FBI raids homes in search of "anti-government literature"

i agree with what they did to the extent, crimes cant go unpunished, they had a list of things they expected to find there, it was in the warrant, and you dont seem to understand that.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Dizrael

 

I most assuredly understand both that you are in support of this odious show of force by the Justice Department and that they expect to be able to use "anti government or anarchistic literature" against these people. Destruction of property is not so hard to establish mens rea. It does not require a warrant authorizing the FBI to collect literature to establish this. It's not as if someone who destroys property can reasonably argue they did not see their act as a crime. An effective prosecutor doesn't need to point to a persons collection of Marx and Engle's writings along with The Anarchists Cookbook to establish that the suspect destroyed property with the intent to destroy property.

Written materials such as correspondence showing a clear intent is one thing. A copy of Che Guevara's journal is another thing entirely.

You cannot have it both ways and insist you are in support of the rule of law when it comes to arresting and prosecuting vandals and other criminals but screw the rule of law when it comes to Constitutional restraint.

i dont want it both ways, thats why i said to the extent, crimes cant go unpunished. i didnt say i agree with means.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Dizrael

i dont want it both ways, thats why i said to the extent, crimes cant go unpunished. i didnt say i agree with means.

Then why are we arguing means? What has your agreement with prosecution of crimes have to do with dubious means of literature collection by way of warrant?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


thats why i have been arguing with you. i was merely listing the things on the warrant to point out it was following a crime.

Look folks, go get Rich, get more privileges, and then buy your way into a 2nd or 3rd world country. I don't want to see any of your free minds die for Jersey Shore, Angry birds, or Farmville. And neither do I want to die.

God Bless.

reply to post by Dizrael

thats why i have been arguing with you. i was merely listing the things on the warrant to point out it was following a crime.

This might come as a shock to you but criminals have rights just the same as innocents do. Alleged criminals certainly have rights. This is what is meant by due process of law.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Dizrael

 

thats why i have been arguing with you. i was merely listing the things on the warrant to point out it was following a crime.

This might come as a shock to you but criminals have rights just the same as innocents do. Alleged criminals certainly have rights. This is what is meant by due process of law.

The "criminals" were given their rights, and thus this was listed on the search warrant. Had the FBI seized it without the warrant, it would not be recognized by the court. Common sense tells me if the feds were involved, this encompassed more than a few graffitti artists.

I was looking at the Global Incident Map earlier and came across this... NEVADA - Evacuation In Elko County Due To Suspicious Symbol

Portland, Tacoma and Seattle are all pretty far away from this incident but maybe the police found out who did the bomb graffiti and they tipped the police off to some radical organizers...

I hope to GOD this is is the case...

I'm so angry right now!

reply to post by BubbaJoe

The "criminals" were given their rights, and thus this was listed on the search warrant. Had the FBI seized it without the warrant, it would not be recognized by the court. Common sense tells me if the feds were involved, this encompassed more than a few graffitti artists.

First of all rights aren't given. Secondly, a warrant has to be issued upon probable cause. This means there has to be a damn good reason for collecting "anti-government or anarchist literature" and no one, including you, have been able to explain what that damn good reason is. You are simply justifying and showing yourself a profound disregard for due process.

Hey it's A OK to support uprisings against the government in other countries!
But eh try it in America and we'll be knocking on you front door with a SWAT team.
That's if they manage to get the door number right.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

The "criminals" were given their rights, and thus this was listed on the search warrant. Had the FBI seized it without the warrant, it would not be recognized by the court. Common sense tells me if the feds were involved, this encompassed more than a few graffitti artists.

First of all rights aren't given. Secondly, a warrant has to be issued upon probable cause. This means there has to be a damn good reason for collecting "anti-government or anarchist literature" and no one, including you, have been able to explain what that damn good reason is. You are simply justifying and showing yourself a profound disregard for due process.

Can you prove that there was no good reason or probable cause? You sir, constantly piss me the f off with your every comment. Unless you are willing to provide the credentials proving yourself a constitutional scholar, I will continue to disregard most your remarks in future threads. If you desire to be an expert on constitutional law like many others here on ATS, please provide your credentials. I have no disregard for due process, but some here, seem to have disregard for the truth. Unless you have several hundreds of thousands of dollars in an IRA, the policies of the republicans will continue to hurt you. For me, I have nothing at this point, and these people can do nothing to hurt me.

reply to post by BubbaJoe

Can you prove that there was no good reason or probable cause?

The burden of proof lies with court party asserting probable cause. In this court of public opinion, that would be you who holds the burden of proof. It is a logical fallacy to prove a negative. If you understood law, you wouldn't need that explained to you, nor would you have most imprudently asked that question.

Unless you are willing to provide the credentials proving yourself a constitutional scholar, I will continue to disregard most your remarks in future threads.

Continue to disregard? This post I am replying to is not a continuance of you disregarding what I say. Further, given that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense in a court of law it is beyond stupid to insist that one has to be a "credentialed Constitutional scholar" to speak intelligently to that document.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

Can you prove that there was no good reason or probable cause?

