# Feds raid Texas political meeting



## Big Country1 (Feb 10, 2014)

Feds raid state political meeting


----------



## Boss Dog (Feb 8, 2013)

Don't steal or kill. The gov't doesn't like the competition.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

It says no arrests were made but they were finger printed. Is that even legal? I thought you had to be booked to be fingerprinted.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Sasquatch said:


> It says no arrests were made but they were finger printed. Is that even legal? I thought you had to be booked to be fingerprinted.


_Legal_? Aren't we a little passed that argument, nowadays?

Those old farts are real threats to the de facto government, I'd say. Why, between issuing a piece of paper and possessing assault canes... :cower:


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

I've got a black helicopter circling my house, should I be worried? It seems that slights offenses are now being met with the brown shirt tactics employed by Obama's mentor, Adolph Hitler. I people wonder why I'm loosing faith in our government. What's next Swat teams issuing parking tickets. I know "Reductio Ad Absurdum".
From: Baby Deer 'Giggles' Killed Following Raid on Wisconsin Animal Shelter | Moral Low Ground
But in Wisconsin, around a dozen or more heavily armed (SWAT style) sheriff's officers and DNR personnel swooped in and held staff at a animal refuge in lock down because they were in possession of a fawn whose mother was hit by a car. The officers were afraid the staff would try to prevent the seizure of the fawn (affectionately name Giggles) by DNR so it could be put down because it "might" have wasting disease. No tests were performed before the summary execution of the fawn. The Sheriff's office and DNR said the staff exaggerated the claims of being held at gun point in a locked room. The door was never locked, the officer simply stood outside to prevent staff from leaving the room.


----------



## Big Country1 (Feb 10, 2014)

Sasquatch said:


> It says no arrests were made but they were finger printed. Is that even legal? I thought you had to be booked to be fingerprinted.


Legal? No
Its called a police state....


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Sasquatch said:


> It says no arrests were made but they were finger printed. Is that even legal? I thought you had to be booked to be fingerprinted.


They can fingerprint you if you consent, not sure if they can compel it without a booking. Technically, I guess some kind of misdemeanor had been commited there. Any legal eagles on the board?


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Big Country1 said:


> Legal? No
> Its called a police state....


I hear Ya there but the reason I asked is because I'm wondering if the can take legal action against the state, county, feds or whoever. It seems like these days that's the only way to fight back. That is if you don't get a judge that leans left.


----------



## Big Country1 (Feb 10, 2014)

Sasquatch said:


> I hear Ya there but the reason I asked is because I'm wondering if the can take legal action against the state, county, feds or whoever. It seems like these days that's the only way to fight back. That is if you don't get a judge that leans left.


--Police searched and fingerprinted each person at the meeting, but they did not perform cheek-swab DNA testing as the *warrant* allowed.

And whats the odds of getting a judge that actually upholds the constitution these days? This illegal act was signed off by a judge and even allowed DNA testing!?! All of this for what exactly?

--the truth is that the Republic of Texas is a self-determined people attempting to throw off the yoke of military occupation of Texas through peaceful and lawful process.
--Robert Wilson, a senator in the Republic, equated politicians in Washington, D.C., to the 'kings and emperors' of the past, and sees Texas independence as part of a worldwide movement for local control.

They pose a threat to the over-all plan and that's why they need to be tagged and bagged.


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower (Jan 10, 2015)

The Obama SS jackboots are at it again.

What's next? The Obama SS raiding a bingo hall because the old folks are "gambling"?


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

This is just to let these uppity ignoramuses know who is really in charge. Play time Republic is over while the adults (feds) put you in the corner for symbolically flexing your political/constitutional muscles.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> The Obama SS jackboots are at it again.
> 
> What's next? The Obama SS raiding a bingo hall because the old folks are "gambling"?


I think a SWAT raid on a bingo game has been done. My memory could be fuzzy on that. I don't recall if it was Federal or local.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Those who speak out in this country and critisize the administration may soon find themselves treated the same way Putin treats his critics.


----------



## GTGallop (Nov 11, 2012)

In Phoenix the guy that carried an AR-15 into the airport (LGOC & not past security) was arrested, printed, booked, posted bail. Then they dropped all the charges because OOPS - He never actually broke the law and the whole thing was on security camera. Also the complainant that said she was "in fear of her life and her daughters life" because of his "reckless handling and constant muzzle sweeping" turned out to be people that were coached on what to say by police. Hmmm....

