Pretrial arguments giving us a picture of what the trial may look like for the Oregon Standoff defendants and what lawyers will say in their defense....
1 posted on
05/24/2016 3:58:55 AM PDT by
Nextrush
To: Nextrush
Brown added that it's OK to criticize the U.S. Bureau of Land Management employees, but preventing those BLM officers from doing their work on their property isn't permitted under law. It ain't THEIR property, dingbat! It's our property.
2 posted on
05/24/2016 4:07:38 AM PDT by
Islander7
(There is no septic system so vile, so filthy, the left won't drink from to further their agenda)
To: Nextrush; Salvation; Whenifhow; LucyT
3 posted on
05/24/2016 4:12:32 AM PDT by
WildHighlander57
((WildHighlander57, returning after lurking since 2000)
To: Nextrush
Government trying to limit what we may do? Next you’ll tell me rain is wet.
4 posted on
05/24/2016 4:14:10 AM PDT by
wastedyears
(I'm actually going back to school. I kinda don't believe it.)
To: Nextrush
I agree with the premise of you article.
But, you said:
“It’s also not lawful to intimidate someone with a firearm or threaten someone with a firearm.”
—
I’ve had to produce a weapon 2 times in my 68 years. Never had to use one. But am not sure I’d be here today if I didn’t have one then.
The threat of use was what it took to end the danger.
5 posted on
05/24/2016 4:16:27 AM PDT by
Texas Fossil
((Texas is not where you were born, but a Free State of Heart, Mind & Attitude!))
To: Nextrush
The proof is found right here at Free Republic.
6 posted on
05/24/2016 4:31:33 AM PDT by
freedomjusticeruleoflaw
(Western Civilization- whisper the words, and it will disappear. So let us talk now about rebirth.)
To: Nextrush
The purpose of the conspiracy charge in the Oregon standoff case is to chill political dissent. Whether or not you agree with the activists in Oregon, and whether or not you think their tactics were appropriate, all decent people should be disgusted by most of the prosecutions and persecutions in the case.
7 posted on
05/24/2016 4:46:08 AM PDT by
Pollster1
(Somebody who agrees with me 80% of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20% traitor. - Ronald Reagan)
To: Nextrush
“Of course a person has First Amendment rights but there are limits....It’s also not lawful to intimidate someone with a firearm or threaten someone with a firearm.”.....
Typical King George III thinking. The elitist fascist government not only intimidates citizens with firearms, it also uses firearms to murder citizens. The slippery slope has been greased. Where it takes us is obvious to me.
8 posted on
05/24/2016 5:01:29 AM PDT by
sergeantdave
( If not you, who? If not now, when?)
To: Nextrush
U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown, who has set a Sept. 7 trial date in the refuge occupation case, countered that the statute "does not criminalize mere criticism" or "mere protest." Another lying Statist.
Of course, Brown was nominated by "Rape Boy" Clinton, in order to rape the Natural Rights of the peasantry.
9 posted on
05/24/2016 5:05:13 AM PDT by
kiryandil
(To the GOPee: "Giving the Democrats the Supreme Court means you ARE the Democrats.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson