US Marshals stalk courtroom observers in Portland...

[Skull Pilot]

I wouldn't want to be in the same room with domestic terrorists and not have the law there. Good to see the law is protecting patriots from domestic terrorists.

Most if not all judges have a pistol as well as the bailiff.

most judges do not have "pistols" or any other weapons when they're on the bench.

Judges authorize themselves to carry weapons without permit


Guns | Judges With Guns QUOTES US LAWS


Appeals Court authorizes its judges to carry concealed weapons without mandatory training | Buckeye Firearms Association

again, MOST do not keep guns in the courtroom. what you posted doesn't change that

How do you know who is carrying concealed and who isn't?

 

[koshergrl]

I wouldn't want to be in the same room with domestic terrorists and not have the law there. Good to see the law is protecting patriots from domestic terrorists.

Most if not all judges have a pistol as well as the bailiff.

most judges do not have "pistols" or any other weapons when they're on the bench.

Judges authorize themselves to carry weapons without permit


Guns | Judges With Guns QUOTES US LAWS


Appeals Court authorizes its judges to carry concealed weapons without mandatory training | Buckeye Firearms Association

again, MOST do not keep guns in the courtroom. what you posted doesn't change that

How do you know who is carrying concealed and who isn't?

I have known one...two....three....judges personally during my adult life who cc in the courtroom.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

When you're a known associate of criminals, that tends to happen. Law enforcement sometimes tails you, thinking you might lead them to more criminals.

Um, no, that's not how it works. There still has to be a valid reason to surveil someone.

 

[jillian]

Most if not all judges have a pistol as well as the bailiff.

most judges do not have "pistols" or any other weapons when they're on the bench.

Judges authorize themselves to carry weapons without permit


Guns | Judges With Guns QUOTES US LAWS


Appeals Court authorizes its judges to carry concealed weapons without mandatory training | Buckeye Firearms Association

again, MOST do not keep guns in the courtroom. what you posted doesn't change that

How do you know who is carrying concealed and who isn't?

I have known one...two....three....judges personally during my adult life who cc in the courtroom.

in your narrow little part of the world.

but thanks for the anecdote.

 

[Skull Pilot]

most judges do not have "pistols" or any other weapons when they're on the bench.

Judges authorize themselves to carry weapons without permit


Guns | Judges With Guns QUOTES US LAWS


Appeals Court authorizes its judges to carry concealed weapons without mandatory training | Buckeye Firearms Association

again, MOST do not keep guns in the courtroom. what you posted doesn't change that

How do you know who is carrying concealed and who isn't?

I have known one...two....three....judges personally during my adult life who cc in the courtroom.

in your narrow little part of the world.

but thanks for the anecdote.

ANd you have yet to tell me how you know if a person is carrying a concealed weapon or not

 

[koshergrl]

most judges do not have "pistols" or any other weapons when they're on the bench.

Judges authorize themselves to carry weapons without permit


Guns | Judges With Guns QUOTES US LAWS


Appeals Court authorizes its judges to carry concealed weapons without mandatory training | Buckeye Firearms Association

again, MOST do not keep guns in the courtroom. what you posted doesn't change that

How do you know who is carrying concealed and who isn't?

I have known one...two....three....judges personally during my adult life who cc in the courtroom.

in your narrow little part of the world.

but thanks for the anecdote.

Yes, western America, lol. Well known for its Littleness'

 

[mamooth]

Um, no, that's not how it works. There still has to be a valid reason to surveil someone.

Being a known associate of criminals is a valid reason.

No, you couldn't spy inside someone's home just for that reason. For that, you'd need a warrant. But for surveillance in public places, as was the case here, law enforcement doesn't need a warrant.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Um, no, that's not how it works. There still has to be a valid reason to surveil someone.

Being a known associate of criminals is a valid reason.

No, you couldn't spy inside someone's home just for that reason. For that, you'd need a warrant. But for surveillance in public places, as was the case here, law enforcement doesn't need a warrant.

Not necessarily.

I didn't say they needed a warrant. I said a valid reason, otherwise it can be considered harassment.

