Armed Protesters take over Oregon Federal Wildlife Refuge

[gustava]

36 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Yeah a lot of the stuff would be evidence but I suppose even the Feds don't need their actual ATV's in the court room when they can be photographed.  Lisa Bundy is feeling persecuted because the overreaching government didn't let her get Ammon's things. But apparently the reason is that one of the other defendants attorneys couldn't get there that day for some reason, and I guess they wanted everyone to see what was there, since that's what the attorneys are there for.  She had to get a sitter for a day and drive three hours away from home, folks. (How long were the refuge workers and the people evacuated from the field station inconvenienced again...?)

 

 

 

 

 

The interviewer is certainly  unbiased....

[Howl]

I was looking at a picture of LaVoy's family gathered around his pine coffin and started reading the text.  From what I can understand - and I don't know if this is Sovereign Citizen or what- there is the idea that these long-term BLM grazing leases now belong to the lessee because of Natural Rights.  So it's a lease (which apparently can convey when a property is sold), but these guys understand it as Rent to Own, and have now decided they own it.  They are referring to LaVoy's "ranch" in a way that seems to imply that the ranch and the grazing allotment are all one thing. 

Wish I could find this - I thought it was on LaVoy Fincum's A Cowboy's Stand for Freedom web page, but now can't find it.   

If anyone can clarify this concept that the property now belongs to those who lease the BLM land through grazing allotments and where it comes from (Natural Rights?) .......meanwhile, I'll keep looking. 

12 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

More from twitter: 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/298274450/Police-Report-c-Mike-Arnold-Excerpt

TLDR: Mike Arnold bought alcohol to an underage defendant in a DUII case. 

 

And this is some other loon apparently: 

 

 

 

 

Better stock up on popcorn.  These cases are going to draw SovCits like flies on stink. 

And the Mike Arnold thing?  Alcohol to a minor w/ DUI?  That's scumbag behavior that gives scumbags a bad name.  How is this guy still practicing law? 

[Whoosh]

1 hour ago, Howl said:

I was looking at a picture of LaVoy's family gathered around his pine coffin and started reading the text.  From what I can understand - and I don't know if this is Sovereign Citizen or what- there is the idea that these long-term BLM grazing leases now belong to the lessee because of Natural Rights.  So it's a lease (which apparently can convey when a property is sold), but these guys understand it as Rent to Own, and have now decided they own it.  They are referring to LaVoy's "ranch" in a way that seems to imply that the ranch and the grazing allotment are all one thing. 

Wish I could find this - I thought it was on LaVoy Fincum's A Cowboy's Stand for Freedom web page, but now can't find it.   

If anyone can clarify this concept that the property now belongs to those who lease the BLM land through grazing allotments and where it comes from (Natural Rights?) .......meanwhile, I'll keep looking. 

 

I found this write-up on that I think addresses what you are talking about.  I would call this a Sovereign Citizen view of the world for sure.  I am including what I consider to be the key quote to understanding this (unless a person happens to be a Sovereign Citizen or something similar).

Quote

To Finicum, the administrative steps were irrelevant.

He claimed that he acquired his grazing rights under "common" or "natural" law that operates independent of the U.S. Constitution.

Essentially, whoever first used a resource like grass, trees or minerals gets to own it as long as it's being beneficially used. That's similar to how Western states grant rights to water under a doctrine known as "prior appropriation."

"We all know this naturally because, for example, we know about lines," Finicum said in the video. "When you're the first one in line, everyone can see that."

Finicum said he inherited century-old rights when he bought his ranch.

"The point is, [BLM claims] this is theirs," he said. "And I claim that the forage right, the grass, is mine."

That claim is buoyed by Finicum's unorthodox reading of the Constitution -- shared by the Bundys -- that said the federal government is only allowed to own lands for narrow purposes such as national defense. He, like other land transfer proponents, believed the federal government was obligated to give lands to states when they were established.

Those views would render moot the current laws Congress passed to govern grazing on federal lands.

Bolding mine.  Essentially, he is arguing in the same manner that members of the SC movement typically argue.  They take random examples of things from a variety of outdated bodies of law that would lean in favor of saying the land is his (or confirming whatever argument they are trying to make) and they then say that this "natural law" trumps the Constitution and that their personal reading of the Constitution trumps SCOTUS's interpretation of the Constitution and therefore all laws passed by Congress on this issue (and pretty much all other issues I believe) are moot or void.  I will wish them all good luck with that.

I just started typing up about 15 other paragraphs on somewhat tangential issues and deleted them all.  It is too deep a rabbit hole and too bizarre and confusing for me to even try to express my views on their views.  Perhaps someday I will write a series of KJV-length volumes on the topic, but it isn't something even a Burris-style poster such as myself should be trying to cram into a FJ post 

http://www.eenews.net/special_reports/oregon_standoff/stories/1060031902

[AmazonGrace]

Quote

 

Essentially, whoever first used a resource like grass, trees or minerals gets to own it as long as it's being beneficially used. That's similar to how Western states grant rights to water under a doctrine known as "prior appropriation."

"We all know this naturally because, for example, we know about lines," Finicum said in the video. "When you're the first one in line, everyone can see that."

 

So,how about the Native Americans then. 

Unrelated but interesting. How does he listen to himself speak all day and not slap himself silly. 

 

 

[church_of_dog]

I can't speak with authority here but I'll speak anyway 

I worked for the US Forest Service and I'm somewhat familiar with the rules and workings of that agency, at least as of 12 years ago when I left.  In the USFS, the ranchers who obtain the right to graze livestock on National Forest land are called permittees and the areas of land they have permission to graze on are called allotments.  

It was my understanding (and grazing was not my area of specialty although I did have some interaction) that a permit to use an allotment did NOT transfer with a change of ownership of the private ranch lands.  However, the permittees sure liked to pretend it did (I saw lots of real estate ads that mentioned the FS allotment as if it was an asset to that piece of land).  

I suppose that in actuality, under the legal radar, it's possible that the FS does give first consideration to a new ranch owner for a permit for whatever same allotment the previous ranch owner held.  Although in some ways this doesn't make sense because the allotment is not always adjacent to the ranch, so there would be transport of livestock in any case, and if a piece of land is damaged (fire, flood, etc) it's standard to rest it for a few years, during which time the permittee would have to find some other place for the cows -- maybe by getting a permit for a different allotment.  So basically it might be a traditional thing to often keep an allotment attached to a particular ranch or rancher, but it's not required and oftentimes good land management would actually preclude it.  

And for sure the USFS has the ability to cancel a permit if the permittee isn't following the rules!  (again, in actuality, the rules are often broken pretty grievously and still no cancellation of the permit happens.  One of my many pet peeves.  But legally, I do believe the USFS has the right to, meaning the rancher doesn't have a right to the public land, only a privilege, and that only if agreements are kept.

All that said, the BLM is not only a separate agency but is in a completely separate Cabinet department, so I can't say that my "mild certainty" about the USFS even applies to the BLM.  I've seen lots of examples of rules being different between the two agencies.

[DaisyD]

My understanding is that the FS has been fighting this same battle. When I was a baby my dad was stationed in BFE New Mexico. He was writing tickets for a sheep rancher who was constantly grazing his sheep on forest land. I have no idea if the guy had a permit and lost it, or just never even bothered. They (the rancher and his relatives) started threatening my dad and one night even blocked his way home and tried to hold him at gunpoint. Luckily my dad had loaded a pistol with snake rounds and was able to drive around their little blockade by pointing his gun back at them. There are still places in this country where it's like the wild west.

[Whoosh]

6 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

So,how about the Native Americans then. 

Much of what I deleted boils down to this.  Bundy will tell you that it doesn't matter because the beneficial use of the land stopped at some point.  Yeah, well, ...

Seriously, I can't even.  

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

@AmazonGrace--That video of "Robert" from Idaho! Oh my. It was kind of painful to watch, until he got tased. Then I laughed! The scary thing is that I could understand the bogus legal claims he was trying to make from reading the links in this thread.

I don't mean to make light of the dangers of SovCits making their own rules contrary to real laws, but I'm reminded of a part of Harry Potter. (Sorry.) In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, one of the Weasley brothers (Bill, I think) explains to Harry that goblins don't view ownership of goblin-made treasures the same way wizards do. Wizard view:  I paid for the goblin-made treasure, it's mine until I die, then it belongs to my heirs. Just like any other possesion. Goblin view: I made the treasure and sold it to the wizard for his lifetime only. Upon his death, it reverts to me, because I crafted it.

