snake will thrash around and starve to death.
.
What should happen is that the Bundys and their friends should go into court and say, “Your Honor, there’s been a mistake here, and we made it. We were misinformed about several things. We were told that we had to sign up for Social Security, that it was mandated for us by our government—- and that turns out not to be the case. We were told we had to have Driver Licenses, too, and that turns out not to be true, either. We aren’t United States Citizens. We are United States Nationals so far as international affairs are concerned, and here at home we are what you call American State Nationals. We are sorry about the confusion.
.
Here’s the Social Security Cards we were given and the Driver Licenses, too. And here’s the Birth Certificate our parents were given as the insurance indemnity receipt guaranteeing the well-being and safety of our “cargo”. We were never told what it was until very recently. We thought it was just a record of us being born.”
.
All that should take about 30 seconds, cost virtually nothing, and requires only three documents.
.
“Now, your Honor, this has all been a big mistake— a case of mistaken identity. We must be set free and our losses made whole.”
.
Remember that old snake trying to eat the world? That’s the look on the judge’s face right about now. He and his cohorts have knowingly prosecuted their employers under false presumptions. Their court and the corporation they are working for are on the stick for it.
.
Unless they want to commit war crimes in open court—- crimes that carry the death penalty— they truly do need to do a double flip spin in the air, 180 degree flip-flop in front of God and the whole world— and release the Bundys and their friends and return all their losses, plus damages.
.
The Bundys and their friends actually are the Landlords who are owed the Wildlife Refuge and every other particle of land in the western states. The Federales are just employees, working under contract as property managers.
.
But as long as you put up with this crappola and let the Feds pretend that you are one of them and subject to their rules, you look like a small and tasty bite.
.
Let’s take this a little bit farther—
.
What if there was a man in your community who was known to be a murderer, a bully, and a thief? What if he was also so slick, so cunning, and so adept at pressuring people and buying them off and threatening them, that no matter what he does—- even murder in broad daylight— like Waco and Ruby Ridge
he continues to get away with it?
.
Okay, what if it isn’t a man? What if it is an organized crime syndicate, set up like the mafia, operating as a corporation? And what if that corporation is operating under color of law, pretending to be part of your legitimate government simply because they have a contract to provide “governmental services”?
.
Hmmm?
.
That’s what we’ve got here. That’s what we are dealing with.
.
The private, for-profit corporation literally calling itself the “GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES” —- this is no joke—-is listed on Dunn and Bradstreet. And under “GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES” you find numerous subsidiaries including the “BLM” and the “FBI”.
.
“NORTHERN TRUST” is listed as the owner/operator of the “IRS” and the “AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION”.
.
Now, you can go up against these groups of criminals with fists and pitchforks, or you can object to their criminality and liquidate them—-expose them for what they are and how they are operating, bring charges against them, and “pull their charters”. Suddenly, they have no funding, no way to pay for their mercenaries, and no way to harm anyone, unless their shadowy bosses have grit enough to go one on one with Clive Bundy.
.
And I really don’t think they do. That’s why they are hiding behind legal pretenses and false fronts in the first place. That’s why they are so scared of guns.
.
So what I am very broadly suggesting—-again—-to everyone concerned, is to take a bit of advice from George V, the British Monarch primarily responsible for this latest round of thuggery on our soil—–don’t get mad. Keep calm and get even.
.
If any of my readers have direct contacts with the Bundy Clan, or Thomas Deegan, or Schaeffer Cox, or others facing federal prosecution, please forward this blurb to their attention.
.
It’s a very simple, direct, and effective solution. It costs virtually nothing. It’s peaceful. Almost effortless. What more could you ask for?
.
And what do you have to lose?
.
If I am right, you get your freedom— freedom like you have never had before; you get your losses repaired, plus damages, which after what you’ve gone through would be very nice, indeed.
.
If I am wrong, well, there will be some British Subjects set up for the gallows of the new Nuremburg Tribunal, and you can hardly be worse off than you already are.
.
If you have already been tried and convicted “by mistake” submit the paperwork for a mis-trial hearing based on new information and challenge the court’s jurisdiction.
.
Please note that this will not work for people who legitimately are United States Citizens or “citizens of the United States”—– which includes federal civilian and military employees, African Americans, federal welfare recipients (Retirees— remember you are retired and those aren’t Social Security “Benefits” you are receiving if you paid in and were vested in the Social Security System.) or political asylum seekers or if you are knowingly and willingly operating a federal franchise corporation.
.
Yeah right, this won't work, at all, ever!