 

[whitehall]

Federal Cops are a different breed of Police Officer. They have the advantage of a virtual unlimited budget but they exist in a limbo of political intrigue. If there are a lot of Marshals employed by the government and they don't have much to do and there mission is dictated by a crooked and left wing administration they might follow any American who wears a crucifix or has a anti-administration bumper sticker on his car. Federal officers don't have to worry about the cost of investigations or the potential affront to Constitutional law.. Randy Weaver is a prime example of how bad it can get when federal officers re-invent the Constitution. The ATF saw Weaver enter a skinhead booth at a state fair and they decided that he should become an agent/informant of the government police. When he refused the ATF retaliated and the infamous "Ruby Ridge siege" happened. Weaver was eventually awarded a million dollars in compensation after the federal cops killed his wife and son and shot and wounded him. Federal cops have the additional advantage of being protected by the administration and the media. When the ATFand the FBI decided to ship a couple of thousand illegal weapons to drug cartels in Mexico under operation Fast/Furious the mainstream media ignored the crime or circled the wagons. Nobody was fired and nobody was indicted but it's estimated that hundreds of Mexican citizens were murdered by the weapons furnished by the U.S. government and at least one U.S. Border Patrol Officer. You almost gotta laugh too. When a high ranking member of the Clinton administration allegedly dragged his own corpse to an obscure park outside Washington D.C. but forgot his car keys, the FBI and the ATF was busy tracking down an ice skater who hired somebody to whack a compeditor's knee and it was the Park Police who ran the investigation into Vince Foster's death.

 

[koshergrl]

Um, no, that's not how it works. There still has to be a valid reason to surveil someone.

Being a known associate of criminals is a valid reason.

No, you couldn't spy inside someone's home just for that reason. For that, you'd need a warrant. But for surveillance in public places, as was the case here, law enforcement doesn't need a warrant.

No, it isn't. you brainless brownshirts really just have no concept of how this works. So who is Sarah Redd Buck an associate of? How is she associated with criminals...and whatnare their names?

 

[mamooth]

No, it isn't. you brainless brownshirts really just have no concept of how this works. So who is Sarah Redd Buck an associate of? How is she associated with criminals...and whatnare their names?

The whole Sagebrush Rebellion crew. You know, the Bundy crime syndicate, the Malheur gang, those folks.

Or maybe all of those posts to her Facebook page are faked. But I doubt the government thinks that's the case. She kind of advertises her links to the criminals.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

When you're a known associate of criminals, that tends to happen. Law enforcement sometimes tails you, thinking you might lead them to more criminals.

Um, no, that's not how it works. There still has to be a valid reason to surveil someone.

Uh, says who?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

When you're a known associate of criminals, that tends to happen. Law enforcement sometimes tails you, thinking you might lead them to more criminals.

Um, no, that's not how it works. There still has to be a valid reason to surveil someone.

Uh, says who?

The law.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

When you're a known associate of criminals, that tends to happen. Law enforcement sometimes tails you, thinking you might lead them to more criminals.

Um, no, that's not how it works. There still has to be a valid reason to surveil someone.

Uh, says who?

The law.

Really? Which one?

I think you are confused.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

When you're a known associate of criminals, that tends to happen. Law enforcement sometimes tails you, thinking you might lead them to more criminals.

Um, no, that's not how it works. There still has to be a valid reason to surveil someone.

Uh, says who?

The law.

Really? Which one.

I think you are confused.

Surveillance can't be conducted on an American citizen without reasonable suspicion.

 

[The Great Goose]

When you're a known associate of criminals, that tends to happen. Law enforcement sometimes tails you, thinking you might lead them to more criminals.

It also happens when the state is corrupt and criminal, and vested in killing and imprisoning any person who says so.

It doesn't in Australia. We have privacy laws and harrassment.

 

[eagle1462010]

BLM has been running land seizure regime for years

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

Hammond - PreparingYou

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

When you're a known associate of criminals, that tends to happen. Law enforcement sometimes tails you, thinking you might lead them to more criminals.

Um, no, that's not how it works. There still has to be a valid reason to surveil someone.

Uh, says who?

The law.

Really? Which one.

I think you are confused.

Surveillance can't be conducted on an American citizen without reasonable suspicion.

Where does it say that?

Again, I think you are confused.

 

[koshergrl]

No, it isn't. you brainless brownshirts really just have no concept of how this works. So who is Sarah Redd Buck an associate of? How is she associated with criminals...and whatnare their names?

The whole Sagebrush Rebellion crew. You know, the Bundy crime syndicate, the Malheur gang, those folks.

Or maybe all of those posts to her Facebook page are faked. But I doubt the government thinks that's the case. She kind of advertises her links to the criminals.

They aren't criminals, and neither is she. And neither are any of the other people who have been harassed, assaulted, robbed, arrested and killed.