Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters in Oregon

[VaticanAssassin]

The FBI is handling a criminal case against the armed men occupying the refuge since Saturday, and has told Ward that the men will face charges. The sheriff still believes a peaceful resolution to the conflict is possible.

“The bureau has assured me that those at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge will at some point face charges,” Ward said.
http://www.opb.org/news/series/burn...ty-sheriff-armed-occupiers-will-face-charges/

So basically you are confirming no warrants have been issued or trial held?

Bravo!!! You are correct for once.

I would like to thank one of your many fake degrees for this rare moment.

Do you happen to recall which of the fake degrees led to this? I know it is hard to keep track of your lies but I wouldn't want to get this wrong.

 

[Sean Renaud]

So basically you are confirming no warrants have been issued or trial held?

Bravo!!! You are correct for once.

I would like to thank one of your many fake degrees for this rare moment.

Do you happen to recall which of the fake degrees led to this? I know it is hard to keep track of your lies but I wouldn't want to get this wrong.

No warrant is needed.

 

[Saint Peter]

By far the stupidest allegation in this thread is the "poaching" allegation.

Explain to me you Central Park Regulars, exactly how does burning some grass land prevent one from being charged with poaching?

Ishmael

It will get your ass charged with arson.

 

[Ishmael]

It will get your ass charged with arson.

Obviously, 'terrorism' even. Even if it is a controlled burn originating on ones own property after notifying the officials.

Ishmael

 

[zipman]

But obviously could give a shit about justice.

Ishmael

Actually I do care about justice. But if you care about the rule of law, then justice can only come from within the legal system. That's the way it is.

These people occupying the building are trespassing (a crime)and indeed issuing a threat by stating their right to self-defense.

I thought O.J. was guilty but the courts didn't. That's the way it goes.

I don't think the government should use force to remove them. I would personally advocate blocking them in and letting them starve or freeze until they give up.

 

[Ishmael]

Actually I do care about justice. But if you care about the rule of law, then justice can only come from within the legal system. That's the way it is.

These people occupying the building are trespassing (a crime)and indeed issuing a threat by stating their right to self-defense.

I thought O.J. was guilty but the courts didn't. That's the way it goes.

I don't think the government should use force to remove them. I would personally advocate blocking them in and letting them starve or freeze until they give up.

Not true. Far too many examples otherwise. The Hammond's were sentenced and served their time. Now they're on their way back to prison for the same crime. Just how is that justice? Or even legal?

Ishmael

 

[Sean]

Not true. Far too many examples otherwise. The Hammond's were sentenced and served their time. Now they're on their way back to prison for the same crime. Just how is that justice? Or even legal?

Ishmael

Because the law says the minimum term for their crime is 5 years. It went all the way to the Supreme Court, you dumb fuck.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Because the law says the minimum term for their crime is 5 years. It went all the way to the Supreme Court, you dumb fuck.

A anti-terrisom law from 1996....

You dumb fuck.

That is not justice

Perhaps you need a fourth or fifth fake degree.

( sorry, I forget your most recent claims AKA: lies)

 

[Sean]

A anti-terrisom law from 1996....

You dumb fuck.

That is not justice

Perhaps you need a fourth or fifth fake degree.

( sorry, I forget your most recent claims AKA: lies)

Is it the law? Was it the law when they committed their crime? Yes or no, Barney?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Is it the law? Was it the law when they committed their crime? Yes or no, Barney?

So you believe that the law was correct in Ferguson and this justice was served?

I assume you also believe the protestors to be terriosts as well?

Would you like me define any of those words for you?

 

[Sean]

So you believe that the law was correct in Ferguson and this justice was served?

I assume you also believe the protestors to be terriosts as well?

Would you like me define any of those words for you?

Is it the law? Was it the law when they committed their crime? Yes or no, Barney?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Is it the law? Was it the law when they committed their crime? Yes or no, Barney?

You will have to be more specific as to which words you need defined.

 

[Ishmael]

You bet ya shit for brains.

Do you agree with me that the charges should fit the crime? The charges brought against the Hammond's were ruthlessly vindictive.

The facts were that they set a fire on their own range land to eliminate an invasive specie. The officials were notified of the burn and no one seemed to care at the time. The burn jumped their boundary and burned some 150+/- acres of F&W grassland, presumably eliminating that same invasive specie on that land as well. At the time even the F&W people admitted that the burn improved the quality of the land. But forget about the improved quality for now. The fact is that 150+/- acres of public grassland did burn. The Hammond's brought the fire under control and extinguished it without any involvement of any public agency. In other words at no cost to the public. There was no intent on the Hammond's part to destroy property or garner financial gain. It would seem to me that if this were to go to court at all it should have been civil court. F&W could determine what the value of one years worth of 150+/- acres of wild grass was worth and sue the Hammond's to recover the loss.

Instead they were charged with arson/terrorism. Obviously someone in the upper echelons of the bureaucracy had another agenda. So as far as the "law" is concerned the 5 year minimum would apply.

But do you want to discuss the charges? This is a gross miscarriage of justice via the vindictive application of charges that did NOT fit the crime, if indeed one could even argue a crime was committed.

Ishmael

 

[Sean]

You will have to be more specific as to which words you need defined.

Is it the law? Was it the law when they committed their crime? Yes or no, Barney?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Is it the law? Was it the law when they committed their crime? Yes or no, Barney?

Woohooo!!!!

Drunk Sean is back!!!

He is so much more fun and after years and years as a Friday night norm very missed.

 

[Sean]

Woohooo!!!!

Drunk Sean is back!!!

He is so much more fun and after years and years as a Friday night norm very missed.

Is it the law? Was it the law when they committed their crime? Yes or no, Barney?

 

[Ishmael]

Woohooo!!!!

Drunk Sean is back!!!

He is so much more fun and after years and years as a Friday night norm very missed.

One wonders if he'd be parroting the same mantra if it were one of his favored cronies in a similar predicament of legal over-reach? He's obviously one of Orwell's pigs.

Ishmael

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Is it the law? Was it the law when they committed their crime? Yes or no, Barney?

Well it is obvious drunk Sean does not understand the difference between justice and law.

Does anyone think sober Sean does.

I doubt it.

 

[Sean]

Well it is obvious drunk Sean does not understand the difference between justice and law.

Does anyone think sober Sean does.

I doubt it.

Is it the law? Was it the law when they committed their crime? Yes or no, Barney?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

One wonders if he'd be parroting the same mantra if it were one of his favored cronies in a similar predicament of legal over-reach? He's obviously one of Orwell's pigs.

Ishmael

Want to make a bet on how many times I can get him to ask the same stupid question that has been answered?

 

[Sean]

Want to make a bet on how many times I can get him to ask the same stupid question that has been answered?

Is it the law? Was it the law when they committed their crime? Yes or no, Barney?

 

[Ishmael]

Want to make a bet on how many times I can get him to ask the same stupid question that has been answered?

*chuckle* No.

Ishmael

 

[VaticanAssassin]

*chuckle* No.

Ishmael

Well it is only 1:30 am there I believe. Depending on what he has been drinking we have another hour or so.

I put the over under at 7.

 

[Sean]

Well it is only 1:30 am there I believe. Depending on what he has been drinking we have another hour or so.

I put the over under at 7.

Is it the law? Was it the law when they committed their crime? Yes or no, Barney?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Is it the law? Was it the law when they committed their crime? Yes or no, Barney?

Post a picture of your degree and I will answer your question again drunky!