Accused Oregon refuge occupier cites devil, demands damages from U.S.

a reply to: Boadicea

I think Shawna will be offered services from other lawyers who are aligned with the movement out west if she hasn't been already.

Whoever encouraged her to file that claim did not do her any favors. It doesn't seem likely she did it on her own. She could have but it doesn't seem likely to me. If that claim is a hoax I think she would have heard about it almost immediately and sought to disclaim it.

There's tremendous pressure on her as well as Victoria.

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: Boadicea

I think Shawna will be offered services from other lawyers who are aligned with the movement out west if she hasn't been already.

I would hope so, but if they have, she hasn't accepted -- at least not formally, since the court-appointed attorney is still her attorney on record.

Whoever encouraged her to file that claim did not do her any favors. It doesn't seem likely she did it on her own.

No, it doesn't seem likely she did it on her own. I hadn't considered someone whispering in her ear with ill-intentions, but that's a very distinct possibility.

If that claim is a hoax I think she would have heard about it almost immediately and sought to disclaim it.

I would think so too, but we don't know everything that's going on. I'd bet dollars to donuts there is much we don't know. If it was a false filing, they may not want to say much or anything unless and until they have some idea who did it. Her attorney is probably telling her to exercise her right to remain silent. Shawna may not trust her court-appointed attorney (and for good reason). At this point, she's probably jumping at shadows anyway. For example, the fire that killed her son-in-law may have just been a tragic accident... or maybe not. I would be wondering... and wondering what else the feds are capable of... wondering when the next shoe will drop.

There's tremendous pressure on her as well as Victoria.

Yes, there is... the full weight and force of the USA... all intended to break her will and her spirit. The only thing I know for sure is that nothing is what it seems.

originally posted by: tweetie
If Shawna Cox was standing in front of me right now I would plead with her to find expert counseling and mentoring and to not make any more waves right now because she has so much to contend with today and into the future.

I care about people. I even care about people I don't know. I was brought up to care about others. I've already stated I don't condone what the occupiers did and how they went about it but Shawna believes what she did was right, she is still a human being unlike so many sociopaths and psychopaths that occupy the Internet, and from what I read she is the mother of 13 children. Her life is important to them.

I don't know. This black and white thinking people engage in on the Internet doesn't match up with the very grayness of life on planet Earth.

The repercussions for what she engaged in are massive and I hope her life isn't completely ruined for the rest of her days. I certainly wouldn't want to be someone who seeks to beat her into the ground because I didn't agree with her choices. I don't know if she feels if she could have done things differently would she have or if she would do the same thing again for her principals.

I'm not a bleeding heart but I do have compassion for others. There's really no point in my posting this commentary at ATS but there it is.

Thanks. One thing apparent to me is these people may have stretched the law too far and made mistakes and as a result now find themselves in court, but they're people. They got families. Even Finicum, the one who was killed, did an itnerview--after the tarp man interview--where he stated he wanted no guns being fired and he believed the police have famlies too and are not unlike them. Finicum also had a large family.

Shawna Cox also lost her son in law (I think son in law?) after the incident. She was ordered to remove all of the guns/ammo from a home I think. Her son in law was in the process of doing this when the place burnt down and killed him. When you take into account everything else she's been through, including when FBI and police were shooting non-lethal at the vehicle and she mistakenly thought it was the hand of god protecting them, it's almost understandable why she's saying this now.

Shawna was in communication with Finicum's wife while they were in the truck--just before the first stop by officers. She was told his daughter was at a basketball game. We all know how that's. Many of us played ball in school. That's normal. Imagine how crazy that's. Soon after he was dead. One day before his birthday. Normal, but not normal.

Why was Victoria there? To sing at hte meeting with the sheriff. Sing? Yes. With others. It was meant to relax and entertain I think it was religious too. She's 18. Normal, but not normal. Thigns change quick.

originally posted by: jonnywhite

originally posted by: tweetie
If Shawna Cox was standing in front of me right now I would plead with her to find expert counseling and mentoring and to not make any more waves right now because she has so much to contend with today and into the future.

I care about people. I even care about people I don't know. I was brought up to care about others. I've already stated I don't condone what the occupiers did and how they went about it but Shawna believes what she did was right, she is still a human being unlike so many sociopaths and psychopaths that occupy the Internet, and from what I read she is the mother of 13 children. Her life is important to them.

I don't know. This black and white thinking people engage in on the Internet doesn't match up with the very grayness of life on planet Earth.

The repercussions for what she engaged in are massive and I hope her life isn't completely ruined for the rest of her days. I certainly wouldn't want to be someone who seeks to beat her into the ground because I didn't agree with her choices. I don't know if she feels if she could have done things differently would she have or if she would do the same thing again for her principals.

I'm not a bleeding heart but I do have compassion for others. There's really no point in my posting this commentary at ATS but there it is.