The burden of proof lies with court party asserting probable cause. In this court of public opinion, that would be you who holds the burden of proof. It is a logical fallacy to prove a negative. If you understood law, you wouldn't need that explained to you, nor would you have most imprudently asked that question.

Unless you are willing to provide the credentials proving yourself a constitutional scholar, I will continue to disregard most your remarks in future threads.

Continue to disregard? This post I am replying to is not a continuance of you disregarding what I say. Further, given that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense in a court of law it is beyond stupid to insist that one has to be a "credentialed Constitutional scholar" to speak intelligently to that document.

Well apparently from the warrant, this was proved to a federal judge, considering it was the fbi making the raid. So it is not upon me for it to be proved, I am an old guy looking after my aged parents, not a federal judge. I don't need to understand law, to apply common sense, have worked with my hands my entire life.

You sir, have made many comments across many threads in these forums, that I find offensive. You are apparently intelligent and well spoken, however, while you accuse me of a lack of knowledge of the the law, I would label you as having zero common sense. The constitution is a document we can all read, and I apparently have a different understanding of it than you do. The difference being, I am willing to entertain differences in opinions that you are not.

reply to post by BubbaJoe

I don't need to understand law, to apply common sense, have worked with my hands my entire life.

If you cannot understand something as simple as law it is highly doubtful you can apply common sense.

The constitution is a document we can all read, and I apparently have a different understanding of it than you do. The difference being, I am willing to entertain differences in opinions that you are not.

The posts you've made to me insisting my posts you find offensive only undermine this statement. Of course, common sense would dictate that if you are willing to entertain differences in opinion, you wouldn't find the difference of my opinion so offensive, and yet you have now spent two posts making the declaration that you do find my opinion offensive. So much for common sense.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

I don't need to understand law, to apply common sense, have worked with my hands my entire life.

If you cannot understand something as simple as law it is highly doubtful you can apply common sense.

The constitution is a document we can all read, and I apparently have a different understanding of it than you do. The difference being, I am willing to entertain differences in opinions that you are not.

The posts you've made to me insisting my posts you find offensive only undermine this statement. Of course, common sense would dictate that if you are willing to entertain differences in opinion, you wouldn't find the difference of my opinion so offensive, and yet you have now spent two posts making the declaration that you do find my opinion offensive. So much for common sense.

From the posts I have seen from you there is no common ground. Compromise is a bad word in your vocabulary, much like the typical teaparty members I have encountered in real life, and most are racist, evangelical christians.

Note the use of the word "Corporate Property" in the subpoena.

Remember when they abolished our Constitution they did in fact create and form a Corporation.

I have seen people discuss this as if a Gov/fed building was written on when according to the article it was store fronts and business's.

IMO this should have never even made the front page as graffiti happens every day.

No, there is something much darker happening here.

www.king5.com...

reply to post by BubbaJoe

From the posts I have seen from you there is no common ground. Compromise is a bad word in your vocabulary, much like the typical teaparty members I have encountered in real life, and most are racist, evangelical christians.

Is this your idea of "continuing to disregard" my posts? When all else fails and you can't come up with a rebuttal against the argument, attack the person who has made the valid argument!

Logical fallacies have nothing at all to do with the rule of law.

reply to post by antar


Wonder if they would consider ATS "anti-government literature"?
Would they confiscate our computers?

Originally posted by silent thunder

The FBI presentation described anarchists as “criminals seeking an ideology to justify their activities.”

Ha! The nerve of the U.S. government never ceases to impress me. The U.S.A. has descended into a proud fascist empire and they're not even trying to disguise it anymore. Dangerous times to be a free-thinker. A worse time to be born an American (no offense - it's a horrible time to be born anywhere, really, but America is home to the worst rogue government-mandated shadow organizations since Nazi Germany).

These crazy institutions have used all manner of twisted ideologies to justify their heinous activities since their inception. No anarchist in the history of Man has committed a crime that wasn't bested at one point or another by U.S. government enforcement agencies. At least anarchists tend to put humanity first as opposed to these corporate-funded anti-prole swine. It's our god-given right as sovereign animals to question these systems of control we're unwillingly born into. If they want to call that terrorism, then so be it. But I'll be damned if I'll surrender that right any time soon.

What a load of ridiculous infuriating rubbish! Who enforces these rules? Where do they find people corrupted enough to carry out these stupid attacks on good American people?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

If you cannot understand something as simple as law it is highly doubtful you can apply common sense.

There's nothing simple about the Law, what are you going on about? The "Law" is the biggest clusterf#ck of a System that humanity has ever been forced to endure to date! It's full of contradictions, corporate corruption and all kinds of freedoms and rights degradation. The biggest trick that was ever pulled off against humanity (besides religion) was convincing us (you) that a bunch of fancy-dressed politicians and corporate-payrolled pigs well-trained in the art of Lying know best how to run YOUR life!