|
Skinty McEdger posted:Honestly anything that destroys the Sov Cit's belief in magic words is cool to me. Whether it be thinking that if you say "peaceful" enough times that the law will ignore that you're all open carrying and talking about shooting government officials, thinking that if you shout "I do not consent" enough times that you'll be allowed to commit crimes, that "traveling" makes you immune to the laws of the road or in this case "reporter" means that you can be absolved of all active crimes you're involved in. MacNab did a piece on it and the rabbit hole goes way deeper than that, I can't readily imagine what my reaction would be if an incoherent lunatic waddled into my office and dumped a stack of blood-smeared poorly capitalized legal documents on my desk. Even if the stamps were properly endorsed at a 45 degree angle.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
ChlamydiaJones posted:That SovCit judge Douchette has some AMAZING friends on FB; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiSNkIaJi_U&t=3s
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
A "justice" fetish
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
many johnnys posted:A "justice" fetish I heard about a guy once who was a jurisprudence fetishist. He got off on a technicality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
CroatianAlzheimers posted:I heard about a guy once who was a jurisprudence fetishist. He got off on a technicality. Haha I'm gonna use that one
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:MacNab did a piece on it and the rabbit hole goes way deeper than that, I can't readily imagine what my reaction would be if an incoherent lunatic waddled into my office and dumped a stack of blood-smeared poorly capitalized legal documents on my desk. Even if the stamps were properly endorsed at a 45 degree angle. the language is so flowery, I half expect it to end with "Beware my power, green lantern's light!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Someone asked what happened to the one black dude: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/02/former_malheur_refuge_occupier.html#incart_big-photo Stealing land with a stolen gun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The ACLU isn't wrong because Santili is a scumbag, defending the constitutional rights of "undesirables" is important and admirable. With the rise in untrained citizen journalism, it's important to have it written down in black and white exactly where the line between journalism and conspiracy is. Pete Santilli was on the refuge, yes, but so were other reporters. He believed the occupiers were in the right, as any journalist will about their subjects at some point in their career. He said as much on air, but you'd be hard pressed to find a reputable newspaper without and opinion section. He shared his ideas with the occupiers, which might be shoddy journalism but no-one said he had to be competent. All this does not change the truth, that Santilli was in it up to his wrist with his other hand on his cock. With a charge as nebulous as conspiracy, however, it is very important to know when a set of arguably legal actions becomes a crime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:MacNab did a piece on it and the rabbit hole goes way deeper than that, I can't readily imagine what my reaction would be if an incoherent lunatic waddled into my office and dumped a stack of blood-smeared poorly capitalized legal documents on my desk. Even if the stamps were properly endorsed at a 45 degree angle. I am somewhat ashamed to understand most of that, but I do have some questions. Is "The Continental uNited States of America" a typo or is there meaning to it? Same with "eStates" What's with "the SEE (SEA)"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Murderion posted:With the rise in untrained citizen journalism, it's important to have it written down in black and white exactly where the line between journalism and conspiracy is. Pete Santilli was on the refuge, yes, but so were other reporters. He believed the occupiers were in the right, as any journalist will about their subjects at some point in their career. He said as much on air, but you'd be hard pressed to find a reputable newspaper without and opinion section. He shared his ideas with the occupiers, which might be shoddy journalism but no-one said he had to be competent. Well yelling at counter-protesters and leading groups of people to confront the FBI and other law enforcement is active participation. Whether it counts as being part of the occupation of the refuge is a little hazy but at the very least he wasn't a passive observer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Well yelling at counter-protesters and leading groups of people to confront the FBI and other law enforcement is active participation. Whether it counts as being part of the occupation of the refuge is a little hazy but at the very least he wasn't a passive observer. I think the idea is that the ACLU going to bat with him will set precedent for what he did that was over the line, and what wasn't. Obviously, yelling at federal agents to shoot him was over the line. Also obviously, simply having conversations with those on the Bundy Ranch wasn't. The question is what in the in-between spaces was a crime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Santilli was also doing things like calling dispatch to ask for a Constitutional Sheriff to protect him while he "negotiated with" the FBI. I'm not sure how often journalists do that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:58
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I think the idea is that the ACLU going to bat with him will set precedent for what he did that was over the line, and what wasn't. Obviously, yelling at federal agents to shoot him was over the line. Also obviously, simply having conversations with those on the Bundy Ranch wasn't. And the way to look at it is the ACLU isn't so much going to bat for him as they are for other journalists who might find themselves in the grey zones in the future.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
It's fine that the ACLU wants to get a standard set but they have to know that if they were to somehow win then the next militia incident would just have a lot more "reporters" taking part and using the defense that they're preparing for Pete. Though they might simply tell him "hey you hosed up and got caught up in the moment, so take a plea deal if you're smart."CroatianAlzheimers posted:I heard about a guy once who was a jurisprudence fetishist. He got off on a technicality. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