Thanks. One thing apparent to me is these people may have stretched the law too far and made mistakes and as a result now find themselves in court, but they're people. They got families. Even Finicum, the one who was killed, did an itnerview--after the tarp man interview--where he stated he wanted no guns being fired and he believed the police have famlies too and are not unlike them. Finicum also had a large family.

Shawna Cox also lost her son in law (I think son in law?) after the incident. She was ordered to remove all of the guns/ammo from a home I think. Her son in law was in the process of doing this when the place burnt down and killed him. When you take into account everything else she's been through, including when FBI and police were shooting non-lethal at the vehicle and she mistakenly thought it was the hand of god protecting them, it's almost understandable why she's saying this now.

Shawna was in communication with Finicum's wife while they were in the truck--just before the first stop by officers. She was told his daughter was at a basketball game. We all know how that's. Many of us played ball in school. That's normal. Imagine how crazy that's. Soon after he was dead. One day before his birthday. Normal, but not normal.

Why was Victoria there? To sing at hte meeting with the sheriff. Sing? Yes. With others. It was meant to relax and entertain I think it was religious too. She's 18. Normal, but not normal. Thigns change quick.

Her son-in-law had fallen asleep after Shawna's guns and ammo were put in his work shop, he was working in the shop on a back hoe. The wood stove in the building developed a fire in the wall and a fire and explosions (ammo) broke out. The son-in-law did not make it out of the building. The timing is quite suspicious in my book but then I am very much aware of the supernatural forces at play on this world.

Yes, Shawna is very firm in her religious beliefs and believes law enforcement was tying to kill her, Victoria and Ryan Bundy, and because of the two women's fervent prayer while the truck was being bombarded by law enforcement God protected them. She also believes that because neither she or Victoria had planned to be going to the meeting in LaVoy's truck and last minute changes had them both riding in that truck, God arranged for her and Victoria to be witness to what happened so they could tell the truth of what transpired. That's her belief.

Many people of all religions believe God is guiding their lives. It's called faith. There's people out there who judge that as being mental illness. Not me. People often need to believe in something greater than themselves. It's human nature.

In one of Shawna's interviews she recounts how after she exited the truck and was taken into custody she accused law enforcement officers standing there of being murderers to which one of the officers defensively exclaimed, "I didn't do it!" I only heard Shawna mention that part (the officer's reply) once.

This is off-topic but I haven't seen any mention in any of these threads about how after the many 3% people arrived at the refuge with their long guns, LaVoy insisted they be put away. He didn't want any intimidation going on or anyone walking around with long guns.

I appreciate your reply. I, too, think the occupiers stepped too far over the line of the law under not ideal conditions and I will go on to say a long term tragedy was set in motion which is not over.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: diggindirt

Does the Magna Carta govern any US citizen? Yes or no.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66
Our right to petition for redress of grievances comes from the Magna Carta.

That was your asinine statement.

The Magna Carta is one part of a long line of documents and practices that came down to American law (originally established as English colonies) within the English Common Law.

No, it is inaccurate in every way to state or imply that the wording of the Magna Carta has any real jurisdiction over any American citizen in 2016.

It would be as accurate as saying that the Ten Commandments governs our criminal system.

I'm really surprised you didn't drift off into vague claims about the "organic law" which governs us.

That would actually be an argument with a slight bit of merit.

I did not say that US citizens are currently governed by the Magna Carta. I said it was one of many documents on which the Constitution was based. Are you arguing that my statement is wrong? That the authors of the Constitution didn't use it as a part of their framework?
You are imagining things that I wrote---please read before posting. Your ranting is very tiresome. Nice try at diversion but it won't work.

www.bl.uk...
www.homeofheroes.com...
www.loc.gov...

a reply to: Boadicea

And we should remember that this is a court-appointed attorney. She works for the government. She knows which side her bread is buttered on.

A star for you. You nailed it right there.
And with the drug comments as well. Something to consider. Also if it really was her that filed.
We shall see.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: diggindirt
The recitation to the abuses is in the first press conference as well as the names and positions of government agents to whom the petition of grievances was addressed.

So the nutters had a whine to various people. That does not mean those people havee to respond to that whiine!

Which right are you suggesting we give up? The right to petition for redress of grievances? Why? Who took it? When was it removed from the First Amendment?

It is still there, but nowhere in the constitution does it say that any petition must be answered!

What is it that you don't understand about the use of a transitive verb? Grammar. The use of words and their meanings. Look up "redress" in any legal dictionary---it will be defined as a transitive verb. This has been explained to you. Please explain how a transitive verb can be inactive. It can't. That would be an intransitive verb, which "redress" isn't.

originally posted by: diggindirt
What is it that you don't understand about the use of a transitive verb?

What is it that you do not understand about any petition NOT having to be addressed by the government? As per the Supreme Court's judgement!

Apart from you apparently knowing more about law than the Supreme Court.

a reply to: centarix

Crazy people do crazy things, though. And well, she's sounding a tad crazy.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: diggindirt
What is it that you don't understand about the use of a transitive verb?