Any time two groups who can't agree on basic premises interact, it gets damn messy. 

[Howl]

Thank you, FJ hive mind for all this great info.  Thank you all.

@daisyd681, I looked up the location of BFE, New Mexico and Urban Dictionary came to my aid.   Still laughing.  

@Whoosh, Greenwire is awesome.  I may have to sign up to finish reading the article on what to do with Cliven Bundy's cows. 

 

[violynn]

9 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

So,how about the Native Americans then. 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I read one of the occupation leaders, I think it was Ammon Bundy, said the Native Americans had lost their rights to the land because they 'gave' them up to the government when the NA 'allowed' themselves to be moved to a different location and/or starved/diseased/massacred.  Also, I believe Bundy also said something along the lines of "you snooze, you lose" for NA not taking the land over as the Occupiers did.

Paraphrasing, of course.  

[Whoosh]

4 minutes ago, violynn said:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I read one of the occupation leaders, I think it was Ammon Bundy, said the Native Americans had lost their rights to the land because they 'gave' them up to the government when the NA 'allowed' themselves to be moved to a different location and/or starved/diseased/massacred.  Also, I believe Bundy also said something along the lines of "you snooze, you lose" for NA not taking the land over as the Occupiers did.

Paraphrasing, of course.  

And they will have their own explanation and reasoning for everyDAMNthing - all backed by "law" and all placing all rights, power, and resources in the hands of people just like them for the most part.  Baaw haw haw haw haw.

I feel so bad for all the attorneys and officials that have to deal with this circus.

[AmazonGrace]

i love this response by a judge to a guy (who is now in jail for filing false liens)

 

http://asdupdates.com/wordpress/archives/3676

[Howl]

Santilli:  first amendment protected speech or incitement?

Quote

 

opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/pete-santilli-charges-legal-case-free-speech/

Tom Coan, Santilli’s court-appointed lawyer in the Oregon case, said his client is not a traditional reporter, but rather an independent “new media journalist.”

“All of his speech was protected. He did nothing more down there than exercise all sorts of First Amendment rights,” Coan said. “His right to protest, his right to assemble people, his right to publish information. So he was hitting on all cylinders (on) the First Amendment.”

Federal prosecutors in Portland didn’t return calls for comment. But during Santilli’s detention hearings, prosecutors have argued his speech went too far – outside the protections afforded under the First Amendment.

“If it’s fundamental, to the crime itself, it’s not going to be protected,” Coan said. “And I think that’s where the government’s going to argue what Pete’s speech – why it’s not protected.”

Jane Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota, said for that the purposes of this case, it doesn’t matter whether Santilli is a journalist. She said the protections — as well as the limitations — of free speech are the same for everyone.

“The question is ultimately going to turn on whether his expressions could constitute a true threat or incitement to violence,” Kirley said.

 

 

In the meantime, the report on the investigation into the LaVoy Finicum shooting is due in the next week or two, and the Roy Warden protest will be this Saturday in Phoenix. 

 

[CloakNDagger]

I strongly dislike Santilli for a couple of reasons, but I DO believe it is free speech. I've seen firsthand on multiple occasions how accredited so-called "journalists" botch stories even when they were given good information. I've also seen people like Santilli cover the same news accurately. There HAS to be room for any citizen to record and present speech and news, otherwise it's just the elite. Of course, fact checking is always welcome and sometimes very necessary to combat stupidity.

[Howl]

The details are lost in time, but maybe 30 years ago I was listening to NPR and a Jewish journalist was discussing his decision to resign from a radio station; it had something to do with white supremacists being given air time (Utah? Idaho?).  What has stayed with me to this day was this journalist's absolute and unwavering support for the 1st amendment, so even though his work situation had become untenable and he was resigning to take his principled stand, he still believed without question  in the right of other groups to spout their noxious beliefs.   

People are sometimes shocked when ACLU takes on a case for repellent people with repellent beliefs.  But, as noted in the article above

Quote

Jane Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota, said for that the purposes of this case, it doesn’t matter whether Santilli is a journalist. She said the protections — as well as the limitations — of free speech are the same for everyone.

However, Santilli was extremely aggressive to those who came out to support the refuge and protest the occupation, so he wasn't so much into the 1st amendment rights of others.  