I look forward to the day a YouTube channel and GoPro immunize criminal conduct. Gonna start a YouTube channel about corrupt banks and then go occupy a bank vault. Just citizen journalism here -HEY. No, just take the cash, we can't carry the gold, JUST THE CASH, put it in a loving BAG - this is an important event Im just here to cover it in ways the mainstream media won't. Btw, just because I'm wearing this ski mask you can not make any inferences whatsoever about whether I am a participant. It's just clothing, it has nothing to do with my conduct.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
The reason the aclu is involved is that they are afraid that the courts will establish some overly restrictive rule on citizen journalists. I'm not sure they care much about whether santelli is convicted, but working on his side is the only way they can contribute to the case in a meaningful way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted:My guess is that line was right after the Bundys got arrested, and he's on camera calling the the rest of the people at the refuge and giving them advice on who to put in charge and what to do. Oh, I'm pretty sure it was long before that with his instigating, organizing, and taking part in multiple "displays" along with the whole kidnapping thing There's a really big difference between, say, press landing on D-Day and filming the advance vs Santilli's actions which would be that press man dropping his camera and picking up a rifle SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Yeah, despite the fact that the Fox Newsites hate them, the ACLU is not a liberal organization. They're devoted to protecting the first amendment, no matter what side of the political spectrum they come from. That means that occasionally they're going to do something that you don't agree with, politically. As far as I'm concerned, good. That's their job. The first amendment is probably the most important and most radically noble part of the constitution, and it should be given a very wide berth and defended vigorously. We need both dissent and ridicule to function as a free society, it's vital.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:I like that Utah lets me do a straight party vote on the election machine. It makes throwing my vote away in Davis County that much easier. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Here are some words from a III%erquote:John Carter thanks Fox News.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:I could do this but I like punching every button/hole and putting some effort into throwing my vote away Much better to write in candidates Dickbutt for prez 2016
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Go back to Mars if you hate America so much John Carter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:I am somewhat ashamed to understand most of that, but I do have some questions. According to MacNab, it's intentional. Apparently since the Holy Constitution had United with a lowercase letter, the states are all independent nations that just happen to work together. Keeping the word capitalized that way lets them acknowledge this "fact". I assume that the SEE refers to the admarality courts denoted by the gold fringe on flags and that eStates has to do with one of their banking conspiracy or something. So it's all the crazy Sov Cit spells they could think of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Also they believe that if they write certain words correctly then it means that they are engaging in a contract. So lots of words get mispelt on purpose or inappropriate capitalisation. It's Sov Citz Magik.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Much better to write in candidates
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
ChlamydiaJones posted:Here are some words from a III%er He's not wrong about special interests having a shitload of power over governments, especially state governments. See: Coal in WV, Art Pope in South(?) Carolina, pro sports gouging cities for new stadiums...etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Murderion posted:With the rise in untrained citizen journalism, it's important to have it written down in black and white exactly where the line between journalism and conspiracy is. Pete Santilli was on the refuge, yes, but so were other reporters. He believed the occupiers were in the right, as any journalist will about their subjects at some point in their career. He said as much on air, but you'd be hard pressed to find a reputable newspaper without and opinion section. He shared his ideas with the occupiers, which might be shoddy journalism but no-one said he had to be competent. That's not how precedent works, unless they're hoping for some friendly dicta establishing a more restrictive rule when they loss (which is ethically questionable). They're actually risking damaging the first amendment for picking such a god awful test case. If this was really what they were concerned about they'd wait for a case that had merit to set precedent by winning. ashpanash posted:Yeah, despite the fact that the Fox Newsites hate them, the ACLU is not a liberal organization. They're devoted to protecting the first amendment, no matter what side of the political spectrum they come from. That means that occasionally they're going to do something that you don't agree with, politically. Holy poo poo why is this concept so loving hard, no one is claiming the ACLU shouldn't intervene because Santili is a bad man. The ACLU shouldn't intervene because their case has zero merit, they are wrong because what they are claiming is literally just that: loving wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:He's not wrong about special interests having a shitload of power over governments, especially state governments. See: Coal in WV, Art Pope in South(?) Carolina, pro sports gouging cities for new stadiums...etc. Yeah, but you know full well that those aren't the "special interests" that this dude is mad about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It's fine that the ACLU wants to get a standard set but they have to know that if they were to somehow win then the next militia incident would just have a lot more "reporters" taking part and using the defense that they're preparing for Pete. Though they might simply tell him "hey you hosed up and got caught up in the moment, so take a plea deal if you're smart." I'm pretty sure that Santilli is to proud (re:dumb) to plead out, and the government has an extraordinarily good case against him so the chances of him and the ACLU winning are minuscule. The thing to remember is that turning parts of his case into a first amendment issue because he claimed he was a journalist is actually a good thing, and one that does actually need to happen with the decline of professional journalists that actually have standards and know what lines not to cross and the rise of citizen