What is it that you do not understand about any petition NOT having to be addressed by the government? As per the Supreme Court's judgement!

Apart from you apparently knowing more about law than the Supreme Court.

You can continue to try to hang your hat on labor relations board rulings but your hat will end up on the floor. "Government policymakers" are not the same as elected officials in the eyes of the law. People hired or appointed by the government do not have to swear an oath to the Constitution, therefore cannot violate an oath that they didn't swear. Additionally, a remedy for grievance was in place for the case you cited so no violation existed.

Please explain to me how the use of a transitive verb can possibly indicate lack of action? That would be an intransitive verb, which the word "redress" is NOT. Look it up. Tell me if you find a legal dictionary that defines "redress" as anything but a transitive verb---an action combined with an object. This is basic grammar that you should have learned in fifth grade.


I am not claiming to know more about law than the Supreme Court, I'm attempting to educate you on grammar, the use and meaning of words, something about which you seem to be a bit confused.

It is patently obvious you've never filed a petition. I've filed many. This was explained to me first by a law professor then by the Attorney General of Kentucky, who did provide a means of remedy, not a remedy for the grievances in our petition. I'm not the one frantically using Google to try to justify my statements and knowing too little about the law to judge whether a ruling is applicable. Members of un-elected committees and boards, appointees of government agencies do not swear an oath to the Constitution---therefore it follows that they cannot violate an oath they didn't swear. There are remedies available in the labor relations board cases, the plaintiff just didn't accept the proffered remedies, sued and appealed, and appealed, and lost.

originally posted by: diggindirt
I am not claiming to know more about law than the Supreme Court,

That is very obvious, as they disagree with you!

I'm not the one frantically using Google to try to justify my statements and knowing too little about the law to judge whether a ruling is applicable.

Yes you are actually, and from your posts it shows that you do not know much about the law.

a reply to: hellobruce

So you can't:

Please explain to me how the use of a transitive verb can possibly indicate lack of action? That would be an intransitive verb, which the word "redress" is NOT. Look it up. Tell me if you find a legal dictionary that defines "redress" as anything but a transitive verb---an action combined with an object. This is basic grammar that you should have learned in fifth grade.

I rest my case. We're done.

a reply to: diggindirt

Also if it really was her that filed.

You know far more than me about how this works in practice.... I was involved in one civil action in which I filed all my own paperwork, but I don't remember having to provide ID or anything to file. In another civil action, my attorney did all the filings. Nor do I recall having to have any of the paperwork/my signature notarized.

Is it possible that any random Joe could have written and filed that counter-complaint? Is there anything that would prevent that from happening?

a reply to: Boadicea
I've never been asked for ID because the people at the local courthouse and at the state capital know me by sight. They don't need to ask for ID. So I'm not sure. I'm waiting to hear more on this.
In this case, anything is possible I think.

Here is the complaint -
Shawna Cox complaint

* - Oregon Civil Court System
* - How to File

Oregon has an upper limit of $10,000 dollars or less to fall under civil small claims court.
* - Instructions / Info

I would imagine ID would be needed to file. If not at some point the validity of the claim will be reviewed and at some point the people involved identified.

a reply to: diggindirt

Maybe I missed it, but I'm assuming this counter-claim was physically filed in Utah?

I guess it must have been... Even if filed by someone else, they couldn't very well file it in, say, Portland if Shawna is in Utah. No one would be that stupid.

a reply to: diggindirt
a reply to: Xcathdra

I think I need to be skooled, because I'm just not understanding something! As I understand it, this was a counter-complaint to the charges filed by the feds, so it was filed in a federal court. I searched to find more details, and the most I can find is that it was --

...filed in U.S. District Court in Oregon...

Okay, I guess, but how? Did someone physically walk into the courthouse and file it personally? Was it Shawna? Is there any way to know? Or was it filed by mail? Online? Would the Oregon guidelines apply to federal courts as well as state courts? Since this is a counter-complaint to a criminal action, would it be considered civil or criminal?

I had another question, but I don't remember it now...

a reply to: Boadicea

Maybe it's here...

District of Oregon Cases

a reply to: Boadicea

When I first began reading Shawna's formal complaint my very first thought was I wondered if "Judge" Darby and that other woman, I can't think of her name, had been in contact with her. I could be very wrong but... it still crosses my mind. I don't mean to be provocative or name people who shouldn't be because they have nothing to do with it but some of the wording in the complaint which makes it come across as "less than professional" made me think of them.

a reply to: Boadicea
At the bottom of the complaint it says it was mailed and emailed to Portland. It shows it was signed on Feb. 15 and the top is stamped as filed on Feb. 17. Don't know how one would provide ID for a mailed document since I see no sign that it was notarized.
As I understood from one of her early interviews, she has to wear a monitor anklet and isn't allowed to wander too far from her home. I haven't kept up for the past few days so that may have changed but it looks like this could be the work of anyone since I have no idea if that is really her signature or not.