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Burns Chronicles No 26 – Firearms (Not) Allowed
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...mouse-trap.jpg
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 29, 2016
What happens when one law says that you can and the other law says that you can’t? Well, let’s enter the world of Perplexity and see what we can find.
To begin, we have to look at Count II of the Superseding Indictment. In the Indictment, it reads like this:
(Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities)
(18 U.S.C. §§ 930(b) and 2)
On or about January 2, 2016, and continuing through February 12, 2016, in the District of Oregon, defendants
[lists names of Defendants], and aided and abetted by each other and by others known and unknown to the grand jury, did knowingly possess or cause to be present a firearm or dangerous weapon in a federal facility located at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and counseled, commanded, induced and procured the commission thereof, with the intent that the firearm or dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, to wit: 18 U.S.C. § 372, Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 930(b) and 2.
So, let’s put that into English, in simple terms, “On or about January 2, 2016, and continuing through February 12, 2016… [The Defendants] did knowingly possess or cause to be present a firearm or dangerous weapon in a federal facility located at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge… with the intent that the firearm or dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, to wit: 18 U.S.C. § 372.
The first cited statute, 18 US Code §930(b) reads:
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Did those who occupied the Refuge “intend” to shoot anybody; use firearms to force people to leave their duties (18 US Code §372); or, have any other intent than to protect themselves? They had no intention of robbing the place, they had no intention of damaging the facility (instead, they improved it), and, there was no one present for them to impede. This was discussed in a previous article, “Burns Chronicles No 14 – Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg?“. From all appearances, and absent any evidence to the contrary, their purpose in having firearms was solely one of self-defense (But more on that, later.). Civil Disobedience, and even Civil Defiance (See Resistance Has Begun), might put one at risk, but then that person has every right to defend himself against an overzealous attack by an overarching government. Absent a lawful warrant: not even the government is justified in shooting someone except in self-defense.
After all, we have about 41 days in which the government claims that something was done, though we are not sure what was done. But, before we get into what was, or was not, done, let’s look at the location, “in a federal facility”.
Then, let’s look at what 18 U.S.C. §§ 930(b) and 2 says. Now, understand that US Code is structured in an outline format, such as:
(a, b, c) (1, 2, 3) (A, B, C) (i, ii, iii)
There has to be a lower case letter before any subsequent subparagraph. As written, the “(2)” would be subordinate to the “(a)”. However, “930 (a)” has no subordinate. It is followed by “(b)”. Now, I don’t want to say that the US Attorneys are stupid, so I won’t. But, how can someone know what they are charged with when the citation doesn’t make sense?
Now, (b), (c), (f), and (h), have no subordinates (See bottom of the article), but (d) does, in fact, it has a (2), but those are exclusions (does not apply to-). Then, (e) is rather circular, but (e)(2) is exceptions to (e)(1).
However, (g) has a (2), which may be what just might have been intended, if the US Attorneys knew what they were doing. It says, “(g) As used in this section… The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2 1/2 inches in length.” Gee, did they mean “(g)”, and just forgot to say it?
Perhaps they wanted to, but did so rather poorly, to assure that the “or other dangerous weapon” was properly defined.
So, now that we have had to assume (You know what that is) what the (2) might have meant, we can go on to the primary element of the charge, which reads:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility(other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
Well, wait just a minute. It says that “whoever knowingly possess… in a federal facility”, but exempts, “as provided in subsection (d)”. So, let’s look at the pertinent portion of subsection (d):
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
Oh, I see. If I take a firearm or other dangerous weapon into a federal facility, so long as it is “incident to hunting or other lawful purposes”, then it is okay.
So, now that we think that we understand the law, after playing legal hopscotch, we can begin to look at what might be lawful, and what might not be lawful. To do so, we have to understand that those at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR) are probably more qualified to make that determination than some FBI geek in Portland. In fact, under the
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/w...ice-300x82.jpgauthority of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, MNWR published a brochure that is made available at the Refuge and other locations in the area. Now, here is what it says about firearms (not to mention “other dangerous weapons”, which it does not).
I can’t say much for the grammar, but we are concerned with intent. It says nothing about any federal regulations; it simply refers to “State regulations“. So, let’s look at what “State regulations” have to say about firearms.
To understand the Oregon statutes, we need to know the foundation. And, what better place to start than with the Preamble to that Constitution:
PREAMBLE
We the people of the State of Oregon to the end that Justice be established, order maintained, and liberty perpetuated, do ordain this Constitution. —
I do like that wording. “Liberty perpetuated” has a very nice ring to it. Now, onto the Bill of Rights, specifically, the right to bear arms:
Article I – Bill of Rights
Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.
