I once heard author and researcher Steve Quayle in a radio interview say, to paraphrase, that for the first time in history people were willingly creating their own dossiers for the government with their use of social media and according to court documents published subsequent to the arrest of Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier and Shawna Cox, Joseph Donald O'Shaughnessy, Ryan Payne, Jon Eric Ritzheimer and Peter Santilli, on January 26, 2016, that assertion has been proven without a doubt.
Whether it is YouTube videos, Facebook posts, Twitter or any other form of social media, everything one says and does can be used in court as justification to arrest, as was the case with the Oregon arrests, which resulted in the death of one member of the group, LaVoy Finicum, or justification by the courts to reject bail and to keep the defendants detained, as was the case with Pete Santilli.
U.S. District Chief Justice Michael W. Mosman affirmed a decision to detain Pete Santili pending trial, saying he was disturbed by several remarks Santilli made during his online broadcasts promising to shoot federal officers if they came to take him or his guns away.
"There's a handful of statements I can't discount as just shock-jock" bravado, Mosman said Thursday.
Court documents filed on February 2, 2016, which will be embedded at the end of this article, show that YouTube videos and social media content by Jon Ritzheimer were used as justification by prosecutors to detain Ritzheimer as a danger and/or flight risk.
A cursory search of the document shows Facebook mentioned four times, social media three times, YouTube 11 times, the word video 25 times.
Three examples are listed below, found on pages 17,18 and 20, under the headers of "History and Characteristics of the Defendants" and "Nature and Seriousness of the Danger to Any Person or the Community":
On September 21, 2015, in response to the United States’ proposed nuclear agreement with Iran, an open message written by RITZHEIMER was posted on Facebook in which he declared his intent to travel to Michigan to arrest Senator Debbie Stabenow. RITZHEIMER stated “[w]e are planning on arresting Senator Debbie Stabenow, who voted yes to the Iran Nuke Deal. She will be arrested for treason under Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution. We have chosen her as our first target due to our strong ties with the Michigan State Militia and their lax guns laws that will allow us to operate in a manner necessary for an operation like this. After we successfully detain her we will continue to move across the country and arrest everyone involved with the Iran Nuke Deal. Even the President who brokered this deal. . . . I am fully prepared for whatever may come my way. Even if that means death. Because it will at least be for a noble cause.”
[...]
On September 24, 2015, posted a video to his facebook calling for an indictment of those who supported the agreement with Iran and stated he was “armed and ready to go, to uphold the law.” (Attachment 8) On September 28, 2015, RITZHEIMER also appeared telephonically on the Pete Santilli show to discuss his intentions to arrest those involved with the nuclear agreement.
[...]
January 24, 2016, when he left to visit his family in Arizona. His postings in social media have demonstrated a willingness to engage in armed conflict whenever he disagrees with government actions or with other religious beliefs.....
Previously ANP reported that it was videos created by Pete Santilli that were used as incriminating evidence by authorities in a criminal complaint to justify issuing warrants for his arrest and the arrest of the others.
With the Hell Stream Media refusing to accurately report on government corruption, social media does help promote causes and websites, ANP utilizes it for promotion, but when activists make the type of public statements shown in the examples above, they are giving up their Fifth Amendment Constitutionally guaranteed right to not bear witness against themselves.
FIFTH AMENDMENT: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
According to the Cornell Law website, that portion above I am emphasized, is specifically "a prohibition against required self-incrimination." It is the reason a person is entitled to an attorney when under arrest before speaking with police, it is the reason they can "plead the fifth" instead of answering a question in court where the answer could incriminate ones self, because the government cannot compel a person to self-incriminate..... yet those arrested in Oregon didn't need to be compelled, they did it by their own hyperbole on social media, to which is now being used against them.
Those supportive of the patriot movement, Oath Keepers, the Constitution, Prepping and Survival.... all of those and more have already been labeled by the Obama adminsitration as "extremists" and more dangerous than ISIS, so public statements are automatically being stored, recorded and used to place you on government list, but showing support and actively issuing public threats are two very different things.
One puts you on a list, the other puts you on the "red list."
BOTTOM LINE
Promoting a cause is fine, speaking of why one needs to be prepared is considered a public service by many, but issuing threats, publicly informing the world and the U.S. government of where you are, what you are doing, what weapons you have or the exact nature of of your preparations.... is suicide.
Everything one says online can, will and is already being used in court..... so phrase your online comments accordingly.
