#1 Craig Cobb in Leith Thread (Craig Cobb's PLE in North Dakota)

[Donnie in Ohio]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

I very well could be. It may be that the judge decided that $1M Cash bond is a good way to flip the bird to the NDSC. It may be that this the judge's way of establishing her complete and utter authority over this case.

It could be a lot of things, but reasonable for a class C felony?

Not.

Well, multiple felonies, remember? Which will carry a substantial prison term upon conviction, in effect a potential life sentence given Cobb's age.

I personally don't think that's the reason behind the high bond, however. Cobb has a documented history of fleeing prosecution. That doesn't look good when you're requesting bail.

The nature of the "crime" he was charged with in Canada is irrelevant. The fact that his actions in Canada would not break U.S. law is also irrelevant.

What is relevant (when considering bond) is that he left the country to avoid prosecution on those charges, which carried far less potential for a lengthy incarceration.

Simplistic? Perhaps....but I doubt it's any more complicated than that.

[Donnie in Ohio]

Means nothing to me, but all things considered derogatory remarks about the judge seem rather ill-advised given the situation.

I don't think that helps Cobb & Dutton. /shrug

[Donnie in Ohio]

Originally Posted by N.B. Forrest

Sounds to me almost like he's given up.

Interesting:

Originally Posted by Craig Cobb

For another thing, at a certain age--certainly 60 and above--one realizes life has been lived, is finished; deeds become more important. Legacy. Action.

[Jason 916]

[-JC]

http://www.cmgww.com/historic/rogers

[zoomcopter]

Originally Posted by remnant

Looks like she has had run ins with the SC before

ND SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY BOARD RECOMMENDS SUSPENSION OF JUDGE CYNTHIA FELAND
http://dakotabeacon.com/entry/nd_sup...udge_cynthia_/

North Dakota's Supreme Court has admonished a district judge for withholding evidence when she worked as a prosecutor.

A disciplinary panel had recommended that Judge Cynthia Feland be suspended from practicing law for 60 days.

The Supreme Court's ruling admonishes Feland for her conduct. That is a less severe penalty and won't hurt her ability to continue serving as a judge.
http://www.wday.com/event/article/id/67922/


Elected District Judge in 2010.

Seems like a pretty serious offence, considering that withholding evidence is pretty much the same as planting evidence, but I guess the ND SC didn't want to ruin the career of such a promising, up and coming young female judge with million dollar "potential"

[zoomcopter]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

I very well could be. It may be that the judge decided that $1M Cash bond is a good way to flip the bird to the NDSC. It may be that this the judge's way of establishing her complete and utter authority over this case.

Not a very good way way to stay on the fast track for an up and coming judge. I'd be surprised if she didn't consult with the NDSC first. The NDSC may have given her the private go-ahead, knowing they couldn't side with her publicly, without eventually being overturned by an even higher court.

[M. Gerard]

Originally Posted by zoomcopter

Seems like a pretty serious offence, considering that withholding evidence is pretty much the same as planting evidence, but I guess the ND SC didn't want to ruin the career of such a promising, up and coming young female judge with million dollar "potential"

They all do it all the time - that is withhold evidence that would clear the defendant. They want convictions.

[Mr A.Anderson]

Originally Posted by zoomcopter

Not a very good way way to stay on the fast track for an up and coming judge. I'd be surprised if she didn't consult with the NDSC first. The NDSC may have given her the private go-ahead, knowing they couldn't side with her publicly, without eventually being overturned by an even higher court.

This is assuming that the jewdiciary is fair, balanced, and only rewards people based on professional ethics and performance.

We all know that it doesn't. The more radical, the better.

[Mr A.Anderson]

Here's a photo of Mjodr/Kelley "ARMED & DANGEROUS" in Kalispell, Montana taken from the white supremecist Stormfront site...NOW does anyone NOT think he is dangerous?

The man is dangerous and this is not going to end well considering the posture of the rest of the nation when it comes to violence. All anyone has to do is look at all the school & workplace shootings that have taken place in this country just this year alone.

We debated long & hard not to stoop to his level but now he is brandishing a shotgun with his hand on the trigger in the City Of Kalispell!

Here's a photo of Craig Cobb "ARMED & DANGEROUS" in Leith, North Dakota taken from his White Nations Forum Blog...NOW does anyone NOT think he is dangerous?

The man is dangerous and this is not going to end well considering the posture of the rest of the nation when it comes to violence. All anyone has to do is look at all the school & workplace shootings that have taken place in this country just this year alone.

We debated long & hard not to stoop to his level but now he is brandishing a shotgun with his hand on the trigger in the City Of Leith!
http://www.leithnd.com/

See how that works?

