PDA

View Full Version : Armed Militia takes over federal building - Oregon



troung
03 Jan 16,, 21:25
http://katu.com/news/local/criminal-history-of-the-hammond-familys-arson-conviction


Criminal history of the Hammond family's arson conviction
By KATU.com Staff Sunday, January 3rd 2016
Steve_hammond_CNN_Newsource.JPG
Dwight Hammond and his son Steven were sentenced to five years in prison for setting two fires on federal land. (CNN Newsource)
11 shares


BURNS, Ore. (KATU) -- As an armed militia takes over a federal building in Burns in support of the Hammond family, it's important to know how these events unfolded.

Dwight Hammond and his son Steven were sentenced to five years in prison for setting two fires on federal land.

Witnesses say Steven Hammond and a hunting party illegally slaughtered deer on federal property in 2001, then started a fire to cover it up.

The second arson conviction was for starting "back fires" in 2006 to save winter feed, despite a burn ban in effect because of high fire danger.

Arson on federal land carries a 5-year minimum sentence, but the Hammonds argued that was unconstitutional. A trial court sentenced both men to less than five years, but both the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court wound up sentencing the men to a full five-year sentence based on federal law.


"I'm going to jail for five years for 127? Seems like a bit of an overkill," Dwight Hammond said of the conviction.

The Hammonds are expected to turn themselves in on Monday.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-ranchers-reject-cliven-bundy-family-occupation/


Oregon ranchers reject Cliven Bundy family occupation

Dwight Hammond
KOIN-TV

628 Comments 1.5K Shares Tweets Stumble Email
More +

BURNS, Ore. - A group of angry anti-government protesters have occupied a building at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon in what they say is an act of solidarity for a pair of ranchers facing jail time for burning government land.

However, the Hammond family, the Oregon ranchers at the center of the dispute, say they don't want them there, reports CBS affiliate KOIN in Portland, Ore.

ammon bundy

Ammon Bundy
KOIN

Ammon Bundy - the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in an armed standoff with the government over grazing rights - told The Oregonian on Saturday that he and two of his brothers were among a group of dozens of people occupying the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page asking for militia members to come help him. He said "this is not a time to stand down. It's a time to stand up and come to Harney County," where Burns is located. Below the video is this statement: "(asterisk)(asterisk)ALL PATRIOTS ITS TIME TO STAND UP NOT STAND DOWN!!! WE NEED YOUR HELP!!! COME PREPARED."

The Hammonds said they have not welcomed the Bundy's help.

"Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family," the Hammonds' lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff David Ward.

In an interview with reporters late Saturday night that was posted on Facebook, Bundy said he and others are occupying the building because "the people have been abused long enough."

"I feel we are in a situation where if we do not do something, if we do not take a hard stand, we'll be in a position where we'll be no longer able to do so," he said.

Bundy said the group planned to stay at the refuge indefinitely. "We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," Ammon Bundy said. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."

Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward told people to stay away from the building as authorities work to defuse the situation, the Oregonian reported.

"A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation," Ward said in a statement.

An Idaho militia leader who helped organize the earlier march said he knew nothing about activities after a parade of militia members and local residents in Burns walked past the sheriff's office and the home of Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son Steven.

oregon-protest.jpg

About 100 protesters gathered Saturday, January 2, 2016 in Burns, Oregon, for a rally in support of a local father and son facing prison time for arson.
KOIN

Ammon Bundy's father, Cliven Bundy, told Oregon Public Broadcasting on Saturday night that he had nothing to do with the takeover of the building.

Bundy said his son felt obligated to intervene on behalf of the Hammonds.

"That's not exactly what I thought should happen, but I didn't know what to do," he said. "You know, if the Hammonds wouldn't stand, if the sheriff didn't stand, then, you know, the people had to do something. And I guess this is what they did decide to do. I wasn't in on that."

His son Ammon told him they are committed to staying in the building, Cliven Bundy told Oregon Public Broadcasting.

"He told me that they were there for the long run. I guess they figured they're going to be there for whatever time it takes_and I don't know what that means," Cliven Bundy said. "I asked him, 'Well how long can ya, how long you going to stand out there?' He just told me it was for long term."

Beth Anne Steele, an FBI spokeswoman in Portland, told The Associated Press the agency was aware of the situation at the national wildlife refuge. She made no further comment.

Some local residents feared the Saturday rally would involve more than speeches, flags and marching. But the only real additions to that list seemed to be songs, flowers and pennies.

As marchers reached the courthouse, they tossed hundreds of pennies at the locked door. Their message: civilians were buying back their government. After the march passed, two girls swooped in to scavenge the pennies.

A few blocks away, Hammond and his wife, Susan, greeted marchers, who planted flower bouquets in the snow. They sang some songs, Hammond said a few words, and the protesters marched back to their cars.

Dwight Hammond has said he and his son plan to peacefully report to prison Jan. 4 as ordered by the judge.

Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.

"Remember: It's not about me, it's about America and somehow we have to get the wheels back on this wagon because they are flying off," Dwight Hammond told KOIN. He said he feels his upcoming prison term is a life sentence.

"I'm not very happy about that. Just don't know what to say," Hammond said. "It just seems like a little overreach for having burned 127 acres."

The two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time - the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each.

The decision has generated controversy in a remote part of the state.

In particular, the Hammonds' new sentences touched a nerve with far right groups who repudiate federal authority.

Ammon Bundy and a handful of militiamen from other states arrived last month in Burns, some 60 miles from the Hammond ranch.

In an email to supporters, Ammon Bundy criticized the U.S. government for a failed legal process.

zraver
03 Jan 16,, 23:32
The first article is incorrect, the fires were not started on federal land and the witness who claimed the fires were over poaching was a mentally ill grandchild who had a beef with the family and who was recounting an event that supposedly happened 11 years earlier.

This link provides a much better back story

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

zraver
04 Jan 16,, 02:06
The Free Thought Project has raised an interesting point. The Liberal Media that has been bashing cops is now seemingly gleeful at an armed federal counter strike against protesters who while armed have been peaceful.

Dazed
04 Jan 16,, 02:27
Zraver

I don't think it is the media. The Hammonds had due process, and legal representation able to raise all the concerns you have raised. It seems you're saying if you set the fire on your land and it spreads to someone's else's property, it is not arson. The Hammonds seem to not want this response.

" The Hammonds said they have not welcomed the Bundy's help.

"Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family," the Hammonds' lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff David Ward."

zraver
04 Jan 16,, 03:18
Zraver

I don't think it is the media. The Hammonds had due process, and legal representation able to raise all the concerns you have raised. It seems you're saying if you set the fire on your land and it spreads to someone's else's property, it is not arson. The Hammonds seem to not want this response.

" The Hammonds said they have not welcomed the Bundy's help.

"Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family," the Hammonds' lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff David Ward."

The Hammond's already served their sentences, the government was satisfied and wanted more. Oh and the the BLM with regularity starts fires that spread on to private land and no one is held accountable. Fires that actually do damage instead of improving the range. Add in the years of abuse that westerners have suffered at the hands of the enviromentalist wacko- federal government alliance and you have a literal tinder box. These people are tied to the land in a way most city folk or yankees will never understand.

TopHatter
04 Jan 16,, 03:26
The Hammond's already served their sentences, the government was satisfied and wanted more.

That does sound like rank bulls--t to me. Is that even legal??

YellowFever
04 Jan 16,, 04:41
That's fucking lovely.

Private ranchers setting fires that encroaches on federal land gets labeled as terrorists and has to serve 5 years while fires set by federal officials that encroaches on private land doesn't have to reimburse anything to the private ranchers and is just moved to a different office.

If that article linked by zraver is anything close to the truth I'm going out to buy my first gun tomorrow.

Gun Grape
04 Jan 16,, 05:08
That does sound like rank bulls--t to me. Is that even legal??

The judge that sentenced them to Time Served did not follow federal sentencing guidelines. A conviction of the crime requires a Min of 5 years. They served a lot less.

Yes it is legal. It went to the Supreme Court. The Hammond's agree and will present themselves tomorrow for incarceration.


As for the right-wing nutcase terrorist that decided to occupy Federal Land. For those supporting them, would you feel any different if it were an armed Muslim group?

YellowFever
04 Jan 16,, 05:46
As for the right-wing nutcase terrorist that decided to occupy Federal Land. For those supporting them, would you feel any different if it were an armed Muslim group?

I'm still in the process of reading up on this as much as I could to figure out what's the truth and what's hyperbole.

Still Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff sorta speak.

But if the story linked by zraver is anything close to the truth (and from what I read so far from mulitple sources, it looks like it's more accurate than not), damn right I'd support armed muslims if they were doing the exact same thing.

Even far right nut-jobs can find an acorn once in awhile and I will not blindly follow the federal government....not as long as that same federal goverment is run by some people (and there are many, many of them) drunk with power.

The federal government can affect my life and the lives of my loved ones much MUCH more than armed muslims ever could.

DonBelt
04 Jan 16,, 06:12
The Hammond's lawyer has stated that they do not want the support of Bundy or Cooper or Payne and that crowd. Most right leaning pro-gun groups that I've read recently don't want anything to do with them either. They seem like they are just there to "not let a good crisis go to waste" and take advantage of the situation to forward their own views.
But I don't think the Hammonds have been treated fairly. The original judge wouldn't give them the 5 year minimum sentence because he felt it was unusually harsh. It was a charge of terrorism, not arson and it was clearly an abuse of the law's intent. Judges are not required to obey the minimum sentencing guideline [U.S. v. Booker (2005)] and an appellate judge may only overturn the trial judges sentencing if it can show that the sentencing was an abuse of the trial judge's discretion. (Gall v. U.S., U.S. Sup. Ct. 2007) The Hammonds don't want to fight it (in my opinion such as it is) because of their age not because they agree with it. The elder Hammond will already be in his late 70's if he survives his sentence, if they fight it for another couple of years and ultimately lose then this guy could be in until well in his eighties- if he survives. Rather harsh for an illegal burn. As a firefighter, we just tell people to extinguish their fires if they are burning illegally or put them out for them if they are unable or not co-operative. I don't think we've ever fined anyone. Their fire only covered 100+ acres- very small for an agricultural burn or prescribed burn- no structures damaged, no people hurt and it extinguished a much larger fire that threatened their property, hardly terrorism. This I think is a very good example of the government out of control. Thing is, we have a mechanism for that- it's called election. There are also legal protests, lawsuits for redress and petitions. There is no need to leap to the ramparts yet, but we need to do our duty as citizens and engage in the prior mentioned activities or people who abuse the government's powers will feel emboldened to keep it up and people who would disagree will feel discouraged from speaking out.
Then who knows?

zraver
04 Jan 16,, 06:15
The judge that sentenced them to Time Served did not follow federal sentencing guidelines. A conviction of the crime requires a Min of 5 years. They served a lot less.

The judge said the sentencing guidelines were a clear violation of the 8th Amendment and he used his judicial discretion. The Hammond's appeal the re-sentencing and despite a clear federal issue SCOTUS declined to hear the case.



As for the right-wing nutcase terrorist that decided to occupy Federal Land. For those supporting them, would you feel any different if it were an armed Muslim group?

Don't agree with the whole terrorist meme... who have they terrorized? An unoccupied birdhouse in the middle of no where occupied as an act of political protest. Unless you can cite a constitutionally valid law that says all guns must be surrendered before a protest, they are just protesters until and unless they engage in aggressive violence. Armed protest has a long history in this country and not always an ending in violence.

zraver
04 Jan 16,, 06:22
Thing is, we have a mechanism for that- it's called election. There are also legal protests, lawsuits for redress and petitions. There is no need to leap to the ramparts yet, but we need to do our duty as citizens and engage in the prior mentioned activities or people who abuse the government's powers will feel emboldened to keep it up and people who would disagree will feel discouraged from speaking out.
Then who knows?

None of those avenues are open to the public fighting the BLM/FWS/EPA partnerships with environmental groups. Environmental groups sue the government, the government then enters into settlement negotiations with said environmental group where they draft what amounts to a capitulation and they present it to the courts who must legally enter the settlement into the official record. Settlements can't be appealed an the settlement discussions are not open to the public or stakeholders. Its a nasty business that has been going on for a couple of decades now and it has thrown thousands of people out of work, off their land or denied them access/ use of land they previously had legal rights to. Ranchers, loggers, miners, hikers, ORV enthusiasts, farmers multiple classes of people completely screwed over by the federal-environmentalist alliance with hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of acres removed from public and private use. The process is called sue and settle.

YellowFever
04 Jan 16,, 06:34
The Hammond's lawyer has stated that they do not want the support of Bundy or Cooper or Payne and that crowd. Most right leaning pro-gun groups that I've read recently don't want anything to do with them either. They seem like they are just there to "not let a good crisis go to waste" and take advantage of the situation to forward their own views.
But I don't think the Hammonds have been treated fairly. The original judge wouldn't give them the 5 year minimum sentence because he felt it was unusually harsh. It was a charge of terrorism, not arson and it was clearly an abuse of the law's intent. Judges are not required to obey the minimum sentencing guideline [U.S. v. Booker (2005)] and an appellate judge may only overturn the trial judges sentencing if it can show that the sentencing was an abuse of the trial judge's discretion. (Gall v. U.S., U.S. Sup. Ct. 2007) The Hammonds don't want to fight it (in my opinion such as it is) because of their age not because they agree with it. The elder Hammond will already be in his late 70's if he survives his sentence, if they fight it for another couple of years and ultimately lose then this guy could be in until well in his eighties- if he survives. Rather harsh for an illegal burn. As a firefighter, we just tell people to extinguish their fires if they are burning illegally or put them out for them if they are unable or not co-operative. I don't think we've ever fined anyone. Their fire only covered 100+ acres- very small for an agricultural burn or prescribed burn- no structures damaged, no people hurt and it extinguished a much larger fire that threatened their property, hardly terrorism. This I think is a very good example of the government out of control. Thing is, we have a mechanism for that- it's called election. There are also legal protests, lawsuits for redress and petitions. There is no need to leap to the ramparts yet, but we need to do our duty as citizens and engage in the prior mentioned activities or people who abuse the government's powers will feel emboldened to keep it up and people who would disagree will feel discouraged from speaking out.
Then who knows?

Hey man, I agree with you.

But my point is whatever those nutjobs decide to do in occupying a federal building is besides the point.

What Hammond's lawyers and Hammond himself have to say is also besides the point.

My point is that this family is being shitted on by the government and how are elections down the line years from now going to help this man?

If this family can be treated this way by the same government that "governs" me and my family, I have a serious problem with that.

I have a serious problem with "left leaning" people ignoring this and trying to justify it away just because it's mostly reported by "right leaning" sources.

troung
04 Jan 16,, 06:40
The judge said the sentencing guidelines were a clear violation of the 8th Amendment and he used his judicial discretion. The Hammond's appeal the re-sentencing and despite a clear federal issue SCOTUS declined to hear the case.

Then it wasn't a violation of the 8th amendment.

Parihaka
04 Jan 16,, 06:44
The occupy movement occupied federal land

troung
04 Jan 16,, 06:51
And personally I criticized them.

Parihaka
04 Jan 16,, 07:52
And personally I criticized them.

So did I. My point is I'm at a loss as to why this case is in any way different.

S2
04 Jan 16,, 09:34
Far left wing-nuts like Occupy aren't considered REALLY dangerous by the liberal media.

Not so with far right wing-nuts.

They've weapons and might know how to use them.

Or so the line of thinking commonly goes up here in the northwest.

Funny shit. My ex's family were ranchers from Juntura, about sixty miles from Burns. Those remaining on the ranch exhibited some serious born-again survivalist tendencies. And those ranchers out there all know each other. There's some real anti-BLM sentiment in those parts. Free range is THEIR range.

gunnut
04 Jan 16,, 22:51
As for the right-wing nutcase terrorist that decided to occupy Federal Land. For those supporting them, would you feel any different if it were an armed Muslim group?

Depends on what the muslim group is protesting. If they are protesting their constitutional rights being taken away without due process, then I support them. If they are protesting not being able to execute homosexuals at will, then I'm against them.

gunnut
04 Jan 16,, 22:54
Far left wing-nuts like Occupy aren't considered REALLY dangerous by the liberal media.

Not so with far right wing-nuts.

They've weapons and might know how to use them.

Or so the line of thinking commonly goes up here in the northwest.

Funny shit. My ex's family were ranchers from Juntura, about sixty miles from Burns. Those remaining on the ranch exhibited some serious born-again survivalist tendencies. And those ranchers out there all know each other. There's some real anti-BLM sentiment in those parts. Free range is THEIR range.

How about those students in universities who occupy administration buildings to demand censorship on those with whom they don't agree?

What is interesting is the fact that these armed protesters are far more law abiding than the unarmed "occupy" movement.

Doktor
04 Jan 16,, 22:58
Erm... really?

Say my right is violated, what do I do?
A) grab a cople of guns and occupy government property
B) go to court

Interesting for a foreigner is how the lefties want a police intervention with some fireworks and the righties are chilled like it's no biggie.

gunnut
04 Jan 16,, 23:15
Erm... really?

Say my right is violated, what do I do?
A) grab a cople of guns and occupy government property
B) go to court

Interesting for a foreigner is how the lefties want a police intervention with some fireworks and the righties are chilled like it's no biggie.

Usually you go to the media and to sue in court. However, if you're white, the media doesn't care. You can sue, but even if you win, you lose. The government has unlimited time and unlimited resources. You would exhaust your life time and all your money to fight an endless string of government lawyers.

The lefties are all about law and order when it suits their purpose. If they don't agree with something, then it's riot and lootin' time.

troung
05 Jan 16,, 01:47
So did I. My point is I'm at a loss as to why this case is in any way different.

My apologies.


How about those students in universities who occupy administration buildings to demand censorship on those with whom they don't agree?

Own goals on liberal college campuses is not quite the same as armed welfare queens seizing government buildings and demanding the government turn over "free" stuff to them and overturn the rule of law when it would apply to them, or else get in a shoot out.


Usually you go to the media and to sue in court. However, if you're white, the media doesn't care. You can sue, but even if you win, you lose. The government has unlimited time and unlimited resources. You would exhaust your life time and all your money to fight an endless string of government lawyers.

Ah yeah everyone is a victim. People do win courts cases against the government, the ranchers here didn't have a good case. You don't get an armed mob do-over.



Meet The Child-Abusing Arsonists That Inspired The Oregon Militia Standoff
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/04/3735722/meet-the-child-abusing-arsonists-at-the-center-of-the-oregon-militia-standoff/
by Ian Millhiser Jan 4, 2016 2:02 pm

CREDIT: AP Photo/Rebecca Boone

Buildings at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which is currently being occupied by armed anti-government militiamen
Share 6,310
Tweet

The militia standoff in Oregon, which led several armed men to occupy a federal wildlife sanctuary, is a tale of right-wing ranchers acting out longstanding grievances against the federal government. It is also, however, a story about Dwight and Steven Hammond.

The Hammonds are not among the insurgents occupying public property. They are scheduled to return to prison on Monday and, to their credit, have indicated that they do not intend to resist the court order commanding them to do so. Nevertheless, the insurgents, including members of the anti-government Bundy family, cite the Hammonds’ pending incarceration as the motive for their current actions. They believe that the Hammonds, who were sentenced to five years for committing arson on federal land, were too harshly sanctioned.

The militiamen are not alone in this belief. A number of commentators have suggested that the insurgents have a point when they criticize what Reason Magazine called “The Absurdly Harsh Penalties That Sparked the Oregon Rancher Protest.” As The Week’s Ryan Cooper summarized this view, “Bundy douchebags aside, the sentencing of the Hammond guys is completely insane.” (It’s worth noting that the trial judge, a George H.W. Bush appointee that the New York Times describes as a “politically conservative, devoutly Christian jurist” also believed that the minimum sentence was excessive. He was reversed on appeal.)

This incident also occurs amidst an important conversation about mandatory minimum sentences, which have helped make the United States into a nation that incarcerates 1 in 4 of the world’s prisoners. Yet, if criminal justice reformers are looking for an example of the gross injustices that can result from mandatory minimums, Dwight and Steven Hammond are odd choices.
Firestarters

Mandatory minimums are extraordinarily unpopular when applied to many of the least dangerous offenders. A November 2014 poll, for example, found that 77 percent of Americans “agree that mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders should be eliminated so that judges can make sentencing decisions on a case-by-case basis.” The Hammonds, however, were not convicted of non-violent drug offenses. Dwight was convicted of one count of “maliciously damaging the real property of the United States by fire,” while Steven was convicted of two counts.

The circumstances of both fires are worth examining. The first occurred in 2001. According to prosecutors, several members of the Hammond family set this fire “less than three hours after Steven Hammond illegally shot several deer on BLM land,” a claim they corroborate by citing testimony from D.H.*, Dwight’s grandson and Steven’s nephew. The fire, moreover, “consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations.”

D.H. also testified that his uncle Steven gave him matches and told him to help start the fires. Some time thereafter, D.H. says that he was separated from the rest of his family and found himself surrounded by burning flames. To escape harm he sheltered in a creek.

Additionally, the government claims that three men were camped nearby when the Hammonds’ started these fires, and that Steven and Dwight knew about these campers when they decided to start the fires anyway.

Steven lit the second fire in 2006 — he says that he did so as a preemptive burn in order to prevent an unrelated wild fire from spreading to the Hammond Ranch. At the time, however, the federal Bureau of Land Management had imposed a “burn ban” to protect firefighters who were busying trying to stop the wild fire. A second fire, such as the one set by Steven, could have potentially spread and endangered the firefighters.
Child Abuse

D.H. also testified that, after the first fire, “Dwight told me to keep my mouth shut, that nobody needed to know about the fire, and they didn’t need to know anything about it.” According to D.H., Steven, who was sitting next to Dwight at the time, added that his nephew should “keep [his] mouth shut.” D.H. said that he complied with these instructions because he was “afraid of Steven and Susie [D.H’s grandmother, Dwight’s wife].”

D.H. appears to have had good reason to fear his family. In 2004, D.H. told a sheriff’s deputy about several times that he says he was abused. In one incident, Steven allegedly punched D.H. hard enough to knock him to the ground and “took [D.H.’s] face and rubbed it into the gravel” during an argument over how D.H. was performing his chores. In another incident, after D.H. was cited for being a minor in possession of alcohol, Steven allegedly punished D.H. by driving him ten miles from the family ranch and then making him walk home. In a third incident, after D.H. was cited as a minor in possession of tobacco, Steven allegedly “made him eat two (2) cans of Skoal Smokeless Tobacco and then again walk from Diamond, Oregon to the Hammond Ranch.”

A fourth incident is particularly striking, however. D.H., who reportedly has been diagnosed with depression, used a paper clip to carve the letter “J” into one side of his chest and the letter “S” onto the other side. In response, Steven allegedly “told him that he was not going to let [D.H.] deface the family by carving on himself.” D.H. said that Steven then used sandpaper to remove the carved letters from D.H.’s chest — sanding each side for at least five minutes. Steven also allegedly told D.H. that “he would filet the initials off” his chest if the sandpaper did not work.

When law enforcement officers confronted the Hammond family with these allegations, Dwight admitted that he “had [D.H.] eat a full can of chewing tobacco” in what he says was an effort to “show [D.H.] that chewing tobacco was harmful to his body.” The Hammonds also admitted that the sanding incident occurred, although they would not disclose “who actually did the sanding.” Dwight, claims that the sanding occurred after he called a family meeting to discuss D.H.’s self-harm and that “when [D.H.] was not able to come up with a punishment, that it was decided by the family that the initials would be sanded off.” He added that “it was decided mutually and agreed upon by everyone including” D.H.

The sanding incident is corroborated by pictures of D.H.’s injures that were attached to the police report and included in record against Dwight and Steven Hammond at their trial for arson.
Poor Exemplars

So Dwight was convicted of setting an illegal fire that burned federal land and Steven was convicted of setting two such fires. One of these fires was allegedly set to cover up evidence of a different crime; it could have endangered the lives of several nearby campers; and it did indeed endanger one of the younger members of the Hammond clan. The other fire was set despite a federal order intended to protect the lives of firefighters.

After the first fire, moreover, Dwight and Steven’s own kin says that they ordered him to keep his mouth shut — an order that was backed by fear bred by what D.H. says is an abusive household. Dwight or Steven admit to many important details of D.H’s allegations of abuse, including the claim that D.H. was forced to eat chewing tobacco and that much of his skin was sandpapered off.

There are strong arguments that mandatory minimums should not exist even for crimes such as arson. The facts of each case are different, and mandatory minimums prevent judges from taking account of the unusual circumstances of a particular case that may call for a more lenient punishment. It is not hard to imagine a case where someone set an innocent fire on their own land which inadvertently spread to federal lands, causing nominal damages. In such a case, a much more lenient sentence than the one proscribed by law may be appropriate.

But this is not that case.

*Although D.H.’s full name is disclosed in court documents, we refer to him by his initials here because of allegations that he was a victim of child abuse.



http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/ammon-bundy-militia-is-defense-mechanism-unwind-federal-ownership-of-land/
Rancher Ammon Bundy said on Monday that his group of militants would continue its armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge until they were able to “unwind” the government’s ownership of public lands.

Bundy told reporters at a press conference that the group had made a statement by taking over the federal property, but he said that “statements aren’t good enough.”

“We intend to go to work in assisting the people of Harney County in claiming their rights, using their rights as free people,” he announced. “We have a lot of work to be able to unwind the unconstitutional land transactions that have taken place here. We also have a lot of work to unwind the claims that the federal government has upon this land.”

“We have teams that are going to be doing that,” he added. “And we have a defense mechanism that allows us to do this while we are here.”

Bundy said that his group would be willing to leave as soon as the federal government decided to “remove its unconstitutional presence here in the county.”

According to the rancher, all federal wildlife refuges were in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“Wildlife refuges do not fall within those enumerated authorized lands,” Bundy insisted.

Bundy noted that his group had been in “indirect” contact with law enforcement officials.

“They have reached out to individuals that we are closely affiliated with and have give [sic] messages to us,” he explained. “They intend not to come up on us.”

When pressed about what the militant group would do if law enforcement approached, Bundy refused to answer.

“We do not believe they will do that,” he said.

Parihaka
05 Jan 16,, 01:52
Usually you go to the media and to sue in court. However, if you're white, the media doesn't care. You can sue, but even if you win, you lose. The government has unlimited time and unlimited resources. You would exhaust your life time and all your money to fight an endless string of government lawyers.

The lefties are all about law and order when it suits their purpose. If they don't agree with something, then it's riot and lootin' time. Equally said about both sides (well the right maybe more shooting and less looting) but the big question is, what will the govt. response be? Historically Kent State, Waco and Ruby ridge proved bad P.R. The Bundy's won against Holder but Loretta Lynch is an ideologue, much more likely to set an example perhaps?

DOR
05 Jan 16,, 10:59
When do we call the thugs with guns that seized the Federal Building near Burns, Oregon, something – anything – akin to “criminals” or “terrorists”? Professor Tom Mockaitis, DePaul Univ history lecturer and counter-terrorism specialists, says,

“Militias are the ancestors of the modern National Guard, not of self-proclaimed "patriots" who show utter contempt for any form of authority beyond themselves. The extremists playing solider in the woods of Oregon are at best criminals and at worst domestic terrorists, and they need to be identified as such.”

Mihais
05 Jan 16,, 11:18
Whom did they terrorised?Where the piles of dead bodies?

Bigfella
05 Jan 16,, 12:04
When do we call the thugs with guns that seized the Federal Building near Burns, Oregon, something – anything – akin to “criminals” or “terrorists”? Professor Tom Mockaitis, DePaul Univ history lecturer and counter-terrorism specialists, says,

“Militias are the ancestors of the modern National Guard, not of self-proclaimed "patriots" who show utter contempt for any form of authority beyond themselves. The extremists playing solider in the woods of Oregon are at best criminals and at worst domestic terrorists, and they need to be identified as such.”

Last time the Bundy's held one of these shindigs: a swarm of 'outside agitators' descended; an armed mob confronted LEOs; Snipers were put in place with the intent of shooting said LEOs; several of the groups got into armed stand offs with each other; local residents who disagreed with the nature of the protest were stood over. Oh, and Jerad and Amanda Miller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Las_Vegas_shootings) showed up. Eventually they were told to leave because they were too extreme. Two months later they murdered two cops in Las Vegas in an act of terrorism.

Of course, none of those present were charged with or convicted of anything as a result. The farmer involved still hasn't paid the hundreds of thousands he owes & still grazes his cattle on Government land without paying, as he has been doing for over 20 years.

These are armed extremists looking for a confrontation & they think the law doesn't apply to them....because apparently it doesn't.

Triple C
05 Jan 16,, 14:06
The group three percenters are heavily involved, said a blog purportedly ran by a member of the movement. [Edit:registered as three percent patriots on blogspot] The blog further claims that the Hammond family endorses the occupation, but would wash their hands if the militiamen take aggressive action against LEO or initiate bloodshed.

On a somewhat related note, I believe that bringing guns along was a terrible decision. A protest that is illegal by intention has enough moving parts. If the government wants to evict you, it will. Resistance with deadly force, or the threat of deadly force use, will lead to blood--mostly yours. And no sympathy from the society at large could be expected after a violent clash with fatalities.

astralis
05 Jan 16,, 14:37
mihais,


Whom did they terrorised?Where the piles of dead bodies?

one does not need to kill to terrorize. they're implying that they're willing to use lethal force to protest against the government.

Doktor
05 Jan 16,, 14:41
Is it an act of terrorism if it is against the gov?

It's more a rethorical one.

astralis
05 Jan 16,, 15:18
yes, for now. which is why I don't support the use of force to evict these idiots; it's not as if they were occupying, say, Congress or the New York Public Library.

they -want- the media attention.

once they leave they can be thrown in jail.

Albany Rifles
05 Jan 16,, 15:24
If all is fine and they are not threatening, then why have schools been closed?

Question 1: Are they breaking the law?

Answer 1: If yes, they should be arrested...don't gave a damn about guns, politics, etc.

And I felt that way about the Occupy Movement and nonpermitted Black Lives Matter marches.

Question 2: What if you are convicted of the crime.

Answer 1: If you are convicted of the crime, appeal...that is your right.

Don't like the outcome of the law? Then work through your elected representatives...the US Congress (remember them) to get the law changed.

That is how it works in the US...and if it is not working then vote to get it working.

Extrajudicial is wrong.

Extralegal is wrong.

As for taking over administration buildings on campus....if it's a private college its up to what ever the rules their Board of Trustees set. If it is a public institution then it is the law of that state. My opinion is they should be suspended for the remainder of the semester and wait listed for readmission.

zraver
05 Jan 16,, 15:31
Alby, the normal process of changing bad government actions often do not apply in the West. Due to Sue and Settle tactics Congress and normal rules making is bypassed and the courts are forced to accept settlements that create new federal regs that totally by-passed the stake holders. Its this brazen disrespect for the rule of law on the part of government and the environmental groups that is driving the western militancy.

SteveDaPirate
05 Jan 16,, 16:03
Question 1: Are they breaking the law?

Answer 1: If yes, they should be arrested...don't gave a damn about guns, politics, etc.

And I felt that way about the Occupy Movement and nonpermitted Black Lives Matter marches.

Question 2: What if you are convicted of the crime.

Answer 1: If you are convicted of the crime, appeal...that is your right.

Don't like the outcome of the law? Then work through your elected representatives...the US Congress (remember them) to get the law changed.

That is how it works in the US...and if it is not working then vote to get it working.

Extrajudicial is wrong.

Extralegal is wrong.

Like!

YellowFever
05 Jan 16,, 18:13
As I thought, the real "meat" of the story is being gloriously ignored and the actions of a few nutball idiots are being highlighted just to justify their beliefs.



The story could be the plot for a western-style soap opera.

The latest scene involved two ranchers being sentenced to five years in federal prison for inadvertantly burning about 140 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rangeland in two separate fires. That is an area big enough to feed about three cow-calf pairs for a year in that neck of the woods.

“I call it ‘as the sagebrush burns,’” said Erin Maupin, a former BLM range technician and watershed specialist and rancher in the area, of the long history involving the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), special interest groups and the cattle ranchers on the Steens Mountain of Oregon.

Dwight Hammond, 73 and son Steven Hamond, 46, admitted in a 2012 court case to lighting two different fires. Both fires started on Hammonds’ private property.

The Harney County ranchers are paying the BLM $400,000 for the costs of fighting fires the BLM claims they set.

“The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area,” said a Department of Justice news release.

“The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightening storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt to save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by the BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons,” continued the DOJ release.

The two men were sentenced to prison in 2012. Steven served eleven months and Dwight three.

The men were charged with nine counts, including conspiracy, using aerial surveillance of sites they intended to burn, and burned, attempting to destroy vehicles and other property with fire, and more. Dwight and Steve were found guilty of two counts – the two fires they readily admitted to starting on their own property.

In order to draw the original court case to a close, the two men, in a plea deal, agreed that they would not appeal the 2012 sentence.

The Department of Justice news release said arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. Judge Michael Hogan, however, did not give the two men the minimum sentence called for under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, saying it would have been “grossly disproportionate” to the crime. He added that a longer sentence would not meet any idea he has of justice and that he didn’t believe congress intended that act to be applied in cases like the Hammond one. A longer sentence than the few months he gave them would “shock his conscience” he said.

The Department of Justice appealed for a full sentence.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to a review of the case and District Chief Judge Ann Aiken went ahead with a full sentence – five years in federal prison for both men, minus time already spent.

The fires

The first fire, in 2001, was a planned burn on Hammonds’ own property to reduce juniper trees that have become invasive in that part of the country. That fire burned outside the Hammonds’ private property line and took in 138 acres of unfenced BLM land before the Hammonds got it put out. No BLM firefighters were needed to help extinguish the fire and no fences were damaged.

“They called and got permission to light the fire,” Dwight’s wife, Susan, said, adding that was customary for ranchers conducting range management burns – a common practice in the area.

“We usually called the interagency fire outfit – a main dispatch – to be sure someone wasn’t in the way or that weather wouldn’t be a problem.” Susan said her son Steven was told that the BLM was conducting a burn of their own somewhere in the region the same day, and that they believed there would be no problem with the Hammonds going ahead with their planned fire. The court transcript includes a recording from that phone conversation.

In cross-examination of a prosecution witness, the court transcript also includes an admission from Mr. Ward, a range conservationist, that the 2001 fire improved the rangeland conditions on the BLM property.

Maupin, who resigned from the BLM in 1999, said that collaborative burns between private ranchers and the BLM had become popular in the late 1990s because local university extension researchers were recommending it as a means to manage invasive juniper that steal water from grass and other cover.

“Juniper encroachment had become an issue on the forefront and was starting to come to a head. We were trying to figure out how to deal with it on a large scale,” said Maupin, whose family neighbored the Hammonds for a couple of years.

“In 1999, the BLM started to try to do large scale burn projects. We started to be successful on the Steens Mountain especially when we started to do it on a large watershed scale as opposed to trying to follow property lines.”

Because private and federal land is intermingled, collaborative burns were much more effective than individual burns that would cover a smaller area, Maupin said.

Maupin said prescribed burns to manage juniper were common in the late 1990s and early 2000s, best done late in the fall when the days are cooler.

Prescribed burns on federal land in their area have all but stopped due to pressure from special interest groups, Maupin said. As a result, wildfires now burn much hotter due to a “ladder” of material on the ground – grass, brush and trees.

“The fires now burn really hot and they sterilize the ground. Then you have a weed patch that comes back.”

Maupin said planned burning in cooler weather like the Hammonds chose to do improves the quality of the forage, and makes for better sage grouse habitat by removing juniper trees that suck up water and house raptors – a sage grouse predator.

Susan said the second fire, in 2006, was a backfire started by Steven to protect their property from lightning fires.

“There was fire all around them that was going to burn our house and all of our trees and everything. The opportunity to set a back-fire was there and it was very successful. It saved a bunch of land from burning,” she remembers.

The BLM asserts that one acre of federal land was burned by the Hammonds’ backfire and Susan says determining which fire burned which land is “a joke” because fire burned from every direction.

Neighbor Ruthie Danielson also remembers that evening and agrees. “Lightning strikes were everywhere, fires were going off,” she said.

Charges

The Hammonds were charged with nine counts in the original court case.

The BLM accused the Hammonds of several 2006 fires, including a large one known as the Granddad, which blazed about 46,000 acres.

According to the 2012 sentencing document, the jury found the men innocent or were deadlocked on all but two counts – the two fires the men admitted to starting – burning a total of about 140 acres.

Judge Hogen dismissed testimony from a disgruntled grandson who testified that the 2001 fire endangered his life and that of local hunters, saying the boy was very young and referencing a feud that may have influenced the testimony.

“Well, the damage was juniper trees and sagebrush, and there might have been a hundred dollars,” he added.

More to the story?

During her tenure as a full time BLM employee from 1997-1999, Maupin recalls other fires accidentally spilling over onto BLM land, but only the Hammonds have been charged, arrested and sentenced, she said. Ranchers might be burning invasive species or maybe weeds in the ditch. “They would call and the BLM would go and help put it out and it was not a big deal.”

On the flip side, Maupin remembers numerous times that BLM-lit fires jumped to private land. Neighbors lost significant numbers of cattle in more than one BLM fire that escaped intended containment lines and quickly swallowed up large amounts of private land. To her knowledge, no ranchers have been compensated for lost livestock or other loss of property such as fences.

Gary Miller, who ranches near Frenchglen, about 35 miles from the Hammonds’ hometown, said that in 2012, the BLM lit numerous backfires that ended up burning his private land, BLM permit and killing about 65 cows.

A YouTube video named BLM Working at Burning Frenchglen-July 10, 2012 shows “back burn” fires allegedly lit by BLM personnel that are upwind of the main fire, including around Gary Miller’s corrals. The fire that appeared ready to die down several times, eventually burned around 160,000 acres, Miller said.

Bill Wilber, a Harney County rancher, said five lightening strikes on July 13, 2014, merged to create a fire on Bartlett Mountain. The fire flew through his private ground, burned a BLM allotment and killed 39 cows and calves.

While the fire could have been contained and stopped, BLM restrictions prevent local firefighting efforts like building a fireline, so only after taking in 397,000 acres did the fire finally stop when it came up against a series of roads.

The issue isn’t limited to Oregon. In 2013, two South Dakota prescribed burns started by the U.S. Forest Service--over the objections of area landowners-- blew out of control, burning thousands of acres of federal and private land. Ranchers that suffered property damage from the Pautre fire in Perkins County, South Dakota filed extensive tort claims in accordance with federal requirements, but will receive no compensation because USDA found the U.S. Forest Service not responsible for that fire.

Why the Hammonds?

“The story is like an onion, you just keep peeling back the layers,” Maupin said.

In an effort to stave off what they feared was a pending Clinton/Babbitt monument designation in 2000, a group of ranchers on the scenic Steens Mountain worked with Oregon Representative Greg Walden, a Republican, to draft and enact the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act that would prevent such a deed. The ranchers agreed to work with special interest “environmental” groups like the aggressive Oregon Natural Desert Association and others to protect the higher-than 10,000-foot peak.

A number of ranchers at the top of the mountain traded their BLM permits and private property for land on the valley floor, allowing Congress to create a 170,000 acre wilderness in 2000, with almost 100,000 acres being “cow-free.”

“The last holdouts on that cow-free wilderness are the Hammonds,” said Maupin. Though some still have BLM grazing permits, the Hammonds are the last private landowners in the area.

“It’s become more and more obvious over the years that the BLM and the wildlife refuge want that ranch. It would tie in with what they have,” said Rusty Inglis, an area rancher and retired U.S. Forest Service employee.

The Hammonds also lost their ability to water cattle on one BLM permit when refuge personnel drained a watering hole that the Hammonds had always used.

Maupin said the government scientists and resource managers working “on the ground” supported the Hammonds’ use of the water but that the high level bureaucrats backed special interest anti-grazing groups. “There is a huge disconnect between employees on the ground and the decision-makers.” She said that divide builds tension between ranchers and federal agencies.

In the Hammonds’ plea agreement in the 2012 trial, the BLM obtained the first right of refusal should the family have to sell their private land, Maupin added.

The Maupins themselves had a small lease that also bordered the “cow-free wilderness” and the Oregon Natural Desert Association was “relentless in their pursuit to have us off, in order to expand the cow-free wilderness,” Maupin said. The group would criticize the ranchers’ water usage, causing them to pipe water to their cattle, which in turn instigated more complaints from the group.

Eventually the Maupins sold their permit and moved.

But the Hammonds remained.

Steve and Dwight Hammond will turn themselves in for their prison sentences in early January, Susan said.

The family has sold cattle. Their BLM permit has not been renewed for two years, leaving them unable to use a large amount of intermingled private land.

The family is in the “last challenge” to re-obtain their grazing permit. “I don’t know what happens after that,” Susan said. “We have done everything according to their rules and regulations and there is no reason that they should not give us back our permit. We don’t understand how a federal land management agency can ‘take’ personal private property (checkerboarded with BLM land) in this manner.

“We’ve been fighting it for five years. We don’t want to destroy people as we are fighting it even if it is a BLM employee,” she said, “They live in our community and they have families. We respect that.” The situation could get even more ugly but “it’s not going to be our fault,” she said.

“The Hammond family is not arsonists. They are number one, top notch. They know their land management,” said Inglis, who spent 34 years with the USFS and now ranches about 40 miles from the Hammonds and is unique in the area, operating strictly on private land.

Inglis, president of his county Farm Bureau and a member of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association said both groups are working to help gain media attention for the Hammond case. The state Farm Bureau group gathered signatures online for a petition to show widespread support for the family. “Enough is enough,” Inglis said. “We are not in Nazi Germany. We are in the United States of America.”

The five-year prison sentence sets a worrisome precedent for area ranchers, Maupin said.

“Now the sky is the limit. It doesn’t have to be fire, it can be trespass with cattle.”

Another precedent – one for fire that burns beyond expectations – should apply to everyone, including federal employees, Maupin points out.

The People

Maupin talked about the Hammonds helping her and her husband with ranch work like hauling cattle and lending portable panels, not expecting repayment. Wilber recalled them hauling 4-H calves to the fair for neighbors and Inglis said Dwight once offered to lend him money because he thought he needed help. “Here’s a guy with $400,000 in fines and legal bills I can’t imagine, worrying about my welfare,” said Inglis.

“I think that’s the biggest point of all of this – how can you prosecute people as terrorists when they aren’t a terrorist?”

Property rights attorney Karen Budd-Falen from Cheyenne, Wyoming, agrees.

“What totally amazes me is what these guys did – they burned 140 acres. If you compare that to the EPA spill in Colorado, it amazes me that nothing will happen to those EPA employees. You have cities down there with no drinking water. The Hammonds didn’t do anything like that,” Budd-Falen said.

“It’s going to get worse before it gets better,” said Maupin.

The BLM deferred all questions to the Department of Justice, who shared their official news release but did not respond to emailed questions as of print time.


http://www.tsln.com/news/18837869-113/where-theres-smoke

So there were ranching there for over a hundred years and because the ranchers did such a good job over the years (laying pipes and creating watering holes) that birds and other wildlife flocked to it..and the federal government moves in later, declaring it some sort of wildlife sanctuary..and now they're slowly driving all the ranchers out by "legal" means, which they defined.

And some are still hung up about nutballs that took up the cause and whether if Hammond is a child abuser.

antimony
05 Jan 16,, 18:32
What a bunch of bullshit JUSTIFICATION arguments :red:

What exactly would be the reaction if this was being done by the "Black Lives Matter" folks or, Allah forbid, some Muslim fundamentalists?

tbm3fan
05 Jan 16,, 18:59
As I thought, the real "meat" of the story is being gloriously ignored and the actions of a few nutball idiots are being highlighted just to justify their beliefs.



http://www.tsln.com/news/18837869-113/where-theres-smoke

So there were ranching there for over a hundred years and because the ranchers did such a good job over the years (laying pipes and creating watering holes) that birds and other wildlife flocked to it..and the federal government moves in later, declaring it some sort of wildlife sanctuary..and now they're slowly driving all the ranchers out by "legal" means, which they defined.

And some are still hung up about nutballs that took up the cause and whether if Hammond is.a.child.abuser.

I see it differently. So they were ranching for 100 years back to 1915. They were ranching on US Government land the whole time. The Oregon Territory went officially to the government when the treaty between Britain and the US was signed in 1846. That made it US Government land. Same with the Mexican Cession in 1848. If they can show me a legitimate purchase agreement from 1846 or later then fine. They say private land? Ok, prove it. Did they purchase it or did they just settle on it as I don't recall anything similar to opening the territory ala the Oklahoma land rush.

YellowFever
05 Jan 16,, 19:24
I see it differently. So they were ranching for 100 years back to 1915. They were ranching on US Government land the whole time. The Oregon Territory went officially to the government when the treaty between Britain and the US was signed in 1846. That made it US Government land. Same with the Mexican Cession in 1848. If they can show me a legitimate purchase agreement from 1846 or later then fine. They say private land? Ok, prove it. Did they purchase it or did they just settle on it as I don't recall anything similar to opening the territory ala the Oklahoma land rush.

If this is government property in the first place, why are they buying back all the property?

Why did the Hammond ranch receive no static from the BLM until they refused to sell?

If this is government land, why can't they just tell the Hammonds to get the hell off their land?

SteveDaPirate
05 Jan 16,, 21:21
As I thought, the real "meat" of the story is being gloriously ignored and the actions of a few nutball idiots are being highlighted just to justify their beliefs. And some are still hung up about nutballs that took up the cause and whether if Hammond is a child abuser.

I think the "meat" has very little to do with the unfortunate case involving the Hammonds and a lot to do with the fact that there are a group of armed men currently occupying a Federal facility.

Peaceful demonstration while armed is well and good, until you start breaking the law. Unfortunately the Bundy clan seem to have missed the memo that trespassing, and bringing firearms onto Federal property aren't legal. Not even state and local Law Enforcement personnel are allowed to carry their service weapons on Federal property unless in the active performance of their duties.

The strange thing to me is that these clowns are being allowed to stay there and become front page news instead of just seeing some footnote about guys who were quickly arrested after trespassing in a Federal facility.

TopHatter
05 Jan 16,, 21:34
What a bunch of bullshit JUSTIFICATION arguments :red:

What exactly would be the reaction if this was being done by the "Black Lives Matter" folks or, Allah forbid, some Muslim fundamentalists?

Well, the BLM and Muslim fundamentalists typically don't occupy empty buildings. So, the reaction would naturally be different. Lives and livelihoods are not at risk here.

TopHatter
05 Jan 16,, 21:36
The strange thing to me is that these clowns are being allowed to stay there and become front page news instead of just seeing some footnote about guys who were quickly arrested after trespassing in a Federal facility.
As my comment above mentioned, the building was empty, but these clowns are armed. Seeing as how no lives or livelihoods are at stake, the government can afford to wait them out.
There isn't a dire need to send in an assault team. The government seems to have learned from Ruby Ridge.

Triple C
05 Jan 16,, 21:54
Guardian reports that the FBI is mulling cutting power to the place, while forbidding people to enter, so that the weather would compel them to leave. Probably for the best if it works, it's not worth spilling blood over.

SteveDaPirate
05 Jan 16,, 22:16
As my comment above mentioned, the building was empty, but these clowns are armed. Seeing as how no lives or livelihoods are at stake, the government can afford to wait them out.
There isn't a dire need to send in an assault team. The government seems to have learned from Ruby Ridge.

Wait for what exactly? It sounds like these guys are more or less prepared to just move in.

Unlike Ruby Ridge, this isn't somebody's house with Marshals sneaking about in the woods, and there are no women or children around to get hurt if someone gets trigger happy. These are all grown men who went out of their way to take over a Federal facility and now to rally others to their cause. Continuing to wait them out without taking any kind of action just invites more people to show up and turn a couple of nuts into a real problem.

I'm not saying they need to suit up the tactical team, but I'd at least like to seem them cut the utilities, have a wrecker remove any vehicles, and ask the guys to surrender.

YellowFever
05 Jan 16,, 22:26
I think the "meat" has very little to do with the unfortunate case involving the Hammonds and a lot to do with the fact that there are a group of armed men currently occupying a Federal facility.

Peaceful demonstration while armed is well and good, until you start breaking the law. Unfortunately the Bundy clan seem to have missed the memo that trespassing, and bringing firearms onto Federal property aren't legal. Not even state and local Law Enforcement personnel are allowed to carry their service weapons on Federal property unless in the active performance of their duties.

The strange thing to me is that these clowns are being allowed to stay there and become front page news instead of just seeing some footnote about guys who were quickly arrested after trespassing in a Federal facility.

Oh no doubt, the Bundy clan will be nothing more than footnotes when this is over. They wanted attention and they got it to some degree from the media but the best thing the govt. can do is ignore it.

Once the spotlight is off they'll leave one by one and get picked off later while making moonshine or something...LoL.

I am however glad they did what they did because it made me aware of the situation (I would probably have never heard of it if it wasn't for the "occupation") and it's given a vehicle to the Oregon ranchers assoc. to spread the word about the Hammond case and it was refreshing to hear one of them on the radio here in L.A..

The liberal hosts of the radio program at least went from "Those redneck militia is at it again" comments to "Let''s keep an eye out to what happens to the Hammonds" comments, which is a remarkable imporvement.

TopHatter
05 Jan 16,, 22:49
Wait for what exactly? It sounds like these guys are more or less prepared to just move in.Sure but how long can they stay? How much food and drinking water do they have? No doubt that "do nothing" doesn't exactly set the best precedent. But you've already provided the best solution IMO:


I'm not saying they need to suit up the tactical team, but I'd at least like to seem them cut the utilities, have a wrecker remove any vehicles, and ask the guys to surrender.
Sounds like that's what might happen:


Guardian reports that the FBI is mulling cutting power to the place, while forbidding people to enter, so that the weather would compel them to leave. Probably for the best if it works, it's not worth spilling blood over.

Let these idiots swim in their own shit for awhile. See how committed they are to the cause. Logistics will be their Achilles Heel, like it almost always is.

antimony
06 Jan 16,, 01:35
Well, the BLM and Muslim fundamentalists typically don't occupy empty buildings. So, the reaction would naturally be different. Lives and livelihoods are not at risk here.

You are avoiding the question. If the Oregon Militia was replaced by Black Lives Matter activities in this very case, what would have been the response?

TopHatter
06 Jan 16,, 02:03
You are avoiding the question. If the Oregon Militia was replaced by Black Lives Matter activities in this very case, what would have been the response?

If the BLM had done exactly what the Militia had done, I would put all my money on "Exactly the same thing".

Is that a good enough answer?

Officer of Engineers
06 Jan 16,, 02:12
From this person's perspective, the Oergon Militia is willing to accept the responsibility and the consequences for their own actions.

BLM's actions are It's the cops fault and therefore, what we do is their responsibility.

I maybe wrong. In fact, my gut reaction would have been an old fashion seige. Nothing goes in or out unless I allow it.

zraver
06 Jan 16,, 02:56
If this is government property in the first place, why are they buying back all the property?

Because its not federal property


Why did the Hammond ranch receive no static from the BLM until they refused to sell?

Because the sue and settle crowd is not above extortion to get what they want.


If this is government land, why can't they just tell the Hammonds to get the hell off their land?

It is either the Hammond's private property or land they have a permit (legally binding contract) to use.

TopHatter
06 Jan 16,, 02:59
BLM's actions are It's the cops fault and therefore, what we do is their responsibility.
That's how I see BLM as well. In many ways a copy of OWS: Responsibility is just another word in the dictionary.


I maybe wrong. In fact, my gut reaction would have been an old fashion seige. Nothing goes in or out unless I allow it.
Which is why (if I'm reading what you said correctly) comparing this to BLM or Muslim terrorists is a non-starter.

BLM "protests" in high visibility and high population areas, complete with actions ranging from civil disturbances, paid idiots staring down cops to full-on rioting and looting.

Islamic terrorists, well, that goes without saying: Wanton killing and bombing of any innocent and unarmed civilian they see.

Which again is why this Oregon thing is being treated so "differently".

zraver
06 Jan 16,, 03:00
What a bunch of bullshit JUSTIFICATION arguments :red:

What exactly would be the reaction if this was being done by the "Black Lives Matter" folks or, Allah forbid, some Muslim fundamentalists?

We wish BLM, Occupy/black bloc and jihadis were this peaceful. The protesters in Oregon haven't flown a single plane into a building, haven't burned a single store during a riot, haven't tried to disrupt trade and commerce...

TopHatter
06 Jan 16,, 03:12
We wish BLM, Occupy/black bloc and jihadis were this peaceful. The protesters in Oregon haven't flown a single plane into a building, haven't burned a single store during a riot, haven't tried to disrupt trade and commerce...

^^ This. So much THIS.

These Oregon idiots are idiots. Plain and simple. I can't stress that enough. Clownish idiots that are going spend a long time in prison, and richly deserve it.

But to date, they haven't hurt or killed a single person, taken a single hostage, and haven't interrupted diddly squat.

Is it any wonder they're being treated so benignly? The cops can wait them out and then haul them off to jail.

TopHatter
06 Jan 16,, 03:15
Notice the heavily populated massive office building they occupied in the middle of a major metropolis

40703

zraver
06 Jan 16,, 03:56
I don't recall the Left bitching too much when the Black Bloc strikes... Some like Chris Hedges loathe them, but no one on the left really tries to stop them.

tbm3fan
06 Jan 16,, 05:14
If this is government property in the first place, why are they buying back all the property?

Why did the Hammond ranch receive no static from the BLM until they refused to sell?

If this is government land, why can't they just tell the Hammonds to get the hell off their land?

Just repeating all I have ever read. The treaties turned the land over to the US Government and not to any one private individual. So how did they get their hands on the land is my question.

zraver
06 Jan 16,, 05:52
Just repeating all I have ever read. The treaties turned the land over to the US Government and not to any one private individual. So how did they get their hands on the land is my question.

Three ways


1. Article 1 section 8 clause 17 is how. When a Territory is admitted as a state it enters on what is called the Equal Footing Doctrine and takes legal possesion of all the lands within its borders. There is actually a strain of the militia movement that argues that the federal government is not legally permitted to own any land inside the states except for forts, ports and necessary buildings. Its an offshoot of the western anger at federal land practices in the west.

2. Homestead acts, before the frontier was closed the federal government would award title and deed to settlers.

3. Land sales to individuals and corporations such as mines, railroads etc.

Stitch
06 Jan 16,, 06:25
^^ This. So much THIS.

These Oregon idiots are idiots. Plain and simple. I can't stress that enough. Clownish idiots that are going spend a long time in prison, and richly deserve it.

But to date, they haven't hurt or killed a single person, taken a single hostage, and haven't interrupted diddly squat.

Is it any wonder they're being treated so benignly? The cops can wait them out and then haul them off to jail.

Unfortunately, I see this headed the same direction as the Branch Davidian fiasco in Waco, Texas in 1993, unless these "Oregon idiots" realize that they'll lose the inevitable battle between them and the ATF/FBI/ONG.

antimony
06 Jan 16,, 06:32
^^ This. So much THIS.

These Oregon idiots are idiots. Plain and simple. I can't stress that enough. Clownish idiots that are going spend a long time in prison, and richly deserve it.

But to date, they haven't hurt or killed a single person, taken a single hostage, and haven't interrupted diddly squat.

Is it any wonder they're being treated so benignly? The cops can wait them out and then haul them off to jail.

I said Islamic fundamentalists, which means skull cap wearing mullahs shouting themselves hoarse screaming verses from the quran, not actual terrorists with guns and bombs.

This
40705

Not this
40706



As for the "treatment", I still don't see Bundy being asked to pay the dues he owes and I doubt if any of these "clownish idiots" spend any time in prison.

bonehead
06 Jan 16,, 13:49
As more of a local than most here, will put in my 2 cents.


There is no good guy and bad guy here. On one side you have the BLM which is run more by accountants than by people who actually know what is going on in the land. Even worse, they take their orders from higher up on the food chain and that is where politics and agendas trump common sense. During the heydays of logging 1970's to the crash in the 1990'2 the BLM made a lot of land swaps which infuriated local land owners. Then there was the usual government heavy handed tactics against small land owners and ranchers which planted the seeds of discontent that ranchers are still bitter about.

On the other side is the issue of "ownership" when dealing with public lands. Oregon is full of public land where the locals believe their say is the only say and it is all "their back yard so they can do as they please" mentality. I have had to deal with ranchers quite a bit while hunting and camping so I can say that ranchers are just like everyone else. There are those who see the big picture and understand their place in the world and there are those who think the world owes them everything. By and large, most just want you to not do anything stupid and close the gates behind you and all is well. They just want to make a living with as few hassles as possible. Others are damned difficult to get along with. They hate the idea of "public land" and will do everything possible to keep people off of government land even though their lease agreements say otherwise. Then you have the Al Sharpton counterparts who scan the media for news and rush in to push their agenda and take over. This is what happened in Oregon.


The thing is that these types of conflicts are not new. In many ways nothing has changed since the 1800's as far as fighting for land and the rights afforded to the land. Every year there is something stirring the pot and some relevant court battle. It is just off the radar for people who live in the East.."city folk". The building in question that is taken over is near the town and I can assure you the militia has the town's sympathies so going in guns blazing is the worst thing the government can do. Cut off the power and isolate it and it is just a matter of time before they get cold enough and hungry enough to see the folly of their ways…especially as the two they came to defend are already back in jail. No one was or is in any danger and no malls or airports had to be shut down. In fact if it hadn't made the news, no one would have known.

astralis
06 Jan 16,, 17:13
Which is why (if I'm reading what you said correctly) comparing this to BLM or Muslim terrorists is a non-starter.

BLM "protests" in high visibility and high population areas, complete with actions ranging from civil disturbances, paid idiots staring down cops to full-on rioting and looting.

Islamic terrorists, well, that goes without saying: Wanton killing and bombing of any innocent and unarmed civilian they see.

Which again is why this Oregon thing is being treated so "differently".

this is a bad comparison.

both BLM and OWS were/are urban movements, involving significant numbers of people in a densely-populated area. the idiots threatening violence were the exceptions, not the rule (otherwise things would be much worse than it actually was).

this is simply hooliganism and vigilante "justice" dressed up as a movement, in an empty area. threatening violence IS the rule here. one of the reasons why these "militia" members are armed is to make it -deliberately harder- for them to get punished; otherwise, why not just link arms and willingly go to jail in protest?

they're DARING the government to use lethal force. that's not accepting responsibility for their actions at all.

this story would be significantly different if they kept their arms at home. but they didn't.

GVChamp
06 Jan 16,, 17:37
I don't see your point. These are hooligans in the middle of nowhere. There is no immediate need to rout them.

If the Black Lives Matter showed up to Michigan Avenue with guns on their silly little Black Friday protest, I'd demand Rauner call out the National Guard and rout the thug-apologists.

It's a question of location and density. I'd demand the same if Bundy's boys came to Michigan Avenue and did the same.

As it stands, these idiots are in the middle of nowhere and pose no risk to any civilian population. Even if the BLMorons want "peaceful" protests, their mere presence and focus on disruption in a metropolis implies a non-zero risk of violence to innocent civilians.

We can only hope every political protest involved storming an unoccupied federal outpost in the middle of nowhere.

YellowFever
06 Jan 16,, 18:00
One grievance the militia has (and I tend to agree with them on this one) is too much land is "federally owned" out west.

40708

Albany Rifles
06 Jan 16,, 18:47
this is a bad comparison.

both BLM and OWS were/are urban movements, involving significant numbers of people in a densely-populated area. the idiots threatening violence were the exceptions, not the rule (otherwise things would be much worse than it actually was).

this is simply hooliganism and vigilante "justice" dressed up as a movement, in an empty area. threatening violence IS the rule here. one of the reasons why these "militia" members are armed is to make it -deliberately harder- for them to get punished; otherwise, why not just link arms and willingly go to jail in protest?

they're DARING the government to use lethal force. that's not accepting responsibility for their actions at all.

this story would be significantly different if they kept their arms at home. but they didn't.

^^^^^Like!!!

Albany Rifles
06 Jan 16,, 19:04
One grievance the militia has (and I tend to agree with them on this one) is too much land is "federally owned" out west.

40708

1. How much of that land is for DOD purposes? And yes, we need great big giant swaths of land for safety and security reasons...you don't want prying eyes at the skunkworks and you don't want lots of people around things which go boom....and big boom. And not just from bombs...look at any USN/USAF air base in built up areas.

2. That land belongs to US! The federal government holds it in trust for All Americans. And since the federal goverment is full of people, errors are made.

As Bonehead has pointed out the issue is not with folks who are federally owned/shared usage. Its with the ones who believe its all mine and not those bureaucrats in Washington....even though the bureaucrat graduated from Boise State with a degree in land management, is an avid hunter and fisherman and is just trying to make sure the land held in trust for all is best managed. And that may be in low moisture area you do not get to expand your herd to graze on public land because it also destroys or impairs the natural habitat that the damn easterner graduate biology student has every right to go visit for their studies.

I can see a side to the argument that my family worked this land for a century...but you get that century of water rights...butit also means you need to pay your grazing fees.

Entrance onto publically held land...battlefield, wildlife refuge, national park...implies to an agreement of the compact that you will abide by the rules of that public land.

3. Looking at all of that red in Alaska....if you are running around being a hunter or fisherman and get into trouble, who comes to rescue? There are very few county or state assets which will come to help you. The first responders are quite often aircraft and crews of the US Coast Guard, US Army or Air Force and/or the Alaska National Guard...all which is federal. (The aircraft and equipment flown by the Alaska National Guard are bought and maintained by Title 10 Federal dollars).

So before we say too much red, let's keep that in mind.

And here is a curious little fact....look at all of those red Federal lands....sure match up with a lot of political Red states which receive a large number of federal dollars in return.

Triple C
06 Jan 16,, 20:30
I don't see your point. These are hooligans in the middle of nowhere. There is no immediate need to rout them.

I don't think that's being argued. Rather, some, myself included, are not seeing the purported moral superiority of the Bundy group. Only one group had told its followers to go stage an armed "protest," whatever that means, and instructed them them it's OK to shoot at the police if there is a crackdown. That said, I will be the first to agree that whatever punishment the current group of hooligans deserve, there is no compelling reason to storm the place.

Officer of Engineers
06 Jan 16,, 21:05
they're DARING the government to use lethal force. that's not accepting responsibility for their actions at all.Starvation and dehydration are lethal forces.

GVChamp
06 Jan 16,, 21:17
I don't think that's being argued. Rather, some, myself included, are not seeing the purported moral superiority of the Bundy group. Only one group had told its followers to go stage an armed "protest," whatever that means, and instructed them them it's OK to shoot at the police if there is a crackdown. That said, I will be the first to agree that whatever punishment the current group of hooligans deserve, there is no compelling reason to storm the place.
That's a fair point, it's not really my business to determine what other people find morally superior or inferior. These guys aren't freakin' ISIS, though.

YellowFever
07 Jan 16,, 00:52
1. How much of that land is for DOD purposes? And yes, we need great big giant swaths of land for safety and security reasons...you don't want prying eyes at the skunkworks and you don't want lots of people around things which go boom....and big boom. And not just from bombs...look at any USN/USAF air base in built up areas.


I can live with this.

40709

I can even live with national parks being federal land. But this...

40710



2. That land belongs to US! The federal government holds it in trust for All Americans. And since the federal goverment is full of people, errors are made.


Yes the federal government is full or people and people make errors. I have no problem with that. As I stated before what I do have a problem is people in the governemtn drunk with power simply because they were not even elected but appointed as something. What I do have a problem with is appointed people that decides that land that has been used for grazing and watering cattle all of a sudden decides to declare it a "cattle free zone" and drive out ranchers that have been legally paying grazing and leasing fees for years and years simple because they wanted it to be a "wildlife preserve" even though wildlife thrived more when ranchers maintained the land...that from a BLM's own study....a document that was dug up by Mrs. Hammond and thus pissing off the BLM. It's bureacracy run amok.



As Bonehead has pointed out the issue is not with folks who are federally owned/shared usage. Its with the ones who believe its all mine and not those bureaucrats in Washington....even though the bureaucrat graduated from Boise State with a degree in land management, is an avid hunter and fisherman and is just trying to make sure the land held in trust for all is best managed. And that may be in low moisture area you do not get to expand your herd to graze on public land because it also destroys or impairs the natural habitat that the damn easterner graduate biology student has every right to go visit for their studies.


The BLM employees and scietists on the ground said that the land in question is better maintained when ranchers are given free reign. They also said that the fires in question (those that the Hammonds got convicted for) were actually good for the federal land.

Come on man, you know that ranchers set fire all the time as preventive actions. They did what they did to save their ranch and those BLM employess on the ground actually agreed that it helped federal land. It's the bureacracy that's thusands of miles away that pressed charges.

The Hammonds got convicted for doing something the federal government does routinely...the Hammonds just did it much better and more effieciently.




I can see a side to the argument that my family worked this land for a century...but you get that century of water rights...butit also means you need to pay your grazing fees.


Which the Hammonds did.



Entrance onto publically held land...battlefield, wildlife refuge, national park...implies to an agreement of the compact that you will abide by the rules of that public land.


Which the Hammonds also did...until the rules changed (making it illegal for their cattle to cross from one private land to the next, simply by declaring the federal land they have to travel through to get to one private land to another as "cattle free land"...shortly after some ranchers decided not to sell their land to the BLM.

The Hammonds jumped through every hoops and rule changes dreamed up by the BLM. Their only mistake was they wouldn't sell to the BLM. They deserve to be strong armed. I guess.

The population in the Western United States in getting larger and larger. More and more land should become available to be used as people see fit. So why is the government buying up more and more land? Why are federally controlled land getting bigger and bigger?

This goes back to what gunnnut said about the EPA. It was good once and it did it's job here in California. Now it's just a huge bureacracy that's just feeding itself at our expense.



3. Looking at all of that red in Alaska....if you are running around being a hunter or fisherman and get into trouble, who comes to rescue? There are very few county or state assets which will come to help you. The first responders are quite often aircraft and crews of the US Coast Guard, US Army or Air Force and/or the Alaska National Guard...all which is federal. (The aircraft and equipment flown by the Alaska National Guard are bought and maintained by Title 10 Federal dollars).

So before we say too much red, let's keep that in mind.


I don't know much about this so explan this to me please. Are you telling me the coast guard and army are not obligated to help me if I am not in a federal land?

Why the hell am I paying federal taxes?



And here is a curious little fact....look at all of those red Federal lands....sure match up with a lot of political Red states which receive a large number of federal dollars in return.

I am monumentally disinterested in them being political red states or not. Who cares? Why did you have to turn this into a political issue?

I'm also pissed that the federal government can throw around dollars to states like it's candy on Halloween night.

Whatever happened to collecting just enough money so the government can do it's job? Why are they collecting enough taxes to do their job and then throw around excess money like it's their money?



Edit: Sorry for the numerous typo. It's hard to do this on my phone. Curse you AR! :O

Officer of Engineers
07 Jan 16,, 03:33
Starvation and dehydration are lethal forces.I'm stepping out of this arguement. I really do not know the history of US armed protest and therefore, ill advised to comment. But from a military POV, seige is the most appropropiate respose.

Gun Grape
07 Jan 16,, 04:02
Yes the federal government is full or people and people make errors. I have no problem with that. As I stated before what I do have a problem is people in the governemtn drunk with power simply because they were not even elected but appointed as something. What I do have a problem with is appointed people that decides that land that has been used for grazing and watering cattle all of a sudden decides to declare it a "cattle free zone" and drive out ranchers that have been legally paying grazing and leasing fees for years and years simple because they wanted it to be a "wildlife preserve" even though wildlife thrived more when ranchers maintained the land...that from a BLM's own study....a document that was dug up by Mrs. Hammond and thus pissing off the BLM. It's bureacracy run amok.

Do you have a source for that report? Or a report tracking number so that we can read it? I say the same claim on various sites but no one knew the name of the report or Doc number. If its a federal document access should be easy for all to see. But no one that claims this provides the doc number for us to see.




The Hammonds got convicted for doing something the federal government does routinely...the Hammonds just did it much better and more effieciently.

No the Hammonds were convicted of starting a fire to cover up a crime (Poaching). And the second time they started a fire, during a burn ban, without notifying authorities. One that put firefighters between the wildfire they were fighting and the one the Hammonds started.

zraver
07 Jan 16,, 04:30
No the Hammonds were convicted of starting a fire to cover up a crime (Poaching).

No, the Hammonds were convicted of starting the fire, a lone mentally ill witness is the only source for the poaching claim.


And the second time they started a fire, during a burn ban, without notifying authorities. One that put firefighters between the wildfire they were fighting and the one the Hammonds started.

It burned 2 acres of federal land and saved their home. For this the federal government wants $400,000 in restitution.

Gun Grape
07 Jan 16,, 05:20
No, the Hammonds were convicted of starting the fire, a lone mentally ill witness is the only source for the poaching claim.


http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.




It burned 2 acres of federal land and saved their home. For this the federal government wants $400,000 in restitution.

Not their home, their winter feed. Still done illegally. Still convicted by a jury of their peers. Not just hauled off to jail by the Feds

The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.

As for the restitution, good. Maybe the government can get some of the money back from the Hammods that they have raked in with Gov subsidies.

https://www.revealnews.org/blog/u-s-government-killed-coyotes-from-the-air-for-hammond-ranch/

But those policies and government payments also help make those lifestyles possible. The Hammonds, for example, collected nearly $300,000 in federal disaster payments and subsidies from 1995 to 2012, according to federal data gathered by the Environmental Working Group. Last month, Reveal reported that a group of Nevada ranchers who fought a federal drought declaration had collected millions in drought subsidies from the USDA.

The government also leases public land to ranchers at rates far below market value, as reported Monday by FiveThirtyEight. Even Ammon Bundy – leader of the armed group occupying the refuge visitor center and son of anti-government Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy – has benefited from a federal small business loan guarantee, Mother Jones reported Monday.

And the Hammonds have gotten help from Wildlife Services, a division of the USDA that has long specialized in killing animals deemed a threat to ranchers in ways that can be inhumane, excessive, at odds with science and sometimes illegal.

The aerial gunning of predators takes place on private and public land across more than a dozen Western states. Federal data show that more than 350,000 coyotes and other animals have been killed over the past 15 years. The document shows that the government killed five coyotes by air for the Hammonds between 2009 and 2011.

Wildlife advocates say the killing is indiscriminate and a waste of tax dollars. Even some former Wildlife Services employees agree.

“Basically, it makes no sense to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to save tens of thousands of dollars of private livestock,” said Sam Sanders, a former Wildlife Services trapper and aerial gunner in Nevada. “In the long run, it would be cheaper to just buy the ranches and shut them down.”

“We averaged a coyote about every $1,600,” Sanders added. “You pay me $1,600 per coyote, I’ll work for three years and never have to work again.”]

Parihaka
07 Jan 16,, 05:25
The most probable and certainly most extensive wildlife study of the area the Hammond case covers is this
http://catalog.data.gov/dataset/migratory-bird-populations-and-habitat-relationships-in-malheur-harney-lakes-basin-oregon
Given the relative sizes of private vs federal land the numbers seem to back up Mrs Hammonds case, though of course, as always, I could be wrong. :-

zraver
07 Jan 16,, 05:36
Gun, it was a single witness who was 13 at the time and who has a long history of mental illness and is estranged from the family. They were only convicted of the 2 fires they admitted setting.

The back fire also saved thier home

Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

Gun Grape
07 Jan 16,, 05:52
Gun, it was a single witness who was 13 at the time and who has a long history of mental illness and is estranged from the family. They were only convicted of the 2 fires they admitted setting.

No look at the statement Witnesses (plural) which included the grandson.


The back fire also saved thier home

Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

Note the word Possibly. The home was never in danger. But the BLM firefighters that were camped that night(When the fire was started without permission) between the wildfire and the fire that the Hammonds started were in danger.

Gun Grape
07 Jan 16,, 05:57
Not the first time this family has had trouble with the law. from 1994.


http://www.hcn.org/issues/20/582

BURNS, Ore. - The arrest of Dwight Hammond, a hot-tempered eastern Oregon cattle rancher, has galvanized a nasty campaign of retribution against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

It all began when federal agents arrested Hammond and his son Steven, Aug. 3. That turned a long-simmering dispute over cattle, fences and water on the Malheur Wildlife Refuge into a bizarre Old West showdown.

Federal officials and a fence-building crew were attempting to build a fence to keep the Hammonds' cattle from trespassing on the refuge. When Hammond and his son obstructed federal workers, they were taken into custody by nine federal agents, five of whom were armed.

The Hammonds were charged with two counts each of felony "disturbing and interfering with" federal officials or federal contractors. The Hammonds spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before they were hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail.

On Aug. 10, nearly 500 incensed ranchers showed up at a rally in Burns featuring wise-use speaker Chuck Cushman of the American Land Rights Association, formerly the National Inholders Association. Cushman later issued a fax alert urging Hammond's supporters to flood refuge employees with protest calls. Some employees reported getting threatening calls at home.

Cushman plans to print a poster with the names and photos of federal agents and refuge managers involved in the arrest and distribute it nationally. "We have no way to fight back other than to make them pariahs in their community," he said.

Picking up the theme, the Oregon Lands Coalition declared in a recent newsletter, "It's time to get out the yellow ribbons - this is a hostage situation!"

On Aug. 11, Rep. Bob Smith, R-Ore., weighed in on the Hammonds' behalf in a letter to U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. "The acts of your agents last week cause my constituents to lose faith in their government," wrote Smith, who was under the erroneous impression that Hammond was arrested at his home rather than on refuge land.

The pressure apparently paid off. On Aug. 15, the U.S. attorney's office in Portland reduced the charges against the Hammonds from felonies carrying a maximum penalty of three years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine to misdemeanors that could mean jail terms of up to one year and fines of up to $100,000 on each count. A hearing on the charges, originally scheduled for early September, has been postponed indefinitely.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Thomson denied that Smith's letter influenced the reduction in the charges against the Hammonds. "That's all we thought was appropriate," he said.

According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, Dwight Hammond had repeatedly violated a special permit that allowed him to move his cows across the refuge only at specific times. In June, refuge manager Forrest Cameron notified Hammond that his right to graze cattle and grow hay on the lush waterfowl haven south of Burns was revoked. The feds also said they planned to build a fence along the refuge boundary to keep Hammond's cows out of an irrigation canal.

The events of Aug. 3 are outlined in the sworn affidavit of special agent Earl M. Kisler, who assisted in the Hammonds' arrest. On the day the fence was to be built, the crew and refuge officials arrived to find Hammond had parked his Caterpillar scraper squarely on the boundary line and disabled it, removing the battery and draining fuel lines. When a tow truck arrived to move it, Dwight Hammond showed up, leaped to the controls of the scraper and hit a lever that lowered the bucket, narrowly missing another special agent. Meanwhile, said Kisler, Steve Hammond shouted obscenities at federal officials. Neither Hammond resisted arrest.

"The refuge has been trying to work with Hammond for many years," said agency spokeswoman Susan Saul. A thick file at refuge headquarters reveals just how patient refuge managers have been. Hammond allegedly made death threats against previous managers in 1986 and 1988 and against Cameron, the current manager, in 1991 and again this year. Saul said Hammond has never given the required 24 hours' notice before moving his cows across the refuge and that he allowed the cows to linger for as long as three days, trespassing along streams and trampling young willows that refuge workers had planted to repair damage wrought by years of overgrazing.

Susie Hammond, Dwight's wife, said the cattle trail is a "historic right of way" that has been in use since 1871. "We have never had a permit," she said. "We have a right to use it."

Edit, I don't have a problem with the family. They broke the law and are now serving their time. Its those wacko "Militia" idiots that I have a problem with

Gun Grape
07 Jan 16,, 06:21
Here is the Judgement for the denial of grazing rights renewal that discusses the record of trial in the case that sent them to prison. A little different than what some of the blogs are saying (imagine that)
Its 21 pages so I'll just post the link

http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/FINAL-Decision-Hammond_Redacted.pdf

Parihaka
07 Jan 16,, 06:22
http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.




Not their home, their winter feed. Still done illegally. Still convicted by a jury of their peers. Not just hauled off to jail by the Feds

The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.

As for the restitution, good. Maybe the government can get some of the money back from the Hammods that they have raked in with Gov subsidies.

https://www.revealnews.org/blog/u-s-government-killed-coyotes-from-the-air-for-hammond-ranch/

And the united states district attorneys office, district of Oregon appear to be lying. Or at least, misrepresenting the case :-)
http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=D.C. No. 6:10-cr-60066-HO-1 and D.C. No. 6:10-cr-60066-HO-2&s=OR&d=83341

YellowFever
07 Jan 16,, 06:34
Gunny, I do not have the link you asked for so since I can't find a link, I guess the burden fo proof was on me and I can't "prove" it so consider it withdrawn.

Also, I would like to correct myself in saying that the BLM did not create a "cattle free zone" but it was rather a bill introduced by a congressman Bill Walden of Orgeon.

It's a fascinating speech he made at the House lambasting BLM about the bureaucracy as it relates to the Hammond situation.

It basically explained what my real peeve was about this whole thing. Starting from 5:30 to the 10:30 mark:


http://youtu.be/YjL9HGiOIGo

Bigfella
07 Jan 16,, 12:33
One grievance the militia has (and I tend to agree with them on this one) is too much land is "federally owned" out west.

40708

Yellow,

This is some info I picked up on AR15.com. I can't vouch for its veracity, but the poster in question seems to be very well read on the issue.


1. Public land (what people call Federal land) wasn't purchased in the sense of purchased from private owners. It became public land when those areas became territory of the United States. It has always been public land since that land became part of the US. Before that, it was Spanish or French or British or Mexican depending upon what country it belonged to.

2. When those territories became states, the states did not want all that public land (in Nevada, for example, their Constitution says its Federal land) - they had no use for it unless it was valuable in some way. Until 1934, it could be converted to private land through the various Preemptive Sale and Homesteading Acts. I've posted historical references to this.

Private land is valuable because it can be taxed. Ranchers (as I have posted historical references) only wanted to own the water source and wanted to graze for free on public land.

Later, ranchers (stockmen) were in favor of leasing because it (1) stopped homesteading (2) controlled grazing (and sheep) and preserved their political control through the Grazing District Boards.

3. As I posted upthread in the article from Wyoming about how the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the Western states actively were against the Federal Government ceding these lands to them the last time the Federal government tried to under President Hoover.

Basically, the current situation is what the Western states and the stockmen (ranchers) wanted - until the stockman-dominated / controlled Grazing District Boards were disestablished in 1993 (the same year Bundy quit paying fees). After that, apparently, BLM and the stockmen became hostile to each other.

The Western states really don't want the land.

This shit didn't start yesterday. You know all those Westerns where the arrogant cattle baron / greedy stockmens' association wants to control the range and runs off the homesteaders? There is a reason for that plot.


This situation evolved from the Western states and the ranchers getting exactly what they wanted (the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934). The Western states didn't want this land when President Hoover wanted to sell / cede it to them and the stockmen loved them some BLM grazing leases until they lost their Grazing District Commissions in 1993.

This is from a different poster replying to some of the above:


That is partially why the situation is comical to many in the West. These are not new issues, but instead of the cattlemen being the primary economic (and occasionally martial) force in the area the ranchers have been reduced to staging a sit-in at an outhouse.

What chaps my ass about the Bundys is that they seem to have an expectation that their interests are what should be served by public lands. As someone posted earlier, this is not an uncommon attitude for some ranchers grazing BLM lands. Grazing rights are now a marketable interest and you commonly see ranches selling with one or two thousand acres of deeded land, but tens of thousands of acres of leased acres. As some have pointed out having a small ranch with massive grazing rights is often seen as a benefit to Western ranches, especially in areas within incredibly low carrying capacities, as it allows the ranchers to maintain larger herds without paying property taxes and only paying the AUM fee.

The more I read about the situation with some of these farmers the more it reminds me of the sort of people I used to encounter where I grew up, including my own family - we are what Americans would call 'pioneer stock', settled land around Adelaide in the 1850s and then walked from there to Albury and settled land there in the 1860s (about 500 miles as the crow flies!). These folk would spend all their time whining about 'the Government', but god forbid you get between them & a government handout.

As I mentioned before, the father of the guy behind this owes the Federal Government millions in grazing fees. The nature of the way these fees are set by the BLM means that his cattle are grazing a a massive discount compared to the cost of grazing on private land or on land he actually owns & has to pay taxes on. As Gunny posted, the Hammonds have also received wads of Government cash in the past. It looks to me like some of these ranchers have become used to getting the sort of deal we'd decry as 'welfare' if they were a minority in an inner urban area. When the Government actually started treating some of the land it owns as if it actually owns it they got all 'home grown revolutionary'. Colour me unsympathetic.

I should add that I think the Hammonds got too much time, but they sound like A grade creeps....or perhaps even 'thugs'. ;)

Bigfella
07 Jan 16,, 12:38
this is a bad comparison.

both BLM and OWS were/are urban movements, involving significant numbers of people in a densely-populated area. the idiots threatening violence were the exceptions, not the rule (otherwise things would be much worse than it actually was).

this is simply hooliganism and vigilante "justice" dressed up as a movement, in an empty area. threatening violence IS the rule here. one of the reasons why these "militia" members are armed is to make it -deliberately harder- for them to get punished; otherwise, why not just link arms and willingly go to jail in protest?

they're DARING the government to use lethal force. that's not accepting responsibility for their actions at all.

this story would be significantly different if they kept their arms at home. but they didn't.

The lesson they learned from the standoff with the BLM last year is that if they arm themselves & get enough other armed people to back them up not only will they get sympathy from elements of the Conservative Entertainment Complex (CEC), but the Government will back down. Bundy's dad is still grazing his cattle for free on Government land & still hasn't paid the money he owes. This whole movement is a giant evasion of responsibility dressed up as a 'take back our country' protest.

I get the sense that they may have miscalculated this time & may end up in a humiliating backdown.

tbm3fan
07 Jan 16,, 23:13
Three ways


1. Article 1 section 8 clause 17 is how. When a Territory is admitted as a state it enters on what is called the Equal Footing Doctrine and takes legal possesion of all the lands within its borders. There is actually a strain of the militia movement that argues that the federal government is not legally permitted to own any land inside the states except for forts, ports and necessary buildings. Its an offshoot of the western anger at federal land practices in the west.

This apparently isn't true based on what Bigfella has pointed out


2. Homestead acts, before the frontier was closed the federal government would award title and deed to settlers.

That would be one way. Do they have the application papers saying so if that is how they did it? Assuming they weren't squatters.


3. Land sales to individuals and corporations such as mines, railroads etc.

That is also true and they would have the sales contract to prove it. Although I believe railroads got all their land free which to me was a big mistake.

Frankly, it seems to me that all these clowns want is free land handed over to "their" interests. This despite the fact that the land belongs to all Americans. That being the case then I want some of the land handed over to "my" interests. If they are entitled then so am I. However, I suspect that is not what they want. They simply want free land, free everything. Yep, really tough, resourceful and independent ranchers. The land is better off in BLM hands instead of private hands whether ranchers, miners, or real estate speculators.

My favorite bit was the news yesterday, that the real owners the Burns Paiute tribe, want them to get the hell out. A siege sounds good to me.

Bigfella
08 Jan 16,, 00:58
Some more info from a libertarian blog. Not a fan of the penalties handed to the Hammonds, not a fan of Government owning this much land, most definitely not a fan of some of the farming community:


In fact, federal grazing fees have virtually nothing at all to do with any functioning marketplace, and we can see this in the fact that fees have been essentially unchanged since 1978. In this research paper from the early 1990s, the author notes that federal law set the federal grazing rate at $1.23 per "animal unit month" (AUM). The rate has hardly changed since then. As of early 2013, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service were charging $1.35 per AUM. That's an increase of 9.7 percent over more than 30 years.

How much have actual market rates for commercial real estate and animal feed increased since 1978? I'm going to guess it's more than 9 percent. If we look at the CPI, for example, we find that it has increased about 238 percent between 1978 and 2013.

So, grazing fees have been virtually flat for decades. I believe Congress passed this into law in the late 70s. Ranchers lease access to these lands under s system that effectively protects them from competition.


in the real world (and in the world of state-level and private-sector grazing) people who want to lease lands must compete with others who might bid up the price of the lands in question. This is not the case with BLS and Forest Service lands which shield the current holder of the lease from competition.

Thus, it should surprise no one when powerful ranchers become concerned about possible privatization of lands or state takeovers of federal lands.

https://mises.org/blog/oregon-and-problem-federal-lands

This is from Montana last year. State Republicans want to take over Federal land, ranchers are not so keen. The reason why is clear:


But on the largely unforested federal acres managed by BLM, there are grazing terms that have made the status quo appealing for nearly a century. The federal government began issuing grazing leases in the 1930s after range wars broke out between ranchers who until that point were free to graze livestock on federal land without question. The lease established who had grazing rights and also tied federal grazing land to particular ranches. As long as a rancher paid his grazing fees, the federal land assigned to his operation would never be offered to someone else. Between BLM and the Forest Service, there are roughly 5,000 grazing leases on federal land in Montana on 7.84 million acres.

State grazing leases work differently. The land goes out for competitive bid every five or 10 years. The rancher currently leasing the land has a “right of preference” that allows him to match the high bid of his competitor, but if he declines, the grazing lease is issued to someone else.

Sweet deal courtesy of those faceless DC bureaucrats (and their allies in Congress).

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/ranchers-concerned-about-grazing-fees-if-state-takes-over-from/article_16af4960-324b-11e4-a9f7-0019bb2963f4.html

Bottom line: it seems that quite a few ranchers want access to Federal land on absurdly favourable terms, but don't want to have to deal with any regulations the Federal Government might choose to place on that land. The Bundy family are among them and the Hammonds may well be. Talk about 'Welfare Queens'!

YellowFever
08 Jan 16,, 03:40
Yellow,

This is some info I picked up on AR15.com. I can't vouch for its veracity, but the poster in question seems to be very well read on the issue.





This is from a different poster replying to some of the above:



The more I read about the situation with some of these farmers the more it reminds me of the sort of people I used to encounter where I grew up, including my own family - we are what Americans would call 'pioneer stock', settled land around Adelaide in the 1850s and then walked from there to Albury and settled land there in the 1860s (about 500 miles as the crow flies!). These folk would spend all their time whining about 'the Government', but god forbid you get between them & a government handout.

As I mentioned before, the father of the guy behind this owes the Federal Government millions in grazing fees. The nature of the way these fees are set by the BLM means that his cattle are grazing a a massive discount compared to the cost of grazing on private land or on land he actually owns & has to pay taxes on. As Gunny posted, the Hammonds have also received wads of Government cash in the past. It looks to me like some of these ranchers have become used to getting the sort of deal we'd decry as 'welfare' if they were a minority in an inner urban area. When the Government actually started treating some of the land it owns as if it actually owns it they got all 'home grown revolutionary'. Colour me unsympathetic.

I should add that I think the Hammonds got too much time, but they sound like A grade creeps....or perhaps even 'thugs'. ;)

^^ Like^^

That pretty much jives with my understanding of how the federal government acquired so much land.

It is also my understanding that the federal government acquired the land with the intent of doing "land rushes" but after seeing how the land of the Eastern Untied states was abused by the corrupt barons and the way the transfer of land in the previous rushes were full of corruption so they decided to hold onto the land.

Bottom line is I can't fault them for what they did at the time because the land of the Eastern United States were abused and the federal government's intentions were good while passing those laws.

However....

As the population of the Western US grows, more land should be allocated/sold for use to the growing population and I believe more land should be transfered over to the State for their use.

I know that some states prefer the land to remain in federal hands because the money they receive for it is enormous but that's like an incestuous relationship don't you think?

If the land is transfered to the states, they will be able to tax it, to sell it, to decide how it is used, etc...etc....but no, why suffer all that headache when Uncle Sam just gives them a check for it?* This is one way the state politicians are failing us.

Hell the land is for public use but....we are the public!

Those that are living in Nevada and Oregon and other Western States have about the same say on how their land is used as those is Delaware and Connecticut have (oh, who by the way, own the land in their states and therefore the people of Nevada and Oregon have no say in how land is used in those states)

40711


It wouldn't be so bad if the environmentalists aren't involved and the few at the top of these agencies take up the cause because is helps justify their jobs.

For instance, imagine 30 million Californians, in the midst of one of the worst droughts ever, having to cut back on water use and get fined for what they normally used before and paying more in utility bills for LESS water....because of a few frigging fishes.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/forget-the-missing-rainfall-california-wheres-the-delta-smelt-1430085510

The problem is these Bueracractic agencies (which at one time was a good idea) are running amok. They want to justify their existence by creating stricter rules and regulations and, oh by the way, get to ask for more federal dollars enforcing those rules and regulations they come up with in the first place.

It's stupid to hold onto a land while giving out below cost leasing and renting rights to those who use the land (the welfare factor) and then giving out money like so much candy at Halloween night tto those same states that occupy the land as oppossed to just forcing it onto the states and making the state politicians accountable and finally getting their lazy asses off the dole and making them do their job.

As for Hammond and whether he's an as asshole or a saint, it doesn't matter to me anymore. However, I'm inclined to believe all his neighbors aren't liars when they call him a solid citizen.

I know that rancher frequently set off fires to protect their feeds, ranches, land, whatever.
I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because it is what ranchers do.

Yes, some firefighters were endangered (not really) because they were in the general area of where the back burns were started (by the way, I would love to know exactly how far these firefighters were from the set fire. The government just said "in the vicinity"...which can as the congressman from Oregon has said can have a whole new connotation in a place like oregon as opposed to some of the Eastern States) but did they really do it "maleciously"?*

Did they really have to use a law created to be used against terrorist here?

More Bueracracy run amok....

Bigfella
09 Jan 16,, 02:39
As the population of the Western US grows, more land should be allocated/sold for use to the growing population and I believe more land should be transfered over to the State for their use.

There is plenty of room for people to live in those states. You can buy big blocks of empty land on the side of a mountain 10 minutes out of Denver (my neighbours are considering doing just this). Just watch out for Mountain Lions! People don't take up much space.


I know that some states prefer the land to remain in federal hands because the money they receive for it is enormous but that's like an incestuous relationship don't you think?

If the land is transfered to the states, they will be able to tax it, to sell it, to decide how it is used, etc...etc....but no, why suffer all that headache when Uncle Sam just gives them a check for it?* This is one way the state politicians are failing us.

Let the States convince their citizens to do it & push ahead then. It is their issue to deal with, not a bunch of violent, entitled wannabe terrorists. At the moment it seems most people are a bit lukewarm on the idea, including some of those who theoretically should benefit.

One of the many reasons is that the States may not be able to afford to manage the land, so they will sell most of it off to the highest bidder. There appear to be people across the spectrum who are not at all keen on that and with good reason.


Hell the land is for public use but....we are the public!

And right now you can access most of it. Once it gets sold off that will no longer be the case.



It wouldn't be so bad if the environmentalists aren't involved and the few at the top of these agencies take up the cause because is helps justify their jobs.

Ah, so we get to the crux of it. This isn't really about principle, its about who you don't want controlling the land. Got it.


For instance, imagine 30 million Californians, in the midst of one of the worst droughts ever, having to cut back on water use and get fined for what they normally used before and paying more in utility bills for LESS water....because of a few frigging fishes.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/forget-the-missing-rainfall-california-wheres-the-delta-smelt-1430085510


You'll probably be able to convince others here that you are right. Not me. I live on the driest habited continent & I've had the opportunity to see close up the impact of over-allocating water for farming & watering suburban gardens. Water use restrictions are permanent here, all that changes is how strict they are. Building regulations mandate water efficiency & they are a fact of life for most of us. They should be for any area with limited resources to population (such as Sth California). We are also in the process of buying up agricultural water allocations in some areas where they should never have been given out. Funny thing about water, if you sell rights to more of it than there usually is you screw everyone. A river that doesn't have enough water to flow is a long pond.

I'm far more interested in the fate of the smelt (and more importantly the rivers that feed its habitat) than I am in the fate of a bunch of suburban lawns, gardens & swimming pools. Fuck 'em.


It's stupid to hold onto a land while giving out below cost leasing and renting rights to those who use the land (the welfare factor) and then giving out money like so much candy at Halloween night tto those same states that occupy the land as oppossed to just forcing it onto the states and making the state politicians accountable and finally getting their lazy asses off the dole and making them do their job.

There may be a case for this, but just watch the screeching from people on the right about 'the Gummint' etc. when that happens. Welfare is only bad when poor and/or minorities get it. If you want to kill off the welfare scam get Congress to pass legislation allowing the charging of commercial grazing rates set locally rather than setting a national benchmark. Of course, that won't happen, especially with the GOP in control.


As for Hammond and whether he's an as asshole or a saint, it doesn't matter to me anymore. However, I'm inclined to believe all his neighbors aren't liars when they call him a solid citizen.

I know that rancher frequently set off fires to protect their feeds, ranches, land, whatever.
I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because it is what ranchers do.

Yes, some firefighters were endangered (not really) because they were in the general area of where the back burns were started (by the way, I would love to know exactly how far these firefighters were from the set fire. The government just said "in the vicinity"...which can as the congressman from Oregon has said can have a whole new connotation in a place like oregon as opposed to some of the Eastern States) but did they really do it "maleciously"?*

Yellow, I come from "a place like Oregon", so 'in the vicinity' is plenty close, especially on a day when the lighting of fires is banned (the state I live in is the same size as Oregon, the one I grew up in is 3 times larger). There is a reason Governments do that, and it isn't 'Bureaucracy gone mad', it is to save lives & property. When we have 'total fire ban' days in my region that means everybody everywhere, including the middle of Melbourne. If I want to have a BBQ then tough luck. Because people here accept that they are part of a community we mostly do as asked. My brother lives in an outer suburb of Melbourne. When there is a day of high fire danger his children don't stay in the house.

I don't know where you live, but I live in one of the most fire prone areas in the world. One of the most terrifying memories of my childhood was seeing a bushfire crest the hills behind my house. We blocked the gutters of our house & filled them with water to stop falling embers setting the house on fire. My Dad & all the men went off to fight the fire. I had never been so scared. That fire started as a 'controlled burn' by the fire department trying to reduce fuel loads.

In 1983 the Ash Wednesday (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Wednesday_bushfires#Events_of_16_February) fires killed 75 people in one day.


The near-cyclonic strength of the wind change created an unstoppable firestorm[dubious – discuss][citation needed] that produced tornado-like fire whirls and fireballs of eucalyptus gas measuring over three metres across. Survivors reported that the roar of the fire front was similar to that of a jet engine, though multiplied fifty, a hundred times. The change in temperature and air pressure was so savage that houses were seen exploding before fire could touch them.

The freakish conditions spawned unique effects: a car was forced 90m along a road with its handbrake on, burning mattresses were seen hurtling through the air....road surfaces bubbled and caught fire and sand liquefied to glass.[28] CSIRO experts later reported that, from evidence of melted metal, the heat of the fires after the change rose to 2000 °C, exceeding that recorded during the Allied bombing of Dresden in World War II. In fact, the Ash Wednesday fires were measured at around 60,000 kilowatts of heat energy per metre.

Whole townships were obliterated in minutes. In the Dandenong Ranges, the villages of Cockatoo and Upper Beaconsfield were devastated, with twelve volunteer firefighters losing their lives after being trapped by a wall of flame when the wind change struck

Those 12 young men died a kilometre from my friend's house. His family got out the front of the house as the fire hit the back fence. The father of another friend fought the fire that day. he served in Vietnam & was there during the Tet Offensive. This was scarier. I visited some of the towns that were wiped out. You have never seen such destruction.

On Black Saturday (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires) 2009 173 people died on a single day, most of them just to the north of Melbourne. I saw photos of cars with puddles of melted metal beneath them. The worst fires started from a downed power line sparking. Some of those fires moved at over 70kmph, so 'in the vicinity' covers a pretty damned big area, especially if some entitled dickhead lights a fire & doesn't tell you.

Want to know what we call someone who lights a fire on a day of fire restrictions? 'a criminal'.

Bottom line: fire is VERY DANGEROUS. You don't just light them whenever & wherever you feel like it, and you damned sure don't do it when there are fire restrictions in place. These selfish pricks had no idea who was nearby. They had no idea who was in danger from a fire that they couldn't be sure they could control. They clearly think rules apply to other people. If you want to argue the penalty was too much then have at it. If you want to argue that they did nothing wrong try it on someone less familiar with the dangers of bushfire. They might bite.


Did they really have to use a law created to be used against terrorist here?

More Bueracracy run amok....

They didn't. They used a Federal arson statute that had a mandatory minimum penalty. It was amended under a bill that changed a ton of statutes, penalties etc. only some of them were connected to terrorism.



SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I—HABEAS CORPUS REFORM
Sec. 101. Filing deadlines.
Sec. 102. Appeal.
Sec. 103. Amendment of Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Sec. 104. Section 2254 amendments.
Sec. 105. Section 2255 amendments.
Sec. 106. Limits on second or successive applications.
Sec. 107. Death penalty litigation procedures.
Sec. 108. Technical amendment.
TITLE II—JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS
Subtitle A—Mandatory Victim Restitution
Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Order of restitution.
Sec. 203. Conditions of probation.
Sec. 204. Mandatory restitution.
Sec. 205. Order of restitution to victims of other crimes.
Sec. 206. Procedure for issuance of restitution order.
Sec. 207. Procedure for enforcement of fine or restitution order.
Sec. 208. Instruction to Sentencing Commission.
Sec. 209. Justice Department regulations.
Sec. 210. Special assessments on convicted persons.
Sec. 211. Effective date.
Subtitle B—Jurisdiction for Lawsuits Against Terrorist States
Sec. 221. Jurisdiction for lawsuits against terrorist states.
Subtitle C—Assistance to Victims of Terrorism
Sec. 231. Short title.
Sec. 232. Victims of Terrorism Act.
Sec. 233. Compensation of victims of terrorism.
Sec. 234. Crime victims fund.
Sec. 235. Closed circuit televised court proceedings for victims of crime.
Sec. 236. Technical correction.
TITLE III—INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM PROHIBITIONS
Subtitle A—Prohibition on International Terrorist Fundraising
Sec. 301. Findings and purpose.
S. 735—2
Sec. 302. Designation of foreign terrorist organizations.
Sec. 303. Prohibition on terrorist fundraising.
Subtitle B—Prohibition on Assistance to Terrorist States
Sec. 321. Financial transactions with terrorists.
Sec. 322. Foreign air travel safety.
Sec. 323. Modification of material support provision.
Sec. 324. Findings.
Sec. 325. Prohibition on assistance to countries that aid terrorist states.
Sec. 326. Prohibition on assistance to countries that provide military equipment to
terrorist states.
Sec. 327. Opposition to assistance by international financial institutions to terrorist
states.
Sec. 328. Antiterrorism assistance.
Sec. 329. Definition of assistance.
Sec. 330. Prohibition on assistance under Arms Export Control Act for countries
not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.
TITLE IV—TERRORIST AND CRIMINAL ALIEN REMOVAL AND EXCLUSION
Subtitle A—Removal of Alien Terrorists
Sec. 401. Alien terrorist removal.
Subtitle B—Exclusion of Members and Representatives of Terrorist Organizations
Sec. 411. Exclusion of alien terrorists.
Sec. 412. Waiver authority concerning notice of denial of application for visas.
Sec. 413. Denial of other relief for alien terrorists.
Sec. 414. Exclusion of aliens who have not been inspected and admitted.
Subtitle C—Modification to Asylum Procedures
Sec. 421. Denial of asylum to alien terrorists.
Sec. 422. Inspection and exclusion by immigration officers.
Sec. 423. Judicial review.
Subtitle D—Criminal Alien Procedural Improvements
Sec. 431. Access to certain confidential immigration and naturalization files
through court order. Sec. 432. Criminal alien identification system.
Sec. 433. Establishing certain alien smuggling-related crimes as RICO-predicate offenses.
Sec. 434. Authority for alien smuggling investigations.
Sec. 435. Expansion of criteria for deportation for crimes of moral turpitude.
Sec. 436. Miscellaneous provisions.
Sec. 437. Interior repatriation program.
Sec. 438. Deportation of nonviolent offenders prior to completion of sentence of imprisonment.
Sec. 439. Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain
certain illegal aliens. Sec. 440. Criminal alien removal.
Sec. 441. Limitation on collateral attacks on underlying deportation order.
Sec. 442. Deportation procedures for certain criminal aliens who are not permanent
residents.
Sec. 443. Extradition of aliens.
TITLE V—NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL, AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS
RESTRICTIONS
Subtitle A—Nuclear Materials
Sec. 501. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 502. Expansion of scope and jurisdictional bases of nuclear materials prohibitions.
Sec. 503. Report to Congress on thefts of explosive materials from armories.
Subtitle B—Biological Weapons Restrictions
Sec. 511. Enhanced penalties and control of biological agents.
Subtitle C—Chemical Weapons Restrictions
Sec. 521. Chemical weapons of mass destruction; study of facility for training and
evaluation of personnel who respond to use of chemical or biological
weapons in urban and suburban areas.
S. 735—3
TITLE VI—IMPLEMENTATION OF PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES CONVENTION
Sec. 601. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 602. Definitions.
Sec. 603. Requirement of detection agents for plastic explosives.
Sec. 604. Criminal sanctions.
Sec. 605. Exceptions.
Sec. 606. Seizure and forfeiture of plastic explosives.
Sec. 607. Effective date.
TITLE VII—CRIMINAL LAW MODIFICATIONS TO COUNTER TERRORISM
Subtitle A—Crimes and Penalties
Sec. 701. Increased penalty for conspiracies involving explosives.
Sec. 702. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries.
Sec. 703. Expansion of provision relating to destruction or injury of property within
special maritime and territorial jurisdiction. Sec. 704. Conspiracy to harm people and property overseas.
Sec. 705. Increased penalties for certain terrorism crimes.
Sec. 706. Mandatory penalty for transferring an explosive material knowing that it
will be used to commit a crime of violence.
Sec. 707. Possession of stolen explosives prohibited.
Sec. 708. Enhanced penalties for use of explosives or arson crimes.
Sec. 709. Determination of constitutionality of restricting the dissemination of
bomb-making instructional materials.
Subtitle B—Criminal Procedures
Sec. 721. Clarification and extension of criminal jurisdiction over certain terrorism
offenses overseas.
Sec. 722. Clarification of maritime violence jurisdiction.
Sec. 723. Increased and alternate conspiracy penalties for terrorism offenses.
Sec. 724. Clarification of Federal jurisdiction over bomb threats.
Sec. 725. Expansion and modification of weapons of mass destruction statute.
Sec. 726. Addition of terrorism offenses to the money laundering statute.
Sec. 727. Protection of Federal employees; protection of current or former officials,
officers, or employees of the United States. Sec. 728. Death penalty aggravating factor.
Sec. 729. Detention hearing.
Sec. 730. Directions to Sentencing Commission.
Sec. 731. Exclusion of certain types of information from definitions.
Sec. 732. Marking, rendering inert, and licensing of explosive materials.
TITLE VIII—ASSISTANCE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT
Subtitle A—Resources and Security
Sec. 801. Overseas law enforcement training activities.
Sec. 802. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 803. Protection of Federal Government buildings in the District of Columbia.
Sec. 804. Requirement to preserve record evidence.
Sec. 805. Deterrent against terrorist activity damaging a Federal interest computer.
Sec. 806. Commission on the Advancement of Federal Law Enforcement.
Sec. 807. Combatting international counterfeiting of United States currency.
Sec. 808. Compilation of statistics relating to intimidation of Government employees.
Sec. 809. Assessing and reducing the threat to law enforcement officers from the
criminal use of firearms and ammunition.
Sec. 810. Study and report on electronic surveillance.
Subtitle B—Funding Authorizations for Law Enforcement
Sec. 811. Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Sec. 812. United States Customs Service.
Sec. 813. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Sec. 814. Drug Enforcement Administration.
Sec. 815. Department of Justice.
Sec. 816. Department of the Treasury.
Sec. 817. United States Park Police.
Sec. 818. The Judiciary.
Sec. 819. Local firefighter and emergency services training.
Sec. 820. Assistance to foreign countries to procure explosive detection devices and
other counterterrorism technology. Sec. 821. Research and development to support counterterrorism technologies.
S. 735—4
Sec. 822. Grants to State and local law enforcement for training and equipment.
Sec. 823. Funding source.
TITLE IX—MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 901. Expansion of territorial sea.
Sec. 902. Proof of citizenship.
Sec. 903. Representation fees in criminal cases.


Again, mandatory minimums are a favourite of pretty much the same people treating these guys like victims. That'll show those 'liberal judges'!! American jails are literally full of people in there on mandatory minimums for possessing a few drugs, but that is good because they are 'thugs'. A couple of guys whose actions threatened life & property, however, are 'victims' because they are 'good people'. As I said, I think they got a raw deal, but I think that about most of the 2.2 million people sitting in US jails. These guys are a fair way back in my sympathy queue.

Bigfella
09 Jan 16,, 07:20
Now for some updates on the situation.

Three days ago Ryan Bundy annnounced that the occupiers would leave if the local community wanted them to:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/ryan-bundy-well-leave-if-community-wants-us-to/

The local Sherrif held a meeting to determine the attitude of locals. They agree with some of the issues raised, but want the Bundy mob to go home & stop getting in the way.


BURNS, Oregon — When an Oregon sheriff asked residents Wednesday night at a community meeting if they wanted the armed occupiers at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to go home, almost every hand in the room went up.

Something else interesting:


Since the group arrived, Ward said some of his deputies had been followed home by unknown individuals, while other law enforcement families left town as a precaution — including his wife.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/claudiakoerner/oregon-residents-call-for-end-of-armed-militia-occupation#.voebnbrQG

So, the Sheriff went to negotiate a withdrawal. Turns out they don't plan to leave until their demands are met. So much for the local community.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0UL2IW20160108

They could be starved out....if anyone bothered to cut them off from supplies. Turns out people can just come & go as they please.

http://gawker.com/cops-oregon-militia-idiots-are-free-to-come-and-go-as-1751644940

Given the heavy handed way law enforcement deals with the most minor infractions in the US, it is fascinating to observe how these guys are getting handled. Guess the lesson for the OWS & BLM folk is clear – arm yourself heavily and you can do what you damned well please.

Bigfella
09 Jan 16,, 07:28
A little more information about the people occupying the building:

Ryan Bundy, older brother of group leader Ammon Bundy:


In 1994, Bundy was arrested after a 21-mile chase through southern Utah's famed Zion National Park, Forbes reported. Bundy was identified then as a member of a "local constitutionalist/'wise use' extremist group" that had threatened park rangers in the past, the news magazine reported.

The incident that precipitated the chase?

Rangers had received a tip from local police that a man had filled up his gas tank and left without paying, a National Park Service incident report shows. The man then drove to the park and refused to pay the entrance fee, saying he intended only to move cattle.

The driver stopped when a patrol ranger pulled him over, but he resisted identifying himself, the report said. He told the ranger the federal government had no authority on Utah lands and no right to stop him.

The driver then sped off and drove around spike strips laid in the road, narrowly missing a state trooper. A roadblock stopped him about 20 miles down the road.

The federal government dismissed the case against Bundy, Forbes reported, and Utah dismissed a felony charge of failure to stop at the command of a peace officer after Bundy entered into a diversion agreement.


2006: Cited for burning without a permit during a restricted period. He pleaded guilty, paid a $100 fine and was sentenced to probation for six months.
2007: Arrested on suspicion of interfering with a legal arrest. He waived his right to an attorney and demanded a jury trial, only to change his plea to no contest on the day of the scheduled trial. He was sentenced to six months of probation in November 2008, ordered to take a life skills class and fined $500, court records show. No further details were available Thursday.
2011: Found guilty of several vehicle-related citations, including an equipment violation and driving on a restricted license.
2012: Arrested on an allegation of misdemeanor theft. A judge ordered the charges to be dropped if Bundy fulfilled 18 months of probation.
2013: Charged with a public nuisance stemming from an allegedly unregistered vehicle on his Cedar City, Utah, property.
2014: Charged with interfering with an animal officer. He pleaded no contest in April 2015, but not before he was arrested on a failure-to-appear warrant. He ended up paying a $150 fine.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/ryan_bundy_resisted_government.html

So, 20 years of repeatedly breaking the law, a few hundred dollars in fines. Couple that with the complete lack of charges over last year's standoff, the debt that precipitated it & the fact that Daddy still grazes cattle for free & you begin to understand why these guys think laws are for other people.

One family member has been punished. Predictably enough for drug possession. I guess pointing .50 cals at LEOs, refusing to pay your debts & seizing Federal property are no biggie. but drugs - throw the book at him!!!!!

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/feb/04/nevada-ranchers-son-facing-prison-violating-probat/

Bigfella
09 Jan 16,, 07:30
...and a few more:

One of the key figures at the Bundy ranch & the seizure at Malheur is Brian Cavalier, a 'bodyguard' for the Bundy's. He has claimed to be a Marine Corps veteran who served in Afghanistan & Iraq....turns out he lied.

Another is Blaine Cooper. He claimed to be a Marine. Turns out he enlisted, but has never been through basic training. he goes by various strange names, including 'Buddah bear' (he has a large Buddha tattoo on his stomach). Ryan Payne did serve and did two tours in Iraq, though his claim to have been a Ranger turns out to be BS as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/04/meet-the-motley-crew-of-veteran-militiamen-in-harney-country-oregon/

This account is interesting, if difficult to verify. This guy claims to have been at the Bundy ranch. He rapidly heads off into serious conspiracy territory, but it helps to explain accounts of armed standoffs among the groups there:


Back during the Bundy situation, Ryan Payne declared himself the unofficial “leader” of the militias present at the Bundy ranch. Nothing could have been further from the truth. In fact, none of the militias listened to him at all. The ONLY ones who listened to him were the Bundy’s, Blaine Cooper, who Payne claimed was a “professional security consultant’, who turned out to be nothing more than an ex con, and buddah bear (nice name) who he also claimed was a “professional security consultant”, but was later discovered to be nothing more than a tattoo artist thug. The militias ignoring these three, is precisely why that situation didnt turn into a blood bath......

I and Scott Woods were asked on one occasion, by Payne to go and destroy BLM equipment in the middle of the night. We refused, stating that that’s not why we were there. We were there solely to defend the family. That very same night he rushed off in a car with a loaded AR to START a violent altercation with LEOs who supposedly had pulled over members of the Armenian Militia off exit 10 near the ranch. This report was never vetted nor was it looked into before he rushed off. It is also well documented that Payne had tried to incite other militia members to start violent altercations with the authorities who were present there. all of which were refused by militia members..all for the same reason…we were NOT there to start a fight…but to DEFEND the family. When people refused, Payne, Cooper, and Buddah ostracized them and ran them off the ranch. This is why most militias left the ranch when they did. One other point worth mentioning was there were militia members present with long range 50 cal sniper rifles…

Now throughout the situation Payne made repeated threats to law enforcement on NATIONAL media. There’s VIDEO of him doing this..its not hard to find. Yet oddly enough with all that evidence he was never charged with anything during or after the standoff.

Again, note that threatening LEOs is apparently fine for some people.

https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/malheur-another-perspective/

Jon Ritzheimer is another veteran at Malheur. He was a Marine & served in Iraq. He is best known for organizing anti-Islam protests outside Mosques and for threatening to arrest US Senator Debbie Stabenow for treason. Like the others, he has a flair for the dramatic & an obsession with his own importance. he likes to make regular announcements concerning his own impending demise.

“I’ve had to kiss my family goodbye on 3 occasions now and didn’t know whether I would see them again. I am now planning on doing it again.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/anti-muslim-militiaman-seeks-gas-money-to-arrest-michigan-democrat-for-treason-over-iran-deal/

Bigfella
09 Jan 16,, 14:17
...and one more quite nasty one.


Pete Santilli is a serial liar with several criminal convictions. he was also present at the Bundy ranch. He has an internet radio show where he gets to indulge in conspiracy theories, indulge his violent fantasies & give air time to pro-gun activists. He likes to demand the execution of public officials. Obviously Obama is on the list. So are both Bushes and Hillary Clinton. His rant about Clinton in 1993 was especially graphic:


Barack Obama is moving drugs through the CIA out of Afghanistan and Barack Obama needs to be tried, convicted, and shot for crimes against the United States of America. And if anybody has a problem with that, then you are an enemy of our state.
..

I want to shoot [Clinton] right in the vagina and I don't want her to die right away; I want her to feel the pain and I want to look her in the eyes and I want to say 'on behalf of all Americans that you've killed, on behalf of the Navy SEALS,' ... the families of Navy SEAL Team Six who were involved in the fake hunt down of this Obama bin Laden thing, that whole fake scenario - because these Navy SEALS know the truth, they killed them all - on behalf of all of those people, I'm supporting our troops by saying we need to try, convict, and shoot Hillary Clinton in the vagina. - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/radio-host-frequented-gun-activists-calls-shooting-bush-family-obama-sexual-violence-against#sthash.FI9K4Bow.dpuf

Santilli is broadcasting his show from the occupied building. He was involved in a confrontation between two groups of protesters a couple of days ago along with a number of the folk I've described above:


BURNS -- Violence broke out at the Bundy compound Wednesday night between its militant occupants and members of an outside group whose leader says he wants to get women and children out of the compound.

Lewis Arthur, who leads a group called Veterans on Patrol and calls himself an anti-violence patriot, arrived Wednesday afternoon with a small crew.

By Wednesday night, one of Arthur's three-person crew was in the hospital, his eye blackened from a punch to the face.

In an interview Thursday, Arthur blamed the injuries on Blaine Cooper, a prominent member of the group of militants who since Saturday have staged a standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The group's members say they hope to exonerate two area ranchers imprisoned on arson charges and then turn over land on the federally owned refuge to private owners.

Arthur said those inside the refuge didn't agree with his mission to remove women and children -- as well as prominent militant Ryan Payne -- from the compound.

Jason Patrick, another participant in the refuge standoff, tells a different story.

In a Facebook post Thursday morning, he said Arthur initiated the scuffle when he "assaulted a guard" in an attempt to enter the compound.


Outside group says it was attacked by refuge occupants
Members of an outside group arrived at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge base Jan. 6., 2016, creating conflict.
In an interview, refuge occupier Jon Ritzheimer said the guard was shoved aside, causing him to bloody his hand when he collided with his truck.

Arthur's tension with Payne goes back years, to the standoff at Cliven Bundy's Nevada ranch. Both attended the standoff, and Arthur said the two were once friends but the relationship devolved when Payne became radicalized and "suicidal."

"He made it very clear out there that he wanted the federal government to go and take him out," Arthur said, adding that Payne believed he would be a martyr in the so-called patriot community if he died for the cause. "I had to come up here because I know what he wants."

Asked whether Arthur's statements about Payne were true, Ritzheimer shook his head and smiled.

"He did exactly what he wanted to do, which is get his couple seconds of fame," he said.

Arthur and his group erected a military-style camo tent across the street from the compound, symbolizing sympathy with the militants' complaints against the federal government and dissent to the group's standoff.

Payne made it clear he had no plans to leave. At that point, Arthur said, his goal became removing women and children from the compound. It's not clear who is actually staying in the occupied refuge headquarters -- media estimates put the number at about 20 protesters, but all who have appeared publicly have been adults.

Arther and his group entered the compound Wednesday night, hoping to convince a female acquaintance to abandon the standoff.

That's when the trouble started.

Arthur said Cooper punched him in the back of the head, then attacked his comrade, who goes by the name of J Dog. The group retreated, and J Dog went to the hospital.

By Thursday morning, the counter-protesters were back at their post across the street. Animosity from last night's fight remained intense. Conservative radio host Pete Santilli, arguing the outside group "escalated" things, traded harsh words with Arthur.

"I'm about to (expletive) your day up!" Santilli yelled as he stormed away from the outsiders' tent. "You (expletive) with the wrong person, you (expletive) crackhead!"

-- Kelly House

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/at_bundy_encampment_outsider_s.html

Parihaka
09 Jan 16,, 16:48
Well, looking more like nutters who will happily take themselves out without the need of outside intervention. Splendid.

Gun Grape
09 Jan 16,, 17:32
40712

Gun Grape
09 Jan 16,, 18:13
...and a few more:

Jon Ritzheimer is another veteran at Malheur. He was a Marine & served in Iraq. He is best known for organizing anti-Islam protests outside Mosques and for threatening to arrest US Senator Debbie Stabenow for treason. Like the others, he has a flair for the dramatic & an obsession with his own importance. he likes to make regular announcements concerning his own impending demise.

“I’ve had to kiss my family goodbye on 3 occasions now and didn’t know whether I would see them again. I am now planning on doing it again.”


Motor T guy that never went outside the wire. Was kicked out of the Corps. Then was kicked out of the Reserves. And it wasn't about Tattoos.

Gun Grape
09 Jan 16,, 19:53
Well, looking more like nutters who will happily take themselves out without the need of outside intervention. Splendid.

It gets better. Video is NSFW

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/8/1467361/-After-accusations-of-stolen-valor-a-rival-group-and-a-broken-nose-the-Y-all-Qaeda-civil-war-begins


Boozing it up off of donations

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/tearful-militant-discovers-friend-drank-away-donation-money-its-like-finding-out-there-is-no-such-thing-as-santa/


Its about time for them to get back in their clown car and leave. Hopefully they can occupy the federal building in Sheridan for a few years.

Parihaka
09 Jan 16,, 22:21
Y'all Qaida. Heh.

Bigfella
10 Jan 16,, 00:37
Motor T guy that never went outside the wire. Was kicked out of the Corps. Then was kicked out of the Reserves. And it wasn't about Tattoos.

Thanks Gunny. I read something about tattoos, but tracking down details is time consuming. I'm not surprised it was something else. Guy seems to be playing the starring role in his own movie - A grade fantasist. I didn't mention it, but Santilli, the guy with the violent fantasies about Hillary, spent 5 years in the Marines in the 80s. I believe he stayed at the lowest rank the whole time & others he served with described him as 'lazy'.

I find it interesting that even a guy like Payne who was an infantryman in Iraq, feels the need to exaggerate his military service. What a bunch of dicks.

Bigfella
10 Jan 16,, 00:48
I'm not a twitter sort of person, but the lead singer of band The Decembrists started an erotic fan fiction hashtag. There is some funny stuff here. All very Brokeback Mountain.


Michael J. Curtiss ‏@MichaelJCurtiss Jan 7 New Hampshire, USA
Ammon's and Jed's passion smoldered, like 50,000 acres of illegally backburned Federal grazing land. #BundyEroticFanFic


Max Reddick ‏@MaxReddick Jan 7
"But they'll hear us," Ammon whispered breathlessly. "No, they will not," Jason replied, "I'm using a silencer."


Eric Heidle ‏@Ericheidle Jan 6
@colinmeloy Ammon ran a hand through Ryan's hair, then eased him down, whispering "I grant you unlimited grazing rights.


goat in the water! ‏@KellyPLoughlin Jan 5
@colinmeloy Cletus's hands guided him to the right spot. "Squeeze the trigger, don't pull it," he whispered.


LeftDial ‏@LeftDial Jan 5
"Don't cry Ammon, they did this at Valley Forge; for warmth...and for freedom."


colin meloyVerified account ‏@colinmeloy Jan 5
"Jason pressed Jed against a rack of "Birds of Oregon" books; his breath was sweet with jerky. Somewhere, an egret cried"


Liandre ‏@canunderum Jan 7
"I want you to take me like Obama takes our freedoms," Jed whispered.
The sound of a Carhartt zipper was his only reply


Andrew Sutherland ‏@asutherl3905 Jan 6
Ammon put his arm around Jed. "It's OK. We're all minute men sometimes."

ludmila_mh
10 Jan 16,, 04:26
It is how it started in Ukraine two years ago. Armed men were taking over government buildings...

Officer of Engineers
10 Jan 16,, 04:40
It is how it started in Ukraine two years ago. Armed men were taking over government buildings...Wrong intro, idiot. If you want to do that route, start with Hammrabbi ... but you're too stupid to recoginzie the reference.

tbm3fan
10 Jan 16,, 07:51
As the population of the Western US grows, more land should be allocated/sold for use to the growing population and I believe more land should be transfered over to the State for their use.

I know that some states prefer the land to remain in federal hands because the money they receive for it is enormous but that's like an incestuous relationship don't you think?

If the land is transfered to the states, they will be able to tax it, to sell it, to decide how it is used, etc...etc....but no, why suffer all that headache when Uncle Sam just gives them a check for it?* This is one way the state politicians are failing us.

Hell the land is for public use but....we are the public!

While looking for some info I ran across an article in a Utah newspaper about Federal land where there happened to be a lot of comments. So naturally I just had to read them. Guess what none of them backed the idea of handing the Federal public land over to the State. Many were highly suspicious of the State more so than the Feds. They felt once the land went to the State, and the legislators got their hands on it, then real estate, mining and timber interests wouldn't be far behind. Once that happened much of their cherished park lands and wilderness would end up in private hands for private use. One thing you are right about is that the land is public and we are the public. Seems like the public in Utah wants the land to stay Federal and stay public.



It wouldn't be so bad if the environmentalists aren't involved and the few at the top of these agencies take up the cause because is helps justify their jobs.

For instance, imagine 30 million Californians, in the midst of one of the worst droughts ever, having to cut back on water use and get fined for what they normally used before and paying more in utility bills for LESS water....because of a few frigging fishes.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/forget-the-missing-rainfall-california-wheres-the-delta-smelt-1430085510

The problem is these Bueracractic agencies (which at one time was a good idea) are running amok. They want to justify their existence by creating stricter rules and regulations and, oh by the way, get to ask for more federal dollars enforcing those rules and regulations they come up with in the first place.

Oh boy a real sore spot with me since I am Californian. I say thank god for the delta smelt. Those 30 million people you talk about isn't really 30 million. The only people under water restrictions are Northern Californians now and in the past. The South was never involved. I vividly recall the mid-70's when my parents house was restricted and my mother hauling water from the washing machine to the outside. Meanwhile those in Southern California acted as though nothing was going on. I was at San Diego State those years and saw with my own eyes.

Now 30 years later my household was asked to cut 20%. I am allocated 1,000 gallons/day for a 60 day billing period. I use 100 gallons a day for three. The delta smelt makes sure that Southern California cannot steal water from the North like there is no end. Water that I saved by not using. It protects the life of the Sacramento Delta by allowing fresh water to flow downstream and mix with the incoming salt water. Those pumps, the smelt halted, would have pumped water faster and from a higher location. Today they want to build tunnels so water for Southern California can bypass the nasty delta water thereby making the delta really nasty and dead. Over my dead body. The folks down South need to learn to use water as I do and if you don't then get your line restricted as money cannot by you out of participating.

As for Federal land in my State, which has the largest Federal holdings, you would find turning over the land to the State doesn't even register with many in the state. One, no one wants to live on the eastern side of the State, and the holdings on the western side (ocean) are too valuable to turn over to private interests. We enjoy access to our parks, wilderness and intend to keep it public.

As for your linked article it was obviously not written by someone from Northern California with first hand knowledge. More than likely out of state and of the farming persuasion who believe all water should go to them no matter what the cost to the rest of us. Oh, and many do like their Federally subsidized water.

Bigfella
10 Jan 16,, 09:25
Now 30 years later my household was asked to cut 20%. I am allocated 1,000 gallons/day for a 60 day billing period. I use 100 gallons a day for three.


You are shitting me. You guys get a 1000 gallon per day allowance!!!! Are you all running farms???? We get billed by the amount we use - every house is metered. In my area if you use over 440 litres per day (116 gallons) you get billed a higher rate, and higher again if you go to 880. I use about 170 litres per day - 45 gallons. I literally can't imagine what you would do with 3800 litres per day. If I ran my hose all day I'm not sure I could use that much!

If there is enough water for allowances like that there is enough for environmental flows.

Bigfella
10 Jan 16,, 09:28
It is how it started in Ukraine two years ago. Armed men were taking over government buildings...

This isn't Ukraine & these guys aren't waiting for 'little green men' to turn up and help them. They are isolated in every respect. They will not get what they want.

As you are new here you should pop over to the 'introductions' thread and say hello. It is both a courtesy and a requirement.

GVChamp
10 Jan 16,, 17:26
I don't agree with just giving them food and water and free passage, but occupying some random outpost still isn't the same as OWS or BLM putting an army in Times Square or Michigan Avenue.

Also, getting favorable treatment from the federal government isn't "welfare," it's a shitty give-away of public interests. It's wrong, but it's not welfare as Americans understand welfare. These guys aren't welfare queens, they are getting a sweeter deal than they should be.

Either way, I have almost nothing to fear from this particular band of idiots, the BLM and OWS loonies are another story since they directly set up shop in my cities and have an active interest in making the job of police officers harder (and most have a simultaneous interest in disarming me as well, which I obviously disagree with).

We're getting off topic, but the two movements aren't really the same. They are different parts of society in different parts of the country.

EDIT: The fortunate part of living near a giant lake is a pretty sweet deal on water. The average person in my town (not household, person) uses 118 gallons per day. Did some googling and looks like Evantson (large suburb just north of Chicago, home to Northwestern University) averages about 97 gallons per day. Fewer lawns, I imagine, drives most of the discrepancy.

tbm3fan
10 Jan 16,, 22:55
You are shitting me. You guys get a 1000 gallon per day allowance!!!! Are you all running farms???? We get billed by the amount we use - every house is metered. In my area if you use over 440 litres per day (116 gallons) you get billed a higher rate, and higher again if you go to 880. I use about 170 litres per day - 45 gallons. I literally can't imagine what you would do with 3800 litres per day. If I ran my hose all day I'm not sure I could use that much!

If there is enough water for allowances like that there is enough for environmental flows.

Yep, it is true. I'm allocated 60,000 gallons for every two months. If I go over that they I have to pay a penalty. Ridiculous, isn't it. So I use 100 gal/day average while someone like the general manager of the Oakland A's uses 10,000 per day and tries to blame it on a leaky pipe. In fact many, with money, have been using north of 10,000 gal/day and all blamed leaky pipes. The extra cost might be only a couple of hundred dollars to them. So there is no teeth here unless a limiter is placed in your line automatically limiting your water.

Oh, and that 100gal/day, for three people once again, includes me washing all my cars during the year. That is seven cars so I am doing pretty damn well in my usage. My cost for basic water use and the sewer line charge is approx. $75/per two months. I know a fair amount of people who think that is too much and when the district mentioned a $2 increase per month many had a bloody fit.

Stitch
11 Jan 16,, 01:10
Oh boy a real sore spot with me since I am Californian. I say thank god for the delta smelt. Those 30 million people you talk about isn't really 30 million. The only people under water restrictions are Northern Californians now and in the past. The South was never involved. I vividly recall the mid-70's when my parents house was restricted and my mother hauling water from the washing machine to the outside. Meanwhile those in Southern California acted as though nothing was going on. I was at San Diego State those years and saw with my own eyes.

Now 30 years later my household was asked to cut 20%. I am allocated 1,000 gallons/day for a 60 day billing period. I use 100 gallons a day for three. The delta smelt makes sure that Southern California cannot steal water from the North like there is no end. Water that I saved by not using. It protects the life of the Sacramento Delta by allowing fresh water to flow downstream and mix with the incoming salt water. Those pumps, the smelt halted, would have pumped water faster and from a higher location. Today they want to build tunnels so water for Southern California can bypass the nasty delta water thereby making the delta really nasty and dead. Over my dead body. The folks down South need to learn to use water as I do and if you don't then get your line restricted as money cannot by you out of participating.

As for your linked article it was obviously not written by someone from Northern California with first hand knowledge. More than likely out of state and of the farming persuasion who believe all water should go to them no matter what the cost to the rest of us. Oh, and many do like their Federally subsidized water.

Yeah, I was up here in '76-'77 during The Drought; using washing machine water for our lawn, putting a brick in the toilet tank, only flushing for "number 2", etc. My son goes to school in San Diego, and when he comes up here to "visit", he says, "There's a drought? Where?" He says they have no restrictions on water usage down south, while we're required to reduce our water usage by 25% (compared to last year). And every day I drive over the two HUGE aqueducts (the California Aqueduct and the Delta-Mendota Canal) that are transporting millions of gallons of Northern California water down to the south. Sometimes I think splitting the state in two isn't such a bad idea; at least that way we'd make money by selling "our" water.

Bigfella
11 Jan 16,, 08:36
Yep, it is true. I'm allocated 60,000 gallons for every two months. If I go over that they I have to pay a penalty. Ridiculous, isn't it. So I use 100 gal/day average while someone like the general manager of the Oakland A's uses 10,000 per day and tries to blame it on a leaky pipe. In fact many, with money, have been using north of 10,000 gal/day and all blamed leaky pipes. The extra cost might be only a couple of hundred dollars to them. So there is no teeth here unless a limiter is placed in your line automatically limiting your water.

Absolute madness....and people complain about water going to environmental flows. Yeah, screw that.


Yeah, I was up here in '76-'77 during The Drought; using washing machine water for our lawn, putting a brick in the toilet tank, only flushing for "number 2", etc. My son goes to school in San Diego, and when he comes up here to "visit", he says, "There's a drought? Where?" He says they have no restrictions on water usage down south, while we're required to reduce our water usage by 25% (compared to last year). And every day I drive over the two HUGE aqueducts (the California Aqueduct and the Delta-Mendota Canal) that are transporting millions of gallons of Northern California water down to the south. Sometimes I think splitting the state in two isn't such a bad idea; at least that way we'd make money by selling "our" water.

Madness squared. Sounds to me like a lot of people have become used to using water in fundamentally unsustainable ways.

S2
11 Jan 16,, 09:22
"Sounds to me like a lot of people have become used to using water in fundamentally unsustainable ways."

It's a God-given 'Murican right to keep a green lawn in a desert.

Bigfella
11 Jan 16,, 11:55
"sounds to me like a lot of people have become used to using water in fundamentally unsustainable ways."

it's a god-given 'murican right to keep a green lawn in a desert.

like

Albany Rifles
11 Jan 16,, 19:19
"Sounds to me like a lot of people have become used to using water in fundamentally unsustainable ways."

It's a God-given 'Murican right to keep a green lawn in a desert.

Then spray paint the damn thing!!!

YellowFever
12 Jan 16,, 01:13
Since I'm busy packing trying to get outta my neighborhood, I shall let you guys have the last word. :P

But I will say this....you guys that are complaining that So Cal gets cheap water and do not conserve any water......

You guys do know that 80% to 90% of all water used in the state of California is used for agriculture, right?

That even if Los Angeles and San Diego uses zero water...that we'd still be in a state of drought, right?

That California is bascially the bread basket of America (in everything but name) and some other parts of the world...right?

bonehead
12 Jan 16,, 06:54
Since I'm busy packing trying to get outta my neighborhood, I shall let you guys have the last word. :P

But I will say this....you guys that are complaining that So Cal gets cheap water and do not conserve any water......

You guys do know that 80% to 90% of all water used in the state of California is used for agriculture, right?

That even if Los Angeles and San Diego uses zero water...that we'd still be in a state of drought, right?

That California is bascially the bread basket of America (in everything but name) and some other parts of the world...right?



Call me old fashioned but when I think bread basket I think grains, corn, wheat etc and California does not come to mind. The Midwest does. Secondly, I am not going to shed a tear when water goes to salmon which goes to domestic consumption rather than to the nut orchards in California so the state can ship nuts to China. The bottom line is that like every other state, California has to live within its means and that includes water consumption.

bonehead
12 Jan 16,, 07:00
Back to the thread.
The "militia" is getting hungry and is asking for food donations. It is cold during the day and down to the single digits at night. I am picturing the big strong militia shivering and spooning tonight. No food, no water and no showers are going to test their resolve and if they are not resupplied this will be over soon.

bonehead
12 Jan 16,, 07:13
40712


That is much more than a bird sanctuary. hot springs, Huge jackrabbits, Wild horses, antelope, mule deer, elk, and lots of snakes and lizards. More recently….a few dozen mules.

YellowFever
12 Jan 16,, 07:28
Call me old fashioned but when I think bread basket I think grains, corn, wheat etc and California does not come to mind. The Midwest does. Secondly, I am not going to shed a tear when water goes to salmon which goes to domestic consumption rather than to the nut orchards in California so the state can ship nuts to China. The bottom line is that like every other state, California has to live within its means and that includes water consumption.

Just what part of "in everything but name" didn't you understand?

The midwest, and specifically Kansas calls itself America's breadbasket but they do not come even close to California as far as sustenance being consumed in America.

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/09/california-agriculture-too-productive-our-own-good

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/05/3646965/california-drought-and-agriculture-explainer/

Out technlogy field is pretty good also. In fact, Silicon Valley alone is generating huge profits for the state (Not sure but almost as much as our agriculture export I think)

But people need food more than their ipads and it requires alot of water to grow vegetables, fruits and meat.

You could argue it was stupid to turn a giant desert into one big farm but that's not my point. But it's also fact that the weather here in Central and Southern California and the (lack of) difference in temperature from Winter to Summer and the highly fertile land also makes this a no brainer state to do so much farming.

So it's real simple:

Sierra Mountains...snows a lot (which hasn't been true for the past few years, which got us in the drought in the first place).

Central and So Cal...doesn't rain alot and practically no snow....but they grow a lot of food.

If eventually Some other state takes over from California as the number 1 food producer in America, chances are they'll be constantly ridiculed for "destroying the land" and using too much water by the environmentalists also.

SteveDaPirate
12 Jan 16,, 15:23
Just what part of "in everything but name" didn't you understand?

California is a very large state with a dense strip of agricultural production. That being said, the Midwest got the breadbasket moniker for a reason.

40727

GVChamp
12 Jan 16,, 17:30
The Midwest and California grow different kinds of crops. If you think "agriculture" is just one thing, you've clearly never tried growing oranges in Illinois. Which would be funny, given that I just shoveled 6 inches of f'ing snow off my driveway. Quarter-inch my ass.

California has one of the best climates in the world for agriculture. The climate type is so rare it's named after the only place it really exists en masse. "Mediterranean." Other than the Med region, it only exists in California, Chile, and strips of Australia.

Also, really rich soil.

That said, Cali still needs to scale back the agriculture. We can, in fact, grow tomatoes elsewhere, same as cabbage. Hell I can grow tomatoes in my backyard. Tomatoes are easy. Wine ingredients, not so much.

America's green lawn culture is f'in crazy. Would love to turn my front lawn into an ecoyard, but that'd kill resale value reallllllllll fast.

Officer of Engineers
12 Jan 16,, 17:57
America's green lawn culture is f'in crazy. Would love to turn my front lawn into an ecoyard, but that'd kill resale value reallllllllll fast.Japanese rock garden

GVChamp
12 Jan 16,, 18:02
Just not complete without a water feature, maybe a koi pond.

bonehead
12 Jan 16,, 18:23
GVChamp. Damned you beat me to it.

