Now for some good news! The FBI have finished processing the scene, and the Malheur refuge has once again been turned over to the control of the U.S Fish and wildlife service. Hopefully the cleanup won't take terribly long.
Malheur was scheduled to have some prescribed burns done in midwinter that it's now too late to complete due to those yahoos so some of their invasive weed cleanup and control has been set back a year.
When Oregon was granted statehood in 1859, it was the only state in the Union admitted with a constitution that forbade black people from living, working, or owning property there. It was illegal for black people even to move to the state until 1926.
Oregon was totes racist, but it's a rather interesting story about their immigration law. Unlike Washington or California which were initially settled mostly by young-ish single men, Oregon was settled from the outset by families looking to build farms and raise families. And a big swath of those settlers were poor Democratic whites from the south. So they were pursuing a chance at land ownership that didn't exist for them in the plantation economy back home. And their biggest fear was that white slaveowners would come over as well, buy up all the cheap land, and start establishing plantations. So when statehood came around they voted to enter the union as a free state. This wasn't out of any particular abolitionist sentiment, like I said the slavery-supporting Democrats were far more influential than the liberal elite northern Republicans in Oregon. But slavery was against Oregon settlers interests.
Before Oregon gets accepted as a free state the Dred Scott decision renders everything moot, now slaves are slaves everywhere and Oregon can't ban slavery. So when they become a state the first law they pass is one banning black immigration. There were already a couple of slaves in Oregon and a few free black settlers, and most of them stayed in Oregon, and other free blacks immigrated afterwards now and then to little notice. This isn't to say there wasn't still horrible racism, but kicking out free blacks was never the priority. While the law excluded blacks, the point of the law was to exclude slavery. And that in turn is why the law stayed on the books so long after the civil war - it had never really been enforced anyway, it had lost its purpose now and nobody really thought about it. Oregon hadn't really had much heavy industry during WWI so they weren't really affected by the first great migration either, few industrial jobs to pursue.
Kana on
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Has anybody been charged with anything over the fucking car bomb trap situation?
Because I'm still not over that. That's just so much holy shit.
Apparently there are a fresh round of arrests and indictments pending. It'll likely be a few weeks before we see those charges, but we will see those charges.
Now for some good news! The FBI have finished processing the scene, and the Malheur refuge has once again been turned over to the control of the U.S Fish and wildlife service. Hopefully the cleanup won't take terribly long.
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
TL:DR: They think this section about Washington D.C. prohibits the federal government from owning land.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
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
It creates what would come to be known as the Disteict of Columbia. Sovereign citizens interpret this to mean that it is the only land the federal government can own.
knitdan on
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
The argument is easy. It doesn't say anything about wildlife preserves or national parks. It just says forts and arsenals. Course if the government can't own land, basically everything west of the Mississippi is not actually American soil anymore. Which hey, it's the wild west again.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Oh and here's the thing that shows how silly they are
The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The Necessary and Proper Clause, aka the Whateva, I Do What I Want clause.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
The argument is easy. It doesn't say anything about wildlife preserves or national parks. It just says forts and arsenals. Course if the government can't own land, basically everything west of the Mississippi is not actually American soil anymore. Which hey, it's the wild west again.
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;
yallqaeda et al argue that 1) the district of columbia is the only land the constitution allows the federal government to own and 2) that a wildlife refuge does not constitute a 'needful building' and/or that the state did not consent to the federal gov. owning the land.
it's all bullshit; it would have come as a surprise to the founders themselves that the federal government was not allowed to own land, considering the amount it purchased while under their administration(s)
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Meanwhile, a crack legal team is assembling to defend the arrestees...
(tweets snipped)
How can they possibly fail?
This is how the law works, especially for the defense in cases like this - you throw up anything you can think of that might persuade in favor of your client, in the hope that something will stick.
I expect the defense firm to burn through all the money they were actually paid while trying to explain to their clients how the law actually works, including that no, they can't just recite a magic speech and walk out of the courtroom. If the running-out-of-money comes before the conviction, the lawyers will shrug and file a motion to withdraw (that is, to stop representing those clients). The cause was doomed, but they got paid to try.
in the broad sense their whole legal/constitutional theology stems from the view that the constitution is meant to be a strict/literal limiting document; i.e. the government can take only the actions specifically provided for therein, and everything else is thus unconstitutional. A wildlife refuge is obviously an overreach, because where in the constitution does it mention protecting birds? The necessary and proper clause is dismissed as redundancy, if not outright ignored
it's pure ignorance and betrays the lack of any attempt to actually engage with the history of the document; apparently the federal government should also be enjoined from building roads,
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The argument is easy. It doesn't say anything about wildlife preserves or national parks. It just says forts and arsenals. Course if the government can't own land, basically everything west of the Mississippi is not actually American soil anymore. Which hey, it's the wild west again.
I'm sure France, Spain, and Russia will be happy to have it back.
The argument is easy. It doesn't say anything about wildlife preserves or national parks. It just says forts and arsenals. Course if the government can't own land, basically everything west of the Mississippi is not actually American soil anymore. Which hey, it's the wild west again.
No see, they can buy it, they just can't own it.
Can they paint with all the colors of the wind?
No no no, it is immediately transferred to us, the American People.
We own it. Well, by we I mean me, because I have guns.
Meanwhile, a crack legal team is assembling to defend the arrestees...
(tweets snipped)
How can they possibly fail?
This is how the law works, especially for the defense in cases like this - you throw up anything you can think of that might persuade in favor of your client, in the hope that something will stick.
I expect the defense firm to burn through all the money they were actually paid while trying to explain to their clients how the law actually works, including that no, they can't just recite a magic speech and walk out of the courtroom. If the running-out-of-money comes before the conviction, the lawyers will shrug and file a motion to withdraw (that is, to stop representing those clients). The cause was doomed, but they got paid to try.
There is a line between a bad but still theoretically possible legal argument and an argument that has no basis in reality or legal possibility. Unsurprisingly, there are not many actual attorneys out there arguing sovereign citizen rhetoric before a court because that sort of thing will result in the lawyer being held in contempt or referred to the state bar for violation of the professional rules.
The Arnold Law Firm arguing sovereign citizen legal theories before a federal court is going to be a sight worth seeing.
DoctorArch on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
+6
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited February 2016
I mean, hell, you'd figure there'd be something in the constitution about property.
Some clause... about property.
A property...clause.. if you will.
Most of the Bundy Ranch faithful clam up when you bring up 4.3.2. The others go off on tangents about people being property so it's justification for military protection, others say it was only about slavery.
Now for some good news! The FBI have finished processing the scene, and the Malheur refuge has once again been turned over to the control of the U.S Fish and wildlife service. Hopefully the cleanup won't take terribly long.
Malheur was scheduled to have some prescribed burns done in midwinter that it's now too late to complete due to those yahoos so some of their invasive weed cleanup and control has been set back a year.
Maybe they can rent some goats for the weed cleanup?
Rollers are red, chargers are blue....omae wa mou shindeiru
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;
yallqaeda et al argue that 1) the district of columbia is the only land the constitution allows the federal government to own and 2) that a wildlife refuge does not constitute a 'needful building' and/or that the state did not consent to the federal gov. owning the land.
it's all bullshit; it would have come as a surprise to the founders themselves that the federal government was not allowed to own land, considering the amount it purchased while under their administration(s)
They also argue that it is about ownership rather than exclusive jurisdiction. Clause 17 is about exclusive jurisdiction rather than the right of the federal government to own property, which is why it focuses on high value or high security property that the federal government has good reason to not want to allow states jurisdiction over. The property clause gives Congress the authority to make and enforce rules under proprietary jurisdiction.
Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2
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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
They're pushing to be tried together, but that isn't likely to be allowed. The case is complicated enough as it is.
Today's purpose is very simple. An arraignment. The charges against each suspect will be formally read out, and then they'll be asked to enter a plea. Expect outrage, denial and general shenanigans.
I would expect that the lawyers will be able to keep control of most of the suspects, especially people like Ammon and Ryan who were able to afford a decent defence fund. People like Sean and Shawna Cox and David Fry... That'll be a bit crazier, I would imagine.
I would expect that the lawyers will be able to keep control of most of the suspects, especially people like Ammon and Ryan who were able to afford a decent defence fund. People like Sean and Shawna Cox and David Fry... That'll be a bit crazier, I would imagine.
I look forward to the tension the Bundys not wanting to share their defense fund with the rest may cause.
Somebody repost that video of Dale Gribble using the admiralty court defense.
1. Who? Are you thinking, perhaps, of Rusty Shackelford?
2. Everyone knows there's an even better defense.
Aioua on
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
+11
Options
RobonunIt's all fun and games until someone pisses off ChinaRegistered Userregular
What's the over/under on how many of those arraignments they'll get through before the judge has to clear the court of nutballs?
No cameras or mobile phones are allowed in the courtroom, so everything that happens we will hear about second hand. That's good, as it'll avoid a total circus.
*edit* Oh, here we go! Seems like it all went off relatively quietly!
All defendants entered a "Not Guilty" plea except for Ken Mendenbach. He was the one who took the government vehicle to a Safeway and was arrested "getting supplies" Ken said he was going to represent himself. An an arraignment, judges don't really care about something like that at the moment, they just need a plea. The judge put in a plea of Not Guilty on his behalf.
There is a joke in lawyer circles that that Pro Se is Latin for "Guilty"
Posts
Malheur was scheduled to have some prescribed burns done in midwinter that it's now too late to complete due to those yahoos so some of their invasive weed cleanup and control has been set back a year.
Oregon was totes racist, but it's a rather interesting story about their immigration law. Unlike Washington or California which were initially settled mostly by young-ish single men, Oregon was settled from the outset by families looking to build farms and raise families. And a big swath of those settlers were poor Democratic whites from the south. So they were pursuing a chance at land ownership that didn't exist for them in the plantation economy back home. And their biggest fear was that white slaveowners would come over as well, buy up all the cheap land, and start establishing plantations. So when statehood came around they voted to enter the union as a free state. This wasn't out of any particular abolitionist sentiment, like I said the slavery-supporting Democrats were far more influential than the liberal elite northern Republicans in Oregon. But slavery was against Oregon settlers interests.
Before Oregon gets accepted as a free state the Dred Scott decision renders everything moot, now slaves are slaves everywhere and Oregon can't ban slavery. So when they become a state the first law they pass is one banning black immigration. There were already a couple of slaves in Oregon and a few free black settlers, and most of them stayed in Oregon, and other free blacks immigrated afterwards now and then to little notice. This isn't to say there wasn't still horrible racism, but kicking out free blacks was never the priority. While the law excluded blacks, the point of the law was to exclude slavery. And that in turn is why the law stayed on the books so long after the civil war - it had never really been enforced anyway, it had lost its purpose now and nobody really thought about it. Oregon hadn't really had much heavy industry during WWI so they weren't really affected by the first great migration either, few industrial jobs to pursue.
Every time I read Ammon I think of
Or maybe "Something utterly unrelated to what these chucklefucks think it says."
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
It creates what would come to be known as the Disteict of Columbia. Sovereign citizens interpret this to mean that it is the only land the federal government can own.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
The Necessary and Proper Clause, aka the Whateva, I Do What I Want clause.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
No see, they can buy it, they just can't own it.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
yallqaeda et al argue that 1) the district of columbia is the only land the constitution allows the federal government to own and 2) that a wildlife refuge does not constitute a 'needful building' and/or that the state did not consent to the federal gov. owning the land.
it's all bullshit; it would have come as a surprise to the founders themselves that the federal government was not allowed to own land, considering the amount it purchased while under their administration(s)
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
This is how the law works, especially for the defense in cases like this - you throw up anything you can think of that might persuade in favor of your client, in the hope that something will stick.
I expect the defense firm to burn through all the money they were actually paid while trying to explain to their clients how the law actually works, including that no, they can't just recite a magic speech and walk out of the courtroom. If the running-out-of-money comes before the conviction, the lawyers will shrug and file a motion to withdraw (that is, to stop representing those clients). The cause was doomed, but they got paid to try.
it's pure ignorance and betrays the lack of any attempt to actually engage with the history of the document; apparently the federal government should also be enjoined from building roads,
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm sure France, Spain, and Russia will be happy to have it back.
Can they paint with all the colors of the wind?
No no no, it is immediately transferred to us, the American People.
We own it. Well, by we I mean me, because I have guns.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
There is a line between a bad but still theoretically possible legal argument and an argument that has no basis in reality or legal possibility. Unsurprisingly, there are not many actual attorneys out there arguing sovereign citizen rhetoric before a court because that sort of thing will result in the lawyer being held in contempt or referred to the state bar for violation of the professional rules.
The Arnold Law Firm arguing sovereign citizen legal theories before a federal court is going to be a sight worth seeing.
Some clause... about property.
A property...clause.. if you will.
They also argue that it is about ownership rather than exclusive jurisdiction. Clause 17 is about exclusive jurisdiction rather than the right of the federal government to own property, which is why it focuses on high value or high security property that the federal government has good reason to not want to allow states jurisdiction over. The property clause gives Congress the authority to make and enforce rules under proprietary jurisdiction.
Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2
Today's purpose is very simple. An arraignment. The charges against each suspect will be formally read out, and then they'll be asked to enter a plea. Expect outrage, denial and general shenanigans.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
I look forward to the tension the Bundys not wanting to share their defense fund with the rest may cause.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
1. Who? Are you thinking, perhaps, of Rusty Shackelford?
2. Everyone knows there's an even better defense.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Nutballs? Nobody told me there'd be snacks.
There weren't any snacks! Which is why the occupation crumbled! Too much low blood sugar.
*edit* Oh, here we go! Seems like it all went off relatively quietly!
That's not a religious song.
It's from Pitch Perfect 2.
...okay.
There is a joke in lawyer circles that that Pro Se is Latin for "Guilty"
pleasepaypreacher.net