Now, considering.........

An argument can be made that Mr. Bruce made the above comment with intent to cause/spread fear to garner sympathy towards Leith. Not only that, but the statements clearly imply that a crime of violence or act dangerous to life is imminent, by the FALSE assertation/report that Craig has his "hand" on the trigger.

I do believe this, ladies and gentlemen, meets the parameters for Terrorizing per ND statute.

North Dakota Code 12.1-17-04 - Terrorizing

Types of Crimes

Search the North Dakota Century Code North Dakota Code 12.1-17-04 - Terrorizing

North Dakota Code > Title 12.1 > Chapter 12.1-17 > § 12.1-17-04 - Terrorizing

Current as of: 2009 Check for updates

A person is guilty of a class C felony if, with intent to place another human being in fear for that human being's or another's safety or to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation, or otherwise to cause serious disruption or public inconvenience, or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror, disruption, or inconvenience, the person:

1. Threatens to commit any crime of violence or act dangerous to human life.; or

2. Falsely informs another that a situation dangerous to human life or commission of a crime of violence is imminent knowing that the information is false

Mr. Gregory Bruce should be charged at once.

[Donnie in Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jason 916

You know man, I still don't think it helps the situation if you're Cobb, but that shit is pretty fucking funny.

[Donnie in Ohio]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

Here's a photo of Mjodr/Kelley "ARMED & DANGEROUS" in Kalispell, Montana taken from the white supremecist Stormfront site...NOW does anyone NOT think he is dangerous?

To IKEA futons, yeah.

Sorry Kelley, VNN, itz! We break balls, you know? Nothing personal.

[Jason 916]

Originally Posted by Donnie in Ohio

You know man, I still don't think it helps the situation if you're Cobb, but that shit is pretty fucking funny.

Yeah, stuff a lot of people have said on this thread doesn't help Cobb, if you get my meaning. Just a little lighthearted humor.

[Donnie in Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jason 916

Yeah, stuff a lot of people have said on this thread doesn't help Cobb, if you get my meaning.

Fair enough.

Just a little lighthearted humor.

My favorite kind.

[Kelley]

Originally Posted by Donnie in Ohio

To IKEA futons, yeah.

Sorry Kelley, VNN, itz! We break balls, you know? Nothing personal.

I'm looking very Sasquatch these days.

Also, the gun isn't real... it only shoots blanks....

Really... honest injun.

Besides, the ice won that battle, I was forced to retreat.

And they are not futons, they are hams. I am dangerous to hams.

[Kelley]

On a serious side, Mr. AA. The difference between that pic and what Cobb did was that I was on my own property's slipping and sliding on my pond/driveway (outside of town also), and I wasn't yelling at people. Not to mention when I carry it in town, I use the sling. I am also in a traditional open carry state.

I did have a neighbor pass by that stared at me until she gave a thumbs up. Probably thought I was invading my own home.

Of course, it could have been the winter beard....

[Mr A.Anderson]

Originally Posted by Kelley

On a serious side, Mr. AA. The difference between that pic and what Cobb did was that I was on my own property's slipping and sliding on my pond/driveway (outside of town also), and I wasn't yelling at people. Not to mention when I carry it in town, I use the sling. I am also in a traditional open carry state.

I did have a neighbor pass by that stared at me until she gave a thumbs up. Probably thought I was invading my own home.

Of course, it could have been the winter beard....

OK, please back up a second.

Let's stay focused on this one aspect of events.

I believe I read that Craig posed with that shotgun on his property. He was not yelling at anyone during that picture, and he was not carrying it in town or in public in that picture.

Stay with me.

In other words, he was doing nothing different than you were.

Oh, yes he was. Your picture was much more of an aggressive/dangerous stance, as you had your finger extended, just outside the trigger well. You were more ready to 'pull the trigger' as it were.

You also had your off hand on the foregrip of the weapon. Once again, this is a more aggressive stance because your off hand was already in the traditional 'fire' position.

Craig displayed neither characteristic. And yet, word for word, how this picture, taken in Sept/Oct time frame was described as and "Armed Neo Nazi In Leith, North Dakota:

Here's a photo of Craig Cobb "ARMED & DANGEROUS" in Leith, North Dakota taken from his White Nations Forum Blog...NOW does anyone NOT think he is dangerous?

The man is dangerous and this is not going to end well considering the posture of the rest of the nation when it comes to violence. All anyone has to do is look at all the school & workplace shootings that have taken place in this country just this year alone.

