Federal end-run around Montana laws...

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i'm suspecting they are gonna al capone em.  i hope they kept good books and that they didn't try to play fast and loose

http://www.kpax.com/news/medical-marijuana-raids-more-extensive-than-first-thought/
structuring or assisting in structuring any transaction to evade currency reporting requirements or causing or attempting to cause a domestic financial institution to fail to file Currency Transaction Reports.


and this

The U.S. Attorney says medical marijuana customers using the drug to cope with illnesses who in "clear compliance with state law' aren't the focus of this investigation.

[PTK]

It seems that at least a few of the raided parties were in violation of MT laws. In that case, my opinion is - they should have simply been served, brought to court, and convicted (if guilty) here in Montana. I have absolutely no pity for those that were violating MT laws, period.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

but in fact thats what did happen  they only arrested one person on an outstanding warrant.  does this mean the revolution is called off?

[PTK]

So, every time you were served with a warrant you admitted guilt instantly? You didn't go to court?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

no one has been arrested  yet   but i suspect there are folks getting lawyers if not passports as we speak

if they are nailed to the wall as well as i suspect they are it will be a plea fest and there will be lots of stuff sold at auction.  i notice christ isn't tagged in this.  were i the others i would look real hard at him as a possible informer

[zahc]

That armed resistance needs to be the State Police, or an extremely well-armed Sheriff's department.

Preferably armed with Made-in-Montana browning clones.

[MicroBalrog]

Perhaps if we were talking about a much larger group of people, and with a more sympathetic cause. 

And this is how liberty dies.

[Perd Hapley]

And this is how liberty dies.

   Look at my other post.

[MicroBalrog]

My point stands.

Because even among people who are in agreement that the Federal government should probably have no authority to do this, most of them are willing to ignore abuses of the Constitution if they are targeted at 'unsympathetic' people, or care less if the people are 'unsympathetic', the abuses continue. This is part of the psychological mechanism by which the oppression sustains itself. Yes, I said, oppression.

Of course, I can find hardly a cause more sympathetic than that of genuine medical marijuana patients.

[Perd Hapley]

Oh, alright. I thought you were misunderstanding me, like a couple of other folks did.

On the sympatheticalness* of people using marijuana for relief of severe or chronic pain; yes, if the public saw the issue that way. My feeling, which could be wrong, is that most Americans will see the med.-marijuana advocates as simply pot-heads or crack-pot libertarians, even if they happen to agree with them. I hope I'm wrong.

I'm still not convinced that liberty dies because people will not fight a war over an issue like this. As Jefferson said in the Dec. of Ind. itself, "mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."


*I get to make up new words, because I have that power.

[209]

As a friend of mine said just now in regards to why there were no arrests, "It's really hard to prosecute if you simply cannot find a jury."

Jury nullification?

It only works if the feds play nice.  If they arrest a bunch of people in Montana for something and they think they won't be able to win the trial in Montana, they will relocate to a court in an area where they believe they will get a jury.

Plus a judge can overrule the decision of a jury.  Anyone who doesn't think the feds will do whatever they must to win is fooling themselves.  It's all about power and the feds don't like losing.

[TommyGunn]

Lon Horiuchi was indicted by a state court for killing Vicki Weaver. A tame Federal judge transferred jurisdiction to a Federal court so he could dismiss the charges as part of the whitewash.

Armed resistance is not such a good idea . . . it ended badly for those at Waco once Uncle Sam brought more firepower (including armor!) to bear.

Not to defend the Davidians, but they were in an untenable situation.  Even General Custer could have whacked 'em.  They were holed up and surrounded from the start.  
While it may be true that armed resistance is not a good idea (I do not advocate it in general and certainly not now) if there should ever be a resistance movement that has any dream of eventual success, it will NOT start out by having the entire force holed up in one confined area that a daisy cutter could turn into fried sawdust.

[AZRedhawk44]

Not to defend the Davidians, but they were in an untenable situation.  Even General Custer could have whacked 'em.  They were holed up and surrounded from the start.  
While it may be true that armed resistance is not a good idea (I do not advocate it in general and certainly not now) if there should ever be a resistance movement that has any dream of eventual success, it will NOT start out by having the entire force holed up in one confined area that a daisy cutter could turn into fried sawdust.

Horiuchi/Weaver wasn't about Davidians.

It was about Ruby Ridge.

Yeah, the Feds had the Weavers surrounded.

But northern Idaho had the Feds surrounded, and they were rather cranky.  The Feds were watching their backs, very aggressively, during that whole fiasco.

There... the Feds were surrounded.

[TommyGunn]

Horiuchi/Weaver wasn't about Davidians.

It was about Ruby Ridge.

Yeah, the Feds had the Weavers surrounded.

But northern Idaho had the Feds surrounded, and they were rather cranky.  The Feds were watching their backs, very aggressively, during that whole fiasco.

There... the Feds were surrounded.

Armed resistance is not such a good idea . . . it ended badly for those at Waco once Uncle Sam brought more firepower (including armor!) to bear.

