Hello all,
I'm entirely unpersuaded that it is not worthwhile for The Government to
after these perps with a civil suit because they "don't have a pot to pee
in". Proof of this? They don't have houses, vehicles etc? Nothing?
I'm not saying for a second that the government is going to recoup the
millions of dollars of damage they wreaked on Malhuer. Not the point. The
point is to go IRS on these guys i.e. PUNISH them any way they can be
punished. It is all about sending as strong a message as possible; the
government obviously can afford any court fees, the perps might be made to
really sweat it financially.
The only thing I will say "for" the Bundyites is that they were in no way
joking; they were as serious in their despicable way as they could be. We
the people should not be joking either---hit them with Every conceivable
money-draining thing we have to throw at them. It is only giving them their
just desserts.
Tom McNamara
ps. in answer to my own rhetorical questions from an earlier post, I've
learned.
--they apparently Can still have different charges preferred against them
by the Feds ...but that would be politically unpalatable
--Harney County (and maybe the state of OR) could potentially still bring
charges
--no appeal to higher courts with a non-guilty verdict
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Pam & Mark Keller <
pam.mark.keller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hear, hear!
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Lars Per Norgren <
larspernorgren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Civil suits are only worthwhile if the defendants have some
assets worth going after. It was amply evident from just about
day one that these losers didn't have a pot to pee in. That they
are losers protects them from liens, there's nothing put a lien
on. Ryan Bundy refused to use his court appointed attorney,
who happened to be one of the top criminal defense lawyers
in Oregon today. Regardless of what they did or didn't have
to pay for legal defense, the other defendants clearly were
using better talent than what the government offered our side.
I don't think there's anything from stopping you filing a
suit. This is America, the land of limitless opportunities. Do
you have tens of thousands to throw off the cliff? The civil trial
ends up in front of, YEHY! A jury, that gang of easily manipulated,
questionably motivated, by design AMATEURS. Many convicted
felons were well documented bearing fire-arms during this
occupation, but I recall no-one being charged with such
For that matter, most states hosting these various self-styled
militias have laws against their existence, yet I don't think
anyone anywhere has taken the initiative to shut them down.
They should have been nipped in the bud. As for the original
"militias" of the War of Independence, George Washington
hated them. Yankee Doodle, the every-militiaman of 1770
something , was the object of unbridled derision. That's
whether one reads the extensive lyric of the British or
American version.
i fear a lot more is at stake than wildlife refuges. And
when this all began i felt silly looking to Jugoslavia for
comparisons. But I now am beginning to appreciate how
extensive these militias are. We enjoy peace and civil
order because we and the overwhelming majority of our
fellow inhabitants chose to behave ourselves. It is in
no way thanks to the strength/competence of our
governments. It is extremely fragile, this civil order.
Lars
On Oct 28, 2016, at 6:36 PM, Margaret Stephens wrote:
One of my questions is, could there be some kind of civil suit or liens
filed to help cover the cost of the damages the Bundy gang did? Would the
Federal Gov have to do that?
I wonder if citizens could file a suit against Bundys?
What about the tribe?
Why didn't they charge the Bundys with the offense of breaking in to the
buildings and having fire arms in Fed buildings?