We debated long & hard not to stoop to his level but now he is brandishing a shotgun with his hand on the trigger in the City Of Leith!
http://www.leithnd.com/

Now, given at the time that this picture was taken and made public, Craig had NOT performed an armed patrol.....Craig had NOT carried his weapon without a sling in public (strawman argument, btw. As there is no state definition of brandishing, carrying without a sling is ipso-facto legal in ND).....it is just as legal to open carry a long arm in an Ispo-Facto state as it is in a specifically legalized open carry state (another strawman).......and Craig had NOT verbally interacted with anybody while carrying a weapon.........

There is no difference between what he did in that picture and what you did in yours besides........the fact your picture can be interpreted as more aggressive, and therefore more "dangerous".

And yet Mr. Bruce, I believe, intentionally described the picture to cause alarm and fear for the safety of Leithiopians ( everytime I hear/read/say/type that word) AND knowingly made a false report that a crime of violence or act dangerous to human life was unavoidable and imminent by his description of the photo (and his exact words) and linking that to recent school and workplace photos.

Nothing that has happened since this incident is being discussed in my posts on this, and therefore should not be considered when analyzing the exact situation as it took place in a very specific timeframe of events.

Now, do you still think there is a difference between Craig posing with his shotgun and you posing with yours?

Oh, and don't make me throw one of our local 'tree cats' at you......of course your beard may likey-like. I'll pm the pics when I get them loaded up.

[Kelley]

Tom, he wasn't arrested for posing with the gun in that picture.

I'm not talking about the picture, I also wouldn't care if someone called me an "armed Neo-nazi" for my picture, no matter how inaccurate the Neo-nazi tag would be. I'm armed, and proud to be armed.

If anything, I am an "armed hermit".

Anyone that invades my property should believe they will get a slug to the face. I'll be friendly I can be as I shoot them, of course.

Also, I haven't pissed my local webmaster/stalker off.

[-JC]

But that's not the same as not agreeing enough with how he expresses himself to go and join him. We're talking about hating him enough to want to see him rot in a cage for the rest of his life. And that's a lot more hate than not agreeing that he ought to be able to start a Chinatown or Koreatown for his people, using the democratic process, with full disclosure of his political agenda, which the media characterized as a Nazi takeover of the town.

The list starts at about minute 14:00, if you will scroll-down to #8, "Playing cards on a sinking ship," at https://archive.org/details/DrWillia...adioBroadcasts. In #9, Dr. Pierce discussed exactly what Pat Buchanan was still discussing a couple of nights ago in his column.*

If you've invested this much time, you might want to listen to the whole explanation, about 20 minutes, of the problem Mr. Cobb has been trying-- in his own way-- to solve and and then think about it for yourself. Dealing with these politically-incorrect issues head-on is becoming a more popular regardless of what those pushing for White genocide use easy targets like Mr. Cobb. Ask yourself if this treatment of Mr. Cobb isn't terrorism instead.
__________________________
* [IMG]file:///C:\DOCUME~1\J\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.jpg[/IMG]
Mandela, Churchill and the War for the Future

Friday - December 27, 2013 at 12:02 am

By Patrick J. Buchanan

By their heroes shall you know them.

In his eulogy, President Obama put Nelson Mandela in the company of three other heroes: Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Abraham Lincoln.

What did these men have in common? Three were assassinated, and all four are icons of resistance to white rule over peoples of color.

Lincoln waged the bloodiest war in American history that ended slavery. Gandhi advanced the end of British rule in India. King led the civil rights struggle that buried Jim Crow. Mandela was the leader of the revolution that overthrew apartheid.
Obama’s heroes testify to his belief that the great moral struggle of the age is the struggle for racial equality.

For the neocons, the greatest man was Winston Churchill, because he stood up, almost alone, to the great evil of the age — Nazism.

Thus, to neocons, Munich was the great betrayal because it was there that Neville Chamberlain, rather than defy Hitler, agreed to the return of the Sudeten Germans to German rule. [To the Old Right, Yalta, where Churchill and FDR ceded Eastern Europe to Stalin, a monster as evil and more menacing than Hitler, was the greatest betrayal.]

But what did Churchill think of Obama’s hero Gandhi?

“It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the Viceregal Palace … to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King.”

What did Churchill think of ending Western white rule of peoples of color? Here he is in 1937:

“I do not admit … that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia … by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race … has come in and taken its place.”

Here is Churchill during World War II:

“I have not become the King’s first minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.”
In short, Dunkirk defiance aside, Churchill’s convictions about the superiority of some races and civilizations, and their inherent right to rule what Kipling called “the lesser breeds without the law,” was and is the antithesis of what Obama believes.

