Darren Huff

Suranis · **Joined:** Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:04 am **Posts:** 5253

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Fitzfilcher recognizes the authority of the courts. But only when the courts (and juries) do his bidding. I don't think he's a classic sovereign citizen. What he has is common with them mostly is the lunacy and the unwillingness to reason.

Highlands · **Posted:** Tue May 15, 2012 11:29 pm

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

TexasFilly wrote:

I guess Darren's wife is gonna have to sell some of those fancy assed pick'em up trucks and pawn some of his arsenal. Darren will be gone for a while. And not very employable when he gets out.

I believe it will have to be all of his arsenal. I doubt his conviction will allow him to possess firearms legally in the future.

Will his wife be able to own firearms if he lives with her?

nbc · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am **Posts:** 2532

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Fitzfilcher recognizes the authority of the courts. But only when the courts (and juries) do his bidding. I don't think he's a classic sovereign citizen. What he has is common with them mostly is the lunacy and the unwillingness to reason.

Walt has a hard time to take responsibility for his own actions and instead finds it more convenient to explain his misfortunes in life by blaming others, in an ever expanding net of conspiracies.

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10670

Highlands wrote:

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

TexasFilly wrote:

I guess Darren's wife is gonna have to sell some of those fancy assed pick'em up trucks and pawn some of his arsenal. Darren will be gone for a while. And not very employable when he gets out.

I believe it will have to be all of his arsenal. I doubt his conviction will allow him to possess firearms legally in the future.

Will his wife be able to own firearms if he lives with her?

That's where I was going with this: she will claim they are hers. Perhaps she may continue to own them, but I don't think the Federal Probation folks are going to go for keeping them in the home.
Of course if she's really smart, she'll divorce this loser while he's a guest of the feds.

ZekeB · **Posted:** Wed May 16, 2012 12:16 am

TexasFilly wrote:

That's where I was going with this: she will claim they are hers. Perhaps she may continue to own them, but I don't think the Federal Probation folks are going to go for keeping them in the home.
Of course if she's really smart, she'll divorce this loser while he's a guest of the feds.

IANAL Filly, but I would expect that she would get half of his video and toys collection.

SueDB · **Posted:** Wed May 16, 2012 12:28 am

Highlands wrote:

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

TexasFilly wrote:

I guess Darren's wife is gonna have to sell some of those fancy assed pick'em up trucks and pawn some of his arsenal. Darren will be gone for a while. And not very employable when he gets out.

I believe it will have to be all of his arsenal. I doubt his conviction will allow him to possess firearms legally in the future.

Will his wife be able to own firearms if he lives with her?

It depends on the state as some do allow felons to have their rights restored.

Michigan Penal Code...extract

"Constructive Possession"

SueDB · **Posted:** Wed May 16, 2012 12:42 am

Quote:

GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.

*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
*** Annotations Current Through January 20, 2012 ***

TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 11. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY
ARTICLE 4. DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTALITIES AND PRACTICES
PART 3. CARRYING AND POSSESSION OF FIREARMS

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-131 (2011)

§ 16-11-131. Possession of firearms by convicted felons and first offender probationers

Georgia's Concealed Carry Statutes are in

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/gacode/Default.asp

Sections 16-11-126 thru -129
(enter 16-11-126 in the search window)
or 16-11-131

or....

Edit: The general definition of possession is having control of an object. Possession does not necessarily mean ownership of an object. Since there are different ways to control an object, the legal system has various ways to describe the different situations in which a person has control of an object (active, illegal, legal, criminal, physical, sole, joint, etc). Most of those descriptions boil down to a person having either Actual or Constructive possession. Actual possession is when you are in physical or close contact with an item. If you are carrying a firearm on your person or under the drivers seat of your car, then you have actual possession of a firearm. Constructive possession is when you have the power and intention to later take control of the object not currently in your actual possession. If you leave your home an lock all your firearms in your safe, you have constructive possession of those firearms. Laws that prohibit possession are judged based on the ability to control an object, which is why it is possible to charge multiple people with possession of a single object because each of those people had the ability to control the object.