It says that the people “have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State“. No problem, as with the Second Amendment, in a question of a distinction between militia and people. The right to self-defense and defense of the State is unquestionable.
So, now we go to the Statutes, particularly Chapter 166, but with the understanding that nothing need be granted, since the Constitution does that. Instead, we find only limitations. Though the Statutes address Concealed Carry, there is no reason to venture into that realm, as there is no mention of concealed, only possession, in the Indictment.
Chapter 166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.
(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void
Simplifying (2), we see clearly that “no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, restrict or prohibit the possession of firearms… Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void.” This is consistent with Section 27 of the Oregon Bill of Rights. Now, the statute does grant some specific authorities, such as in,
166.173 Authority of city or county to regulate possession of loaded firearms in public places. (1) A city or county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession of loaded firearms in public places as defined in ORS 161.015.
Note that what is allowed to be regulated is a loaded firearm, though Harney County has no such ordinance.
166.190 Pointing firearm at another; courts having jurisdiction over offense. Any person over the age of 12 years who, with or without malice, purposely points or aims any loaded or empty pistol, gun, revolver or other firearm, at or toward any other person within range of the firearm, except in self-defense, shall be fined upon conviction in any sum not less than $10 nor more than $500, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than 10 days nor more than six months, or both.
This, then, would be what amounts to no more than brandishing. You may not, without penalty, point a firearm at someone, “except in self-defense“. Now, that is the very reason that those who occupied the Refuge and set up means of assuring that they could, if necessary, respond, but only in self-defense.
166.220 Unlawful use of weapon. (1) A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if the person:
(a) Attempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapon as defined in ORS 161.015; or
(b) Intentionally discharges a firearm, blowgun, bow and arrow, crossbow or explosive device within the city limits of any city or within residential areas within urban growth boundaries at or in the direction of any person, building, structure or vehicle within the range of the weapon without having legal authority for such discharge.
(2) This section does not apply to:
(a) Police officers or military personnel in the lawful performance of their official duties;
(b) Persons lawfully defending life or property as provided in ORS 161.219;
Here, we see exception for “Persons lawfully defending life or property“. Once again, we see lawful authority to possess the weapons, as was the intention of the people that occupied, peacefully, the Refuge.
So, let’s recap what we have learned.
The federal government, in 18 US Code §930, says that firearms were in Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and were intended to be used in a crime, though no crime was committed, and the government is relying on their belief of the intentions of those who intended only to defend their lives. All of the acceptable under Oregon Revised Statutes, which the government deferred to in their brochure. Now, if the government didn’t mean what they said in the brochure, then it is nothing more than a trap in which to ensnare people, if the government really wants to ensnare someone.
But, if that is the case, then the dishonesty of the government is far more egregious than the actions of people that occupied the Refuge (I would suggest “Three Felonies a Day“, by Harvey Silverglate).
I know that the federal government believes that federal law trumps state law. This doesn’t account for the fact that often state law is contrary to federal law (See Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws), but states continue to pass such laws, as it is not contrary to the Constitution. So, if the federal government specifically acquiesces to state law, can they come back, later, and decide that it was okay for them to lie to people?
To me, having covered the misdeeds of government for over two decades, I am not surprised that they have done so. It is wrong for them to assert an undue and unconstitutional authority over both the people and the states. And, as more and more people realize this, the more likely we will see a positive change.
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1633
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Neuro
Yeah right, this won't work, at all, ever!
In very basic terms Dr. John Parks Trowbridge Jr. is saying the same thing, "you don't have jurisdition over state nationals within the Union States", in his Objection to denial of Due Process of Law and Demand the Court show Constitutional Authortiy to take jurisdiction and render orders, judgments and decrees. . .
Marriage licences, Drivers Licences, Social Security Cards fraudulently issued do not make one a US PERSON or US CITIZEN
Filed last September 14 and yet not answered. The difference is Dr. Trowbridge put the demand in a format acceptable by the court.
https://supremecourtcase.files.wordp...e-property.pdf
The prosecution's motion and order to vacate and sell the property of March 3, has has not been signed by the judge. In two weeks it will be a year and still no answer.
Dr. Trowbridge sued the judge in Texas state court to quiet title. The case against the judge was closed and a new case filed against the magistrate. The case was removed to the US District Court against the Magistrate Judge Giblin. 3:16-cv-00086 Trowbridge Jr. v Giblin
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/...e,_Jr_v_Giblin
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
crimethink
I have 100% sympathy for the cause of the Bundys and their allies. I just don't understand how they could be so naive to not know what they were facing. Probably a lingering belief in "government of, by, and for the people." Surely they knew what the Federal regime did to a mother holding her infant. It's a lesson for us all, to never give the Enemy any benefit of the doubt, or, think for a second that the regime gives an iota of a shit about what we think or say...or whether we live or die.