That is what I was refering to.

[zxcvbob]

Jury nullification?

It only works if the feds play nice.  If they arrest a bunch of people in Montana for something and they think they won't be able to win the trial in Montana, they will relocate to a court in an area where they believe they will get a jury.

Plus a judge can overrule the decision of a jury.  Anyone who doesn't think the feds will do whatever they must to win is fooling themselves.  It's all about power and the feds don't like losing.

Judge cannot overrule an acquittal by a jury.  (Not even the Supreme Court has that authority.)  He can set aside a guilty verdict.

[KD5NRH]

You already know the answer to that...

We have a Communist in the White House.  He directs the jackboots.  They're going to Montana, Arizona, Wyoming, etc.  All the "leave me the hell alone!" States.

When we have RINO/NeoCons in the White House, then the jackboots will go to California.

When we have a Tea Partier/Libertarian in the White House, he'll send the jackboots home with pink slips, as is proper.

Put me in there, and we'll turn the Pentagon courtyard into a slight variation of Thunderdome.

Thousands of thugs enter, then we lock the darn thing up and go home. 

[MicroBalrog]

I'm still not convinced that liberty dies because people will not fight a war over an issue like this.

Nobody is seriously advocating civil war. But one would hope that people who have the presence of mind and willpower needed to fight a civil war - not just to make radical statements aobut it on Internet forums - would also be willing to do all the things that must be done before that last box is opened - including becoming politically active on behalf of an issue. If more people were willing to be outraged on behalf of these Montanans, it wouldn't be so easy to deal with them in the way described in the OP.

It is not enough to have people know that an injustice has occured, and then shrug and go "ah, them's just some hippies, who cares". It's not sufficient for people to merely know what's right, people must actually be willing to do something about it - not the mythical Armed Uprising That Will Restore The Constitution And Set Everything Right, but good old political activism, and good new political activism too.

[Perd Hapley]

Nobody is seriously advocating civil war.

But somebody seemed to be predicting it. That's what I was talking about.

Other than that, yeah, I agree that liberty has to be jealously guarded, etc.

[MicroBalrog]

If there really were people out there that had the resolve needed to fight a civil war, we'd see them already - not fighting the civil war, but turning up in protests, city council meetings, and engaging in civil disobedience and hunger strikes, or - at an extreme level which I do not condone - cutting the tires of police cars or even assaulting law enforcement in other lesser ways. People would do other thins that are less dangerous and less morally questionable BEFORE they got to civil war.

We have not seen any of those things. There is no evidence of these people existing in any meaningful quantities.

[Perd Hapley]

If there really were people out there that had the resolve needed to fight a civil war, we'd see them already - not fighting the civil war, but turning up in protests, city council meetings, and engaging in civil disobedience and hunger strikes, or - at an extreme level which I do not condone - cutting the tires of police cars or even assaulting law enforcement in other lesser ways. People would do other thins that are less dangerous and less morally questionable BEFORE they got to civil war.

We have not seen any of those things. There is no evidence of these people existing in any meaningful quantities.

Then you agree with me. Specifically on the issue of drug legalization, I don't hear that many people even talking about it. The major protests are about spending and taxes (Tea Party), budget cuts (the Wisconson follies), immigration, and so on. Apparently there's more pro-drug activism going on in Montana, though.

[TommyGunn]

If there really were people out there that had the resolve needed to fight a civil war, we'd see them already - not fighting the civil war, but turning up in protests, city council meetings, and engaging in civil disobedience and hunger strikes, or - at an extreme level which I do not condone - cutting the tires of police cars or even assaulting law enforcement in other lesser ways. People would do other thins that are less dangerous and less morally questionable BEFORE they got to civil war.

We have not seen any of those things. There is no evidence of these people existing in any meaningful quantities.

I don't necessarily agree with that.  Maybe it's just me; I don't see a lot of value in assaulting individual officers or slashing tires, really. 
If it becomes necessary to revolt, one might as well do it in the most revolting way possible.  As Machiavelli said; "never do an enemy a minor injury."
I just wonder how many potential "revolutionaries" think this way.
I fear there are too many couch potatos out here.... or there ..... 

[209]

Judge cannot overrule an acquittal by a jury.  (Not even the Supreme Court has that authority.)  He can set aside a guilty verdict.

Thanks for telling me that.  I stand corrected.

[Ned Hamford]

Judge cannot overrule an acquittal by a jury.  (Not even the Supreme Court has that authority.)  He can set aside a guilty verdict.

But he can dismiss jurors till he gets the votes he wants.

[Tallpine]

Is the DEA going for broke to gin up bad feelings about their agency?

Seems that way to me.

It's working, too.

[erictank]

But he can dismiss jurors till he gets the votes he wants.

Him and the attorneys.

"Voir Dire - French for 'jury tampering'." - courtesy of Vin Suprynowicz.

Know about and support the idea of jury nullification?  Thanks for showing up, we won't be needing your services today, Juror #42.  Have a nice day.