Georgia Possession Law in "Plain American".

jtmunkus · **Joined:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm **Posts:** 3515

A blast from the past:

Four years in federal lockup. To support lunatic Walter Fitzpatrick.

=))

neonzx · **Joined:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am **Posts:** 4216

jtmunkus wrote:

A blast from the past:

I was thinking of this blast from the past...

$\:D/$

Foggy · **Posted:** Wed May 16, 2012 6:21 am

The thing that struck me most about this latest one from Walt/Post&Email (thank you, Orlylicious) is the personal involvement of President Obama in Walt's case.

Quote:

This training program still a campaign, and it’s being orchestrated. It’s a puppet show, and Barack Obama is the puppetmaster.

Quote:

That SWAT team raid that night was a military deployment. They did that on purpose to demonstrate to the community that I was a really, really bad person. They did that that night, knowing that Obama had declared me a “sovereign.”

Quote:

This is Mr. Obama’s handiwork, and these are the consequences that accompany it. Mr. Obama and his Justice Department know exactly what they’re doing, and so do the people here locally.

Y'know, sometimes I wonder how he knows that President Obama is so heavily involved in Walt's case. I try to pay pretty close attention, and I haven't seen any such thing.

Sure makes him a lot more important, though.

Yessir, he's really, really, REALLY important, if the President himself declared Walt a "sovereign".

Plutodog · **Posted:** Wed May 16, 2012 9:26 am

TexasFilly wrote:

Of course if she's really the least bit smart, she'll divorce this loser while he's a guest of the feds.

FIFY

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9400

Highlands wrote:

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

TexasFilly wrote:

I guess Darren's wife is gonna have to sell some of those fancy assed pick'em up trucks and pawn some of his arsenal. Darren will be gone for a while. And not very employable when he gets out.

I believe it will have to be all of his arsenal. I doubt his conviction will allow him to possess firearms legally in the future.

Will his wife be able to own firearms if he lives with her?

That's an interesting constitutional question. Federal law generally does not permit it, but there are questions as to whether the rights of a spouse, family member, or roommate may be restricted because of the past misconduct of a third party. Whoever does, however, possess firearms with a convicted felon risks charges for facilitating the possession of the firearms by the felon. The issue is currently contested and some scholars (some of whom can be found on Volokh's site) believe that McDonald v. City of Chicago may imply that such laws are unconstitutional, i.e. since possessing firearms is a personal right.

Edit: I have to note there's a difference between two sets of circumstances here. While under federal probation, the policy will probably be something like zero tolerance. Federal probation officers won't care who claims to possess the weapons. They can either be out of the house, Huff can be out of the house, or Huff can be back behind bars. His choice.

Once he's a free man again, in theory, his wife is still entitled to possess firearms. If they aren't continually behind lock and key with Huff having no access, though, she risks criminal charges of her own in addition to those Huff faces for possession, as someone mentions above, "constructive" possession.

The third issue is whether his rights can be restored. That seems unlikely to me when his crime was a gun crime, showing him unfit to possess firearms, as he tends to commit crimes using them.

SueDB · **Posted:** Wed May 16, 2012 12:28 pm

The question I have is:
Since this is a Federal Crime with Federal Probation etc, do the state civil rights restoration rules make any difference or is that only for state crimes?

:?:

Orlylicious · **Joined:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm **Posts:** 286

http://aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-1.newsvine.com/_ ... ing-update

SueDB · **Posted:** Wed May 16, 2012 1:11 pm

Orlylicious wrote:

http://aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-1.newsvine.com/_news/2012/05/16/11733467-sentencing-update

It looked like Darren wanted to rerun the trial and conviction from his sentencing hearing. These folks fail to understand the legal process. AFAIK this hearing is to sentence him not hear the appeal or any conspiracy crap. Darren has already been convicted. It is just a matter of how long he will be in the Federal hoosegow.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23583

Orlylicious wrote:

http://aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-1.newsvine.com/_news/2012/05/16/11733467-sentencing-update

Thanks, orlylicious.