So his charges got dropped and he was never convicted of a crime - BUT HE STILL GOT PROBATION! He couldn't have a gun in his possession for 6 months and can not publicly have a gun open or concealed carry for 2 years - and he gets all of the other stuff that probies get like monthly meetings and drug tests.

How can you not be charged with a crime but get probation? This Gestapo business has got to stop. Arresting people at a political meeting but then never arresting them? Good luck getting your mug shots expunged from the record books.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

So who do you all think is at fault here?


----------



## GTGallop (Nov 11, 2012)

Diver said:


> So who do you all think is at fault here?


I blame Sid and Marty Kroft for creating a generation of people that can't exist with out daily affirmations and participation trophies; who are so sensitive to the opinions of others that they have created a nanny state to care for them after their parents have gotten too old and willfully handed over almost every freedom and right that our forefathers fought and died for just so these sheeple can exist in their "everything is awesome" world of rainbows and cupcakes where no one is unhappy and if they are it is a medical condition that needs a magical pill.


----------



## Gunner's Mate (Aug 13, 2013)

Keep this in mind OBAMA NEEDS A REVOLT TO STAY IN POWER and anything will do so that he can proclaim himself Chief Dictaster and Supreme Leader


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

GTGallop said:


> I blame Sid and Marty Kroft for creating a generation of people that can't exist with out daily affirmations and participation trophies; who are so sensitive to the opinions of others that they have created a nanny state to care for them after their parents have gotten too old and willfully handed over almost every freedom and right that our forefathers fought and died for just so these sheeple can exist in their "everything is awesome" world of rainbows and cupcakes where no one is unhappy and if they are it is a medical condition that needs a magical pill.


I assume you just forgot the emoticon on that one.


----------



## GTGallop (Nov 11, 2012)

You mean this one?


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Did you expect anything else from Obama and Holder? They been Using every Government agency to go after anyone not in step wit them


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> Did you expect anything else from Obama and Holder? They been Using every Government agency to go after anyone not in step wit them


Well, I suppose they are responsible, but the article doesn't indicate either one of them even knew about it in advance. They may not even know about it now depending on where they get their news.


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower (Jan 10, 2015)

GTGallop said:


> I blame Sid and Marty Kroft for creating a generation of people that can't exist with out daily affirmations and participation trophies; who are so sensitive to the opinions of others that they have created a nanny state to care for them after their parents have gotten too old and willfully handed over almost every freedom and right that our forefathers fought and died for just so these sheeple can exist in their "everything is awesome" world of rainbows and cupcakes where no one is unhappy and if they are it is a medical condition that needs a magical pill.


Even before Sid and Marty, there were the Flintstones. Barney and Betty Rubble allowed their son, Bam-Bam, to destroy all kinds of thing with his club, and I never once saw him get punished for his anger problems and his lack of respect for other people's property.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Anybody got a serious answer? Who is responsible? What rights are being violated? Why does this article bring very consistent responses that what is going on here is wrong?


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

How about the first amendment guarantee to peaceably assemble?


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Camel923 said:


> How about the first amendment guarantee to peaceably assemble?


I would agree that is one of the rights violated. Who is responsible?


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

Camel923 said:


> How about the first amendment guarantee to peaceably assemble?


It's an old fashion word, but the Feds probably will call it sedition and try to hammer it down.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

keith9365 said:


> It's an old fashion word, but the Feds probably will call it sedition and try to hammer it down.


That would add freedom of speech to the right to assemble but more rights are involved. No one has taken a crack at who is responsible unless "the Feds" is an answer, but this has specific people responsible.

If you're going to be outraged who are you going to be outraged at?


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

When the strong arm of the Federal Government, the IRS, intentionally targets Conservative/Tea Party non profits would it come as a surprise to anyone that any right leaning group would be a target? Until the "Patriot" act the Government could neither monitor nor regulate any group of Americans without getting a massive amount of warrants. Just getting a wiretap was a monumental undertaking requiring a massive amount of proof, (see Katz Vs. US). As soon as the Department of Homeland Security was formed I knew we were taking the first step down a very tenuous and foreboding slope. I don't know what type of evidence the Federal Agents provided for a search warrant of this outfit but I have said many times on this forum that a search warrant "shall not issue but upon probable cause" which is an abstract construct that is open to interpretation.

The article said that* the* search warrant allowed for collection of evidence, DNA swabs, phones etc. The problem I have with it would be that this smells like a single search warrant. I would expect that a search warrant for each individual would be required. I don't know the facts but it seems like an illegal, blanket warrant that is too broad in scope and does not specifically name the person, places or things to be searched. Nor the specific items they were looking for.

Just because they found a Federal Judge willing to sign it does not make the warrant valid.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

csi-tech said:


> When the strong arm of the Federal Government, the IRS, intentionally targets Conservative/Tea Party non profits would it come as a surprise to anyone that any right leaning group would be a target? Until the "Patriot" act the Government could neither monitor nor regulate any group of Americans without getting a massive amount of warrants. Just getting a wiretap was a monumental undertaking requiring a massive amount of proof, (see Katz Vs. US). As soon as the Department of Homeland Security was formed I knew we were taking the first step down a very tenuous and foreboding slope. I don't know what type of evidence the Federal Agents provided for a search warrant of this outfit but I have said many times on this forum that a search warrant "shall not issue but upon probable cause" which is an abstract construct that is open to interpretation.
> 
> The article said that* the* search warrant allowed for collection of evidence, DNA swabs, phones etc. The problem I have with it would be that this smells like a single search warrant. I would expect that a search warrant for each individual would be required. I don't know the facts but it seems like an illegal, blanket warrant that is too broad in scope and does not specifically name the person, places or things to be searched. Nor the specific items they were looking for.
> 
> Just because they found a Federal Judge willing to sign it does not make the warrant valid.


Thank you. Search warrants are covered under the 4th amendment and any objection to the story must start with whether or not the warrant passes constitutional muster. Issues of free assembly or speech only come into play if the warrant is invalid.

As for who is responsible, that would be the set of people who were aware of the warrant. That would include the person requesting the warrant (typically a cop) the person drafting the warrant, the judge who approved it, and the cops who executed it.

Now for all of those who think I am bashing cops, the cops involved have to read the warrant to know what they can, and cannot, search. For instance if a warrant allows you search for drugs, and nothing else, and you go into a home and don't find drugs, you can't seize the person's computer hoping that you'll find some evidence of something on it. To know what you can and can't do, you have to read the warrant. If by chance one or more of the cops involved did not read the warrant, then he (or they) screwed up by failure to read the warrant. So the people who are responsible include the requestor, the person who wrote it, the judge who signed it, and the cops that executed it. These are the only people who know about the warrant, so you can't shift blame outside that group.


----------



## luminaughty (Dec 16, 2014)

This was nothing more than an attempt to discourage current and potential members from joining. The idiot in chief and his followers just don't realize how many people are already at the tipping point. The Bundy ranch standoff could have easily spawned a full blown revolt that would have spread throughout the states had the corrupt government not backed down. With so many already angry with the federal governments refusal to secure our borders, resettlement of muslim refugees into America knowing there are radicals, irs targeting conservative political organizations, attempts to undermine the Second Amendment, unconstitutional spying on American citizens, inciting race riots, and hampering our economic recovery Id say they (federal government) have pissed off more than enough citizens to start a revolt. It is not a matter of "if" but "when". Sooner or later the federal governments actions will spawn a revolt like they never imagined. Now days there is not a week goes by that you cant hear about somebodies Constitutional rights being violated by the government.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

It really doesn't matter why they did it. It is unconstitutional under the 4th amendment.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

Republic of Texas isn't a political group. It's a terrorist organization. These are the guys who believe texas was illegally annexed the second time and does not have to follow the US' laws. They are the ones handing out fake summons for fake sentencing at fake courts that are recognized by no government, not even the State of Texas.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

So, being a terrorist organization, the fed is absolutely authorized to do this to defend the law abiding citizens from these guys. To monitor them and their separatist movement. They aren't doing it because they disagree with the fed, they are doing it because they want to secede texas and take it over with a new set of laws that they approve and screw everyone else in Texas that doesn't.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Jakthesoldier said:


> Republic of Texas isn't a political group. It's a terrorist organization. These are the guys who believe texas was illegally annexed the second time and does not have to follow the US' laws. They are the ones handing out fake summons for fake sentencing at fake courts that are recognized by no government, not even the State of Texas.


Jak,
Do you have any links that support the accusation that the Republic of Texas is a "terrorist" group?


----------