I still get amused when people in the Willamette valley talk about the rich and fertile soil they have……about 3 -6 inches. The midwest measures their topsoil by feet. California can grow a lot of crops but only because of the sunshine. The ground isn't all that fertile so massive amounts of fertilizer and water are needed. Without the huge influx of both, California agriculture dies pretty fast. Ironic that you mentioned oranges. When I grew up in Illinois I couldn't get enough of them and they came from Texas and Florida. When the family moved to Oregon the oranges came from California and the quality just wasn't there. California grows a lot of strawberries but I wont touch them. They are big and pretty, but most taste like crap. Californians think that their state is the only one that can grow walnuts but I remember the families yearly stop at a local orchard in Illinois. There is also the troubling trend of contaminated produce that comes out of California all too often. Californians have bought into their marketing schemes hook line and sinker. They actually believe that if California slid into the sea today the nation would starve tomorrow. Worst case scenario is that things will be hard to get for a single growing season and the stuff we really need will be planted elsewhere. Yeah they do grow a lot in California but at what price.


As for the yard, lay turf and vacuum it at night when the neighbors are asleep. No one will ever know.

YellowFever
12 Jan 16,, 18:56
That said, Cali still needs to scale back the agriculture. We can, in fact, grow tomatoes elsewhere, same as cabbage. Hell I can grow tomatoes in my backyard. Tomatoes are easy. Wine ingredients, not so much.


Agreed.
I love to do the LA to SF or Yosemite drive every chance I get but it's gotten to the point where I can't open the windows due to the fertilizer smell.
While vegetables can be grown in other parts of the country, they can't be done as cheap as here because the irrigation system for farming in California is second to one (although without water, I dunno what good that would do..lol)



America's green lawn culture is f'in crazy. Would love to turn my front lawn into an ecoyard, but that'd kill resale value reallllllllll fast.

I turned my front yard into a combination of a rock garden and cactus field. The damn thing costed thousands. And I cemented by backyard, getting rid of about 3000sq of grass total.

The backyard is OK...but I miss my grass in the front yard. :(

Parihaka
12 Jan 16,, 19:17
Agreed.
I love to do the LA to SF or Yosemite drive every chance I get but it's gotten to the point where I can't open the windows due to the fertilizer smell.
While vegetables can be grown in other parts of the country, they can't be done as cheap as here because the irrigation system for farming in California is second to one (although without water, I dunno what good that would do..lol)



I turned my front yard into a combination of a rock garden and cactus field. The damn thing costed thousands. And I cemented by backyard, getting rid of about 3000sq of grass total.

The backyard is OK...but I miss my grass in the front yard. :(
hmmm, maybe i should move to California and have a business doing landscape gardening

YellowFever
12 Jan 16,, 19:53
It'S actually cool.

I didn't take advantage of it but the city government is actually paying rebates if you do (or at least they used to).

Some of the bigger landscape companies are doing millions in business.

There are owners of a couple of golf course that got rid of the grass because they were going under anyway and the city was paying them good money to do so..lol.

DonBelt
13 Jan 16,, 02:42
Back to the thread.
The "militia" is getting hungry and is asking for food donations. It is cold during the day and down to the single digits at night. I am picturing the big strong militia shivering and spooning tonight. No food, no water and no showers are going to test their resolve and if they are not resupplied this will be over soon.

Send them salty food.

Gun Grape
13 Jan 16,, 03:24
Here is what they really need

4073640737

Albany Rifles
13 Jan 16,, 04:16
And the Gunny comes through again

Monash
13 Jan 16,, 08:16
Then spray paint the damn thing!!!

Astroturf?

Stitch
13 Jan 16,, 21:09
Call me old fashioned but when I think bread basket I think grains, corn, wheat etc and California does not come to mind. The Midwest does. Secondly, I am not going to shed a tear when water goes to salmon which goes to domestic consumption rather than to the nut orchards in California so the state can ship nuts to China. The bottom line is that like every other state, California has to live within its means and that includes water consumption.

^Like!^

And I grew up in California, where the water flows freely, and fruit practically falls out of the trees and lands in you lap . . .

bonehead
13 Jan 16,, 23:55
^Like!^

And I grew up in California, where the water flows freely, and fruit practically falls out of the trees and lands in you lap . . .

…then they tax the crap out of it and slap on a warning label that says fruit have been known to cause cancer in the state of California.

bonehead
13 Jan 16,, 23:58
Here is what they really need

4073640737

Yeah. Toss a box of that at them and get a camera ready. That picture will be worth a mint.

bonehead
14 Jan 16,, 00:01
hmmm, maybe i should move to California and have a business doing landscape gardening

How is your spanish? Oh and be prepared to lose a lot of your profits to the California tax monster and rules and regulations you cant find anywhere on the planet.

Monash
15 Jan 16,, 08:44
It appears US Citizens are 'rallying' behind theses patriots and are sending them supplies to help them survive the long hard winter ahead - not. I particularity like the 55 gallon barrel of sexual lubricant kindly donated by one 'concerned' citizen.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon-militia-idUSKCN0US31420160115

Bigfella
15 Jan 16,, 09:27
It appears US Citizens are 'rallying' behind theses patriots and are sending them supplies to help them survive the long hard winter ahead - not. I particularity like the 55 gallon barrel of sexual lubricant kindly donated by one 'concerned' citizen.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon-militia-idUSKCN0US31420160115

Like. Muchly. Mocking these guys is way more effective than getting angry at them.

Albany Rifles
15 Jan 16,, 15:49
^ Mike Drop

GVChamp
15 Jan 16,, 20:18
Definitely agree that mocking the temper-tantrum is more effective at this point. Treating them as some major threat is giving them more credit than they deserve.

bonehead
16 Jan 16,, 08:19
I am not fond of the source but it appears that one has been arrested after he stole a government and drove it to a grocery store to stock up. If this is correct they must have powered through Gun Grape's care package already and desperation is setting in. Snow and rain showers forecast for the weekend. Cold wet and hungry….and not a single sheep within 100 miles.


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/15/3740249/first-members-of-bundy-militia-arrested/

Gun Grape
16 Jan 16,, 21:07
Definitely agree that mocking the temper-tantrum is more effective at this point. Treating them as some major threat is giving them more credit than they deserve.

Like what they did with this guy. But lets not let it go on as long

http://www.wideopencountry.com/longest-armed-standoff-u-s-history-comes-end/


Longest Armed Standoff in U.S. History Comes to an End in Texas

The standoff began in 1999, when John Joe Gray, of Henderson County, was charged with assaulting a public servant during a traffic stop.

Gray, now 66, claimed he had a God-given right to be carrying a pistol without a concealed carry license at the time. When the state trooper tried to arrest him, Gray resisted. He later admitted to biting the officer.

Rather than returning to court to stand trial, Gray holed up inside his 47-acre ranch in Trinidad, Texas, with a cache of weapons, support from his family and the promise of violence to anyone who trespassed.

“If they come out after us, bring extra body bags,” he told ABC News in 2000. “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.”

The case against Gray ended quietly more than a year ago, but nobody involved seemed to know. A district attorney in neighboring Anderson County ended the case against Gray when he retired in December 2014, but neither Gray nor the Henderson County Sherrif’s Office were notified until last week.

Henderson County Sheriff Ray Nutt seemed more than ready to let the case drop. When asked why he didn’t go after Gray, Nutt said it was to prevent his deputies from being killed.

“It wasn’t worth it,” Nutt told KHOU. “Joe Gray has been in prison out there himself, in my opinion, for 14 years.”

Over the years, few journalists have been able to contact Gray on his ranch.

The property is guarded by Gray’s fiercely protective family and friends, and it has been next to impossible to get near the family.

National Geographic spent two years trying to get near Gray. Chuck Norris and Alex Jones (of Infowars) even offered to help Gray during his confinement.

Even though he is now a free man, Gray still hasn’t left the ranch.

Bigfella
17 Jan 16,, 01:48
Like what they did with this guy. But lets not let it go on as long

http://www.wideopencountry.com/longest-armed-standoff-u-s-history-comes-end/

I wonder what the police & public reaction would be if a guy called DeShawn who lives in Baltimore bit a policeman and then threatened police with loaded weapons when they came to arrest him?

Officer of Engineers
17 Jan 16,, 04:44
I wonder what the police & public reaction would be if a guy called DeShawn who lives in Baltimore bit a policeman and then threatened police with loaded weapons when they came to arrest him?The same reaction that police don't go to raid local drug lords without at least a platoon size entry force.

Bigfella
17 Jan 16,, 05:03
The same reaction that police don't go to raid local drug lords without at least a platoon size entry force.

I can't imagine that if this guy was young, black & living in an urban area that police would just let him sit at home for 16 years & threaten them if they came near him.

Chunder
17 Jan 16,, 05:04
…then they tax the crap out of it and slap on a warning label that says fruit have been known to cause cancer in the state of California.

LOL! I bought an item the other day, forget what it was saying words to the effect of "warning, this product may contain traces of substances known to the Calfornian govt that may cause cancer" My first reaction was What!? You guys are actively shooting yourselves in the foot with your export market!?!.

You poor devils.

Officer of Engineers
17 Jan 16,, 05:06
This hermit wasn't living alone. He was surrounded and protected by family can closed friends. And the number of mob bosses who died in their own beds of natural causes.

Monash
17 Jan 16,, 07:12
I can't imagine that if this guy was young, black & living in an urban area that police would just let him sit at home for 16 years & threaten them if they came near him.

Fairs, fair, if he were young, black and living in a isolated rural community like the person in question local authorities may have adopted the same approach given similar circumstances. Come to that if Gray had been living in town and making the same threats the authorities would probably have acted quite quickly to arrest him out of concern for the rest of the community. It also depends on the charge. Gray wouldn't have been left sitting on his ass out in the boonies if he'd been facing a serious felony assault charge say attempted murder for example. The local cops also probably figured that given the facts Gray would have got off lightly in court even if they did arrest him - so why stir the pot as long as he was staying put.

kato
18 Jan 16,, 00:25
One of them was arrested:

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/protester_arrested_in_burns_dr.html

bonehead
18 Jan 16,, 05:27
LOL! I bought an item the other day, forget what it was saying words to the effect of "warning, this product may contain traces of substances known to the Calfornian govt that may cause cancer" My first reaction was What!? You guys are actively shooting yourselves in the foot with your export market!?!.

You poor devils.

Once the product leaves the state of California it is perfectly safe.

bonehead
18 Jan 16,, 05:31
I can't imagine that if this guy was young, black & living in an urban area that police would just let him sit at home for 16 years & threaten them if they came near him.

Imagine a guy holed up in the middle of the outback and it pretty much trapped and not much of a threat to anyone. As a law enforcement official you know that it will cost lives to go after him or you can give him his banishment. Would the color of his skin really matter?

Stitch
18 Jan 16,, 05:33
Once the product leaves the state of California it is perfectly safe.

Yeah, apparently it only causes cancer if you're IN California; anywhere else and you're okay.

troung
18 Jan 16,, 20:37
Keep the government off their foster care money....

http://gawker.com/oregon-milita-spokesman-says-foster-children-were-remov-1753460681
Oregon Militia Spokesman Says Foster Children Were Removed From His Home
Brendan O'Connor
Yesterday 11:56amFiled to: oregon
78.6K
921
34

Oregon Militia Spokesman Says Foster Children Were Removed From His Home

Oregon militia spokesman Robert “LaVoy” Finicum told OPB that the four foster children who had been living with him and his wife on their Chino Valley, Arizona, ranch have been taken away. “I hope people are seeing the sacrifices we’re making here,” he said.

The rancher estimated that more than 50 boys, often coming from group homes, drug rehabs, and psychiatric institutions, have lived with them in the past decade. “My ranch has been a great tool for these boys,” Finicum said. “It has done a lot of good.”

(Last week, Finicum traveled between the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, in southeastern Oregon, and Utah, as part of a press tour. “We went fast, and came back fast,” he told OPB. “I doubt [law enforcement] even knew we were gone. Probably they did. But they were nice enough to let us go and come back.” Actually, police have said the occupiers are free to come and go as they please, which raises the question: Why do they need people to send them supplies, then?)

According to Finicum, his wife Jeanette was caring for the children while he was busy in Oregon. He said a social worker removed the first of them on January 4th, just a few days after the occupation began, and the last was removed on January 9th. He blamed “pressure from the feds,” who “must have gotten to the governor, who told the state to get them out of there.”

From OPB:


That represents an enormous loss of income for the Finicums. According to a 2010 tax filing, Catholic Charities paid the family $115,343 to foster children in 2009. That year, foster parents were compensated between $22.31 and $37.49 per child, per day, meaning if the Finicums were paid at the maximum rate, they cared for, on average, eight children per day in 2009.

“That was my main source of income,” Finicum said. “My ranch, well, the cows just cover the costs of the ranch. If this means rice and beans for the next few years, so be it. We’re going to stay the course.”

Since then, Catholic Charities has increased payments for foster care significantly, but it does not itemize the dollar amount the Finicums were paid in subsequent years.

Gawker could reach neither Catholic Charities nor the Department of Child Safety in Arizona for comment.

“I want to show what my government is doing. You need to understand the cost being paid by many people,” Finicum said.

kato
19 Jan 16,, 17:47
Unrelated question, but...

Since then, Catholic Charities has increased payments for foster care significantly

Why? The amounts paid back then are about the same that foster parents get over here (28.22-34.33 USD/day currently, depending on age), and living cost is about the same here - cheaper on accomodations and clothes in the US, cheaper on food here. Are such payments in the US detailed state-wise, or are they identical across the federation?

bonehead
27 Jan 16,, 05:17
Things take a turn. Bundy and others, have been arrested and one person is dead. The FBI is now sealing off the area. The party will soon be over.

http://news.yahoo.com/leader-oregon-wildlife-refuge-occupation-arrested-cnn-024944320.html

bonehead
27 Jan 16,, 05:28
Unrelated question, but...

Since then, Catholic Charities has increased payments for foster care significantly

Why? The amounts paid back then are about the same that foster parents get over here (28.22-34.33 USD/day currently, depending on age), and living cost is about the same here - cheaper on accomodations and clothes in the US, cheaper on food here. Are such payments in the US detailed state-wise, or are they identical across the federation?

Foster kids come from several programs in the U.S. I am guessing the kids in question here are more or less orphans and are in some private foster program.

In Oregon, most if not all foster kids are wards of the state. They have a multitude of issues. They can be "normal" kids who have no biological parents, kids who have been removed from their parents because either the kids or their parents were involved with illegal activities, then there are the kids who have developmental disabilities. Their state appointed case workers assign the money for each kid depending on the circumstances. Some kids are really bad off and need constant care/supervision. A foster parent can expect 2-7K for a single kid under such conditions. It just depends on the needs of the children. Other states will differ.

troung
27 Jan 16,, 07:08
One dead, hope none of the agents were injured.


One dead as FBI arrests Oregon occupation leader, four others
Reuters By Curtis Skinner and Dan Whitcomb
32 minutes ago

http://news.yahoo.com/leader-oregon-wildlife-refuge-occupation-arrested-cnn-024944320.html#


(Reuters) - The leader of an armed occupation at a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon and others were arrested on Tuesday after shots were fired during a traffic stop, leaving one person dead and another wounded, the FBI said.

Protesters were still occupying the remote Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon after leader Ammon Bundy's arrest and the Federal Bureau of Investigation was setting up a perimeter with the hopes of a peaceful resolution, a law enforcement official told Reuters.

A total of eight people were arrested in two states.

The takeover at Malheur that started Jan. 2 is the latest flare-up in the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion, a decades-old conflict over the U.S. government's control of millions acres of land in the West.

Several media outlets, including the Oregonian and CNN, reported that law enforcement sources said LaVoy Finicum was killed. Finicum, a rancher who acted as a spokesman for the occupiers, told NBC News earlier this month that he would rather die than be arrested.

"There are things more important than your life, and freedom is one of them," he said in the NBC interview.

Bundy and four leaders of the occupation were taken into custody following the confrontation along Highway 395 in northeast Oregon around 4:25 p.m. local time (0025 GMT), according to the FBI.

A sixth individual was arrested by the Oregon State Police in Burns, Oregon, about 1.5 hours later. The FBI said a seventh person was later arrested, 50-year-old Peter Santilli, an independent journalist who livestreamed events at the refuge.

The FBI said they also arrested an eighth person in Peoria, Arizona, in relation to the occupation.

All of those arrested face federal charges of conspiracy to use force, intimidation or threats to impede federal officers from discharging their duties, the FBI said.

The Oregonian reported that Bundy had been en route to a community meeting in John Day, Oregon, with several other members of the occupation, where he was scheduled to be a guest speaker, when authorities stopped his vehicle.

The newspaper said 43-year-old Ryan Bundy, Ammon's brother, was injured in the arrest, suffering a minor gunshot wound. Authorities did not release the identity of the person killed, but added that he was the subject of a federal probable cause arrest.

Some 25 miles (40 km) of Highway 395 was shut down in both directions following the incident, a dispatcher for the state department of transportation said. The highway was expected to remain closed as authorities investigate the shooting.

The occupiers of the wildlife refuge said they were supporting two local ranchers who were returned to prison this month for setting fires that spread to federal land. The ranchers' lawyer has said the occupiers do not speak for the family.

Burns Mayor Craig LaFollette told Reuters that while he had limited information about the night's events, he hoped the stand-off would come to a peaceful end.

"I think my perception is that people's patience was running thin and that the community as a whole was looking for some resolution and to have these people leave," he said.

Law enforcement officials had largely kept their distance from the buildings at the refuge, 30 miles (48 km) south of the small town of Burns in rural southeast Oregon's Harney County, in the hope of avoiding a violent confrontation.

Local residents have expressed a mixture of sympathy for the Hammond family, suspicion of the federal government's motives and frustration with the occupation.

(Reporting by Curtis Skinner in San Francisco and Dan Whitcomb in Los Angeles; Additional reporting by Julia Edwards in Washington and Jonathan Allen in New York; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

Bigfella
27 Jan 16,, 09:57
Sadly Joseph A. Stetson (gotta love the name) didn't quite make it to the standoff. He was stopped near Burns and was arrested when he became abusive & threatening. Apparently drunk too....and armed with a pellet gun.

Mr Stetson says he says he was in the Green Berets, but unfortunately no one can check that because Reagan sealed his records. Damn that Reagan! Sure. Happens all the time. It should be noted that the Bundy posse contains a string of people who have exaggerated or fabricated military service.

Unfortunately for Mr Stetson, the Green Berets don't teach you to spell at a 6th grade level. Might put a dent in his plans to become President:


my name is Joseph Arthur Stetson i am runnig for president of the united states of america 2016 if you are smart you will put a cowboy in the white house that will do good for this great country of ours instead of a crooket politicion that just lies to the american people and lines his packets with gold when i am president i will go only 100 persent by the constitution the VA, Immigration, social security, k to 12, healthcare can be fixed in six months or les with the us constitution and the american citizens so please vote for Joseph Arthur Stetson for president 2016 of the united states of america.have a good day americans.?


When I am president the way that I will fix k to 12 and higher egurcation I will only let teachers Instead of croocet polition from that state run the schools there is a noff tax payers dollars to go around

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=64026

I'm not sure what is more precious, the two incorrect attempts to spell 'crooked', the inability of a would be President to spell 'politician', or a guy promising to fix 'egurcation'. :-D

Gotta say, the Bundys certainly attract the cream of the crop.

bonehead
29 Jan 