Quote:

An observer at the sentencing today reported

Quote:

[...]

The judge then spoke until 1245 hrs. He went thru the pleas item by item and stated on two occasions that he had taken the letters he received into consideration as well as Darren’s testimony. He spoke to the law that Darren was charged with. This was the single charge of interstate transport of weapons with intent to support a civil disorder. The PD did not effectively challenge the law, the jury did not question the law (they were probably told they couldn’t and believed the lie), and the judge set sentence based on this bogus and unconstitutional law from the ’60′s!

Cuz a law from the 60s must be unconstitutional and bogus.

Quote:

The trial is now ripe for appeal for many reasons, not the least of which is incompetent representation. The PD obviously took a dive as no attorney could do that poorly and stay in business. He already had the paper signed for the judge to approve his withdrawal as soon sentencing took place. Good riddance!

Now, there's a huge surprise allegation. :roll:

Gotta love it. =))

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10670

Here's my favorite line from the article orlylicious linked, above:

Quote:

The lead gov attorney then played up the indecent as a potential riot of huge magnitude.

Gawd these people are funny. Orly Taitz is infecting what's left of their brains.

Foggy · **Posted:** Wed May 16, 2012 1:55 pm

Quote:

.... the “Madisonville Riot” was an FBI false flag operation gone bad, for them.

Let's see:

No riot or courthouse takeover took place;
Huff sentenced to four years in prison;
No FBI or other law enforcement official in any sort of trouble whatever; and,
Nobody supporting Huff now except non-lawyers who have no frickin' clue.

Boy, I'd sure like to know how this was an operation "gone bad" for the FBI. I honestly can't see a downside for them in the fact that some moron thinks Huff can win an appeal.

SueDB · **Posted:** Wed May 16, 2012 4:34 pm

Even the Georgia Militia turned their collective backs on him. :((

Reality Check · **Posted:** Wed May 16, 2012 10:04 pm

Carl "Songbird" Swensson has been awfully quiet too. =))

Somerset · **Posted:** Wed May 16, 2012 10:20 pm

Orlylicious wrote:

http://aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-1.newsvine.com/_news/2012/05/16/11733467-sentencing-update

Thanks, Orlylicious!

Quote:

However the PD did make a plea for the 1st Amendment, at Darren’s insistence and from Darren’s coaching, no doubt.

When are these morons going to learn that the right to free speech doesn't mean that you can't he held accountable for what you say?

Plutodog · **Posted:** Thu May 17, 2012 12:14 am

Quote:

Given a chance Tuesday to plead for mercy, a Georgia militiaman convicted in a plot to take over a Monroe County courthouse instead railed against the "mainstream media" and accused law enforcers of setting him up for assassination.

"I feel it's only by the grace of God I'm even standing here today," Darren Wesley Huff told U.S. District Judge Tom Varlan at a sentencing hearing in U.S. District Court.

More from that nasty mainstream media:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/may/1 ... rs-of-him/

neonzx · **Joined:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am **Posts:** 4216

Plutodog wrote:

"I feel it's only by the grace of God I'm even standing here today," Darren Wesley Huff told U.S. District Judge Tom Varlan at a sentencing hearing in U.S. District Court.

God, eh? No hat tips for the professionalism of local, state, and federal law enforcement? Not only did they not shoot your ass, but they made sure to return your beloved pink dildo (w/ remote control) and your prized DVD. No thanks? [-(

Suranis · **Joined:** Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:04 am **Posts:** 5253

Well come on. it was Tranny Hunter 2. [-(

Sequels are always inferior

Adrianinflorida · **Posted:** Thu May 17, 2012 9:43 am

well, the upside is that Darren's training with the pink dildo of patriotism has prepared him for the 4 years of fun he's embarking on

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Darren Huff

Who is online