I would have advised Finnicum to expect an ambush (and act accordingly, either staying put or going in in a defensible manner), and I would have advised Clive Bundy to never fly again after what happened at his ranch.
These two audios two days before Lavoy was murdered may give you some insight in to their thinking and actions.
The Bundys and Lavoy Finicum weren't revolutionaries. They were trying to work through county sheriffs to protect the people of their counties from the Federal government.
In this first video Lavoy discusses what they were trying to do. The second video is a recording of a call after the first one about the seriousness of their situation and moving to another county with a constitutional sheriff.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
The Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury filed papers in the United States District Court 8/22/2016.
Will the Court Clerk put them on the docket? The past filings by these people have been ignored. This latest batch appears to have been written with much thought and research.
The affidavits of LaVoy Finicum reveal the mans character, his knowlege, determination, honor and difficulties with the feds. There are about 245 pages in that file, about 45 are LaVoy.
one of them contains affidavits from Chris Briels, Ammon Bundy, Lavoy Finicum (submitted on his behlaf), Shawna Cox and others.
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...to%20clerk.pdf
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...risdiction.pdf
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...%20release.pdf
(the motion to release contains several affidavits)
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...%20release.pdf
(includes Ammon Bundy's affidavit of Ryan Bundy's beating)
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tumbleweed
The Bundys and Lavoy Finicum weren't revolutionaries. They were trying to work through county sheriffs to protect the people of their counties from the Federal government.
Not thinking of themselves as revolutionaries was a mistake. When you directly challenge the unilateral "authority" and monopolistic lethal power of the Federal regime, you are engaging in "revolution." Perhaps "counter-revolution," but revolution nonetheless.
I concur that the elected County Sheriff should be the relevant county's chief peace officer for all purposes, but the Federal regime doesn't operate under authority, but merely on what power they have assumed. They claim power over all people in all states and subdivisions (counties), no matter what legal theory is offered contrary. They have the deadly force to back it up, too. To date, not a single county sheriff has effectively stood up to the Federal regime on a meaningful issue, either. Look at what the Bolsheviks in Washington are about to do to Joe Arpaio. It may eventually come to pass, but right now, it's suicide for a sheriff to oppose the Federal regime in anything but words.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
monty
Some people are totally clueless. The "justice system" is a club, and you people aren't part of it. (apology to George Carlin)
I suspect that the people filing these "documents" will soon be put in a cage by the Federal regime. "You can't do this, we have the authority of the Unified United States!" as they are dragged off.
"Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun."
-- Mao, and all allied Bolshevists (most of the Federal regime)
Act accordingly.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
crimethink
Some people are totally clueless. The "justice system" is a club, and you people aren't part of it. (apology to George Carlin)
I suspect that the people filing these "documents" will soon be put in a cage by the Federal regime. "You can't do this, we have the authority of the Unified United States!" as they are dragged off.
"Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun."
-- Mao, and all allied Bolshevists (most of the Federal regime)
Act accordingly.
I expect the Clerk will file the documents like she did the previous one, in the round file.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
crimethink
Not thinking of themselves as revolutionaries was a mistake. When you directly challenge the unilateral "authority" and monopolistic lethal power of the Federal regime, you are engaging in "revolution." Perhaps "counter-revolution," but revolution nonetheless.
I concur that the elected County Sheriff should be the relevant county's chief peace officer for all purposes, but the Federal regime doesn't operate under authority, but merely on what power they have assumed. They claim power over all people in all states and subdivisions (counties), no matter what legal theory is offered contrary. They have the deadly force to back it up, too. To date, not a single county sheriff has effectively stood up to the Federal regime on a meaningful issue, either. Look at what the Bolsheviks in Washington are about to do to Joe Arpaio. It may eventually come to pass, but right now, it's suicide for a sheriff to oppose the Federal regime in anything but words.
I agree and that is my reason for thinking they were naive. Resisting the Federal government gets you killed. Not resisting also gets you killed in the end just as it did in Ukraine when the land, livestock and tools were taken away from the white christian farmers.
I've urged people to read Miron Dolots book "Execution by Hunger" because history repeats and what happened there can and is happening here. It's a look in to the future for what's coming here for us at the hands of our Bolshevik Jew controlled government.