I also head over to Oath Keepers dot org on occasion to keep my pulse on the crazy. Oath Keepers did not support the occupation of Malheur and thought it was ill advised, but they do support LaVoy Finicum's family and the support rallies happening this weekend on March 5th.  But more to the point, the comments are really where  it's at to understand the militia sentiment, and the crazy.  Someone is claiming that there was a citizen in the woods who witnessed and recorded the shooting of LaVoy Finicum, and the video is locked away in a vault until the right time to release it.  You probably did not know that the gun planted on LaVoy Finicum is untraceable.  Plus lots of other stuff.  Plus the plot to de-certify Sheriff Glen Palmer of John Day, OR is a done deed.  

[DaisyD]

Yes! I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself. I'm not sure what he is actually charged with, but I doubt the feds are trying to jail him for "reporting on the situation" or whatever. 

As far as the secret tape goes, is it in the same vault with the Roswell and fake moon landing proof? 

[SpoonfulOSugar]

Among the other things Santilli allegedly did, is point to someone in the crowd and say they were FBI.

I've seen stories that say this occurred at Bundyville, but I have also read at least one source that says he did something similar to a person in Burns.

Further, if you meet with people prior to a criminal act, and join in planning that criminal act, and recruit others to participate in a criminal act, that's not free speech at all.

[AmazonGrace]

Federal agents have arrested Jerry DeLemus, a local Tea Party leader who stood with Cliven Bundy armed resistance in 2014 and again this year, in connection with the standoff. - See more at: http://www.unionleader.com/FBI_arrests_Jerry_DeLemus#sthash.3s3b83FG.dpuf

DeLemus is facing nine federal charges based on an indictment brought in Nevada, including conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, threatening a federal law enforcement officer, assault on a federal officer, obstruction of justice, attempting to impede or injure a federal law enforcement officer, interference with interstate commerce by extortion, and several firearms charges, according to court records. - See more at: http://www.unionleader.com/FBI_arrests_Jerry_DeLemus#sthash.3s3b83FG.dpuf

[AmazonGrace]

Yay, more arrests for the Nevada bunch!

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/fourteen-additional-defendants-charged-felony-crimes-related-2014-standoff-nevada

[SpoonfulOSugar]

Just now, AmazonGrace said:

Yay, more arrests for the Nevada bunch!

Everyone seems to be trying to figure out who is included.

I have seen reports of two of the Bundy sons:  Mel and Davey.

The guy in NH.

And two from Oregon:  Booda Brian Cavalier and Blaine Cooper.

[AmazonGrace]

A superseding criminal indictment was returned by the grand jury on March 2 and now charges a total of 19 defendants.  The 14 new defendants are Melvin D. Bundy, 41, of Round Mountain, Nevada; David H. Bundy, 39, of Delta, Utah; Brian D. Cavalier, 44, of Bunkerville; Blaine Cooper, 36, of Humboldt, Arizona; Gerald A. DeLemus, 61, of Rochester, New Hampshire; Eric J. Parker, 32, of Hailey, Idaho; O. Scott Drexler, 44, of Challis, Idaho; Richard R. Lovelien, 52, of Westville, Oklahoma; Steven A. Stewart, 36, of Hailey; Todd C. Engel, 48, of Boundary County, Idaho; Gregory P. Burleson, 52, of Phoenix; Joseph D. O’Shaughnessy, 43, of Cottonwood, Arizona; and Micah L. McGuire, 31, and Jason D. Woods, 30, both of Chandler, Arizona.

[SpoonfulOSugar]

Here's a copy of the indictment:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B81cCV1S2vNpNW1YSEl5VjRnbVE/view?pli=1

[bashfulpixie]

It's about damn time.

[SpoonfulOSugar]

Oregonian has a new jailhouse interview with Ammon Bundy:

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/03/ammon_bundy_says_jail_most_dif.html#incart_big-photo

I've only read the article (not watched the video) but it seems much of the same ol' same.

He's worried about his family.  Shouldn't that have been a consideration BEFORE he entered into a massive conspiracy?

[AmazonGrace]

Quote

"But I don't regret what we did because I knew it was right.''

Keep telling yourself that, Ammon. You failed your kids like your father failed his kids.