Any wonder Obama shipped that bust of Churchill that “W” kept in the Oval Office back to the British embassy. Any surprise Obama failed to show up at the funeral of Margaret Thatcher, a Churchillian who sent the fleet to retake the Falkland Islands from Argentina.

The point: Obama’s vision of an ideal world and Churchill’s are irreconcilable.

Second, not only is Churchill dead, his empire is dead, his world is dead, and his ideas on superior races and civilizations would be censured and censored if spoken in any international forum.

We are in Obama’s world now. It is a world where not only are all races, religions and civilizations equal, but within nations the greater the diversity of races, religions, cultures and ethnic groups the better.

And not only should all have equal rights, but more equal rewards.

Inequality equals injustice. Income inequality is the new enemy.

But though Obama’s world is today, it is looking less like tomorrow.

Across the Middle East and Africa, Islamists are murdering and persecuting Christians as they do not regard Christianity as equal.

Ethnonationalism unites Chinese against Tibetans and Uighurs and propels a confrontation with the Japanese who have never been forgiven for the Rape of Nanking.

Vladimir Putin is in the crosshairs of Western secularists for seeking to revive and restore Orthodox Christianity and its moral precepts to primacy in Russian law, which likely means no Gay Pride parades in Red Square any time soon.

In a Christmas card to this writer, the Washington Post’s Harold Meyerson brings up my late father’s support of Spain’s Gen. Francisco Franco — to reveal the son’s suspect motives.

In a civil war from 1936-1939, Franco ran off a Christophobic regime of Socialists, Stalinists and Trotskyists as their comrades of the Abraham Lincoln Battalion got waxed at Jarama River and ended up on the Attorney General’s List of Subversive Organizations.

Sorry about that, Harold.

Across Europe, globalism and transnationalism, as represented by the eurozone and EU, seem in retreat, as nationalism is resurgent. Now it is the UKIP, a new British independence party, which seeks to secede from the EU that is surging — at the expense of the Tories.

Let France be France! Let Britain be Britain! Let Scotland be Scotland! These are the cries coming from the hearts of Europeans rejecting mass immigration and the cacophonous madness of multiculturalism.

All men may be equal in rights. But most prefer their own faith, country, culture, civilization, and kind. They cherish and wish to maintain their own unique and separate identities. They do not want to disappear into some great amalgam of the New World Order.

Whether globalism or nationalism prevails, the big battle is coming.

http://buchanan.org/blog/mandela-chu...ar-future-6141

[Mr A.Anderson]

Originally Posted by Kelley

Tom, he wasn't arrested for posing with the gun in that picture.

I never said or implied that he did. What I am saying is the exact wording of Mr. Bruce's (false) description intentionally caused fear., and that the picture in question is no different than yours......and that his pre-existing fear mongering (used repeatedly over a period of time) is being used to paint Craig in a worse light, and that this pre-existing fear (based upon false statements) was used as justification for not only the arrests, but the exact charges and bond amounts.

Originally Posted by Kelley

I'm not talking about the picture, I also wouldn't care if someone called me an "armed Neo-nazi" for my picture, no matter how inaccurate the Neo-nazi tag would be. I'm armed, and proud to be armed.

I am specifically talking about the picture in question, without regards to anything else for the past several posts......and refuse to be distracted in the way that a good lawyer would when setting the stage of events. One small bite at a time, piece by piece. There's a reason why good attorneys do this.

Would you be irritated if someone called you "Armed & Dangerous"...... continually describing you as 'dangerous' to the public, saying things won't end well because you are an "armed & Dangerous" person who is going to do something harmful to the innocent citizenry much in the same way recent school and workplace shootings?

All done through media outlets in the region that you are living?

That wouldn't bother you? That's not unfair, if not outright illegal? That's nothing to be concerned with? It's nothing that might not influence people's thoughts (and actions) that don't know you, or of you personally?

Is that what you are saying?

Originally Posted by Kelley

If anything, I am an "armed hermit".

Aren't we all?

Originally Posted by Kelley

Anyone that invades my property should believe they will get a slug to the face. I'll be friendly I can be as I shoot them, of course.

Castle Doctrine, of some sort, exists in most states. Of some sort being the key phrase. Montana's, which I am sure you know states.

45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.

(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:

(a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or

(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

Which is different, slightly, than North Dakota's, and extremely different than New York or Washington D.C.

Anyways, Craig never stepped onto anybody's private property or pointed a weapon at anybody, racked a round, etc (an act dangerous to human life).

Wise? Of course not. Illegal? We'll see. IMO, not guilty of the charges he faces. Not by a long shot. More evidence will most likely come out and change things, but based purely from what we know, and what we've seen, not guilty.