journalists that have zero standards and zero training (especially with loving wind screens) for future cases, like the next time a Ferguson happens it would be super easy to point at the results of the Santilli case to prove that the cops were violating peoples civil libierties should those people with cell phones get detained or even charged with anything. Jarmak posted:That's not how precedent works, unless they're hoping for some friendly dicta establishing a more restrictive rule when they loss (which is ethically questionable). They're actually risking damaging the first amendment for picking such a god awful test case. Kind of disagree with you on this. Most judges will rule on the side of the first amendment (and if they don't SCOTUS, even the Roberts court will), and they have a poo poo load of room to clearly define what is and what isn't acceptable the next time someone pulls the "I'm just a journalist" card even if the ACLU does go down hard (which they will). A Winner is Jew fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:I'm pretty sure that Santilli is to proud (re:dumb) to plead out, and the government has an extraordinarily good case against him so the chances of him and the ACLU winning are minuscule. The thing to remember is that turning parts of his case into a first amendment issue because he claimed he was a journalist is actually a good thing, and one that does actually need to happen with the decline of professional journalists that actually have standards and know what lines not to cross and the rise of citizen journalists that have zero standards and zero training (especially with loving wind screens) for future cases, like the next time a Ferguson happens it would be super easy to point at the results of the Santilli case to prove that the cops were violating peoples civil libierties should those people with cell phones get detained or even charged with anything. Only if Santili wins Trying a case because you want to lose in a certain way sounds highly unethical Edit: like everyone involved should be disbarred unethical Jarmak fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's not how precedent works, unless they're hoping for some friendly dicta establishing a more restrictive rule when they loss (which is ethically questionable). They're actually risking damaging the first amendment for picking such a god awful test case. That's the real head-scratcher. Bad facts make bad law is a saying for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:I am somewhat ashamed to understand most of that, but I do have some questions. I can't decode it for you, but all of their cargo cult-y pseudo-lawspeak has a purpose. Usually you can assume that they're trying to separate what they think of as actual things from legal fictions. The psychology of it all is pretty fascinating and very, very comparable to the activities of cargo cults in Polynesia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It's fine that the ACLU wants to get a standard set but they have to know that if they were to somehow win then the next militia incident would just have a lot more "reporters" taking part and using the defense that they're preparing for Pete. Though they might simply tell him "hey you hosed up and got caught up in the moment, so take a plea deal if you're smart." If they were to somehow win, then it would be because what Pete is doing is legal. Given the FBI's track record, they'll be able to pin down exactly why he is screwed. Jarmak posted:Only if Santili wins They're not playing team sports, they're seeing a possible first amendment issue and rushing to defend it, as they feel it is worth defending. They are going to do their best. And you think this is unethical? Pete has been claiming that he was just a journalist since before the ACLU got involved, the fact that they are going to lose this case isn't any different than if some other chucklefuck ran with that defense. many johnnys fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Its kind of weird that they're defending his first amendment right to instantly declare himself a reporter and/ or second amendment right to bear arms with the intent to go against the government when that action is willingly depriving the people of Burns their ability to life, liberty and property/happiness, but sure, I'd like to watch them fail spectacularly in helping Peter get off the hook. And hopefully that won't bite the entire ACLU in the rear end when, if they fail to get any of them out of jail, the militia nut jobs plan to "peacefully protest" a ACLU building somewhere because they must be part of the eVIL federALL conSPIraCy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
quote:anything short of a fully Constitutional government infrastructure is slavery, plain and simple.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
With any luck the first thing that happens in court is Santilli standing up, saying he doesn't require legal counsel to defend himself in a gold-fringe flagged admiralty court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
I'm sure it's not lost on them that Constitutional government would include slavery.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
I wonder if there's any SovCits out there that go more for the Articles of Confederation as opposed to the Constitution. Or am i expecting too much in thinking that the average SovCit would be familiar with all that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Or am I expecting too much in thinking that the average SovCit would be familiar with all that? They do not even remotely know what they're talking about a lot of the time, they just think that "I do not consent" and "I am travelling" and so on are magic spells that render the police helpless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
many johnnys posted:If they were to somehow win, then it would be because what Pete is doing is legal. Given the FBI's track record, they'll be able to pin down exactly why he is screwed. Knowingly making bad faith arguments to a court in furtherance of action that you know isn't in your client's best interest because in losing you hope to advance an ulterior political goal is unethical on a multitude of levels. Knowingly making a obviously meritless first amendment claim with the worse test case possible because you think that in losing the judge might provide a narrow enough reasoning that it could be useful precedent in other cases is retarded as all gently caress on a multitude of levels. Seriously "the ACLU are being a bunch of idealistic idiots and are earnestly defending that Pete did nothing wrong" looks way better then this 11th dimensional chess people are suggesting. Turns out the ACLU does stupid poo poo some times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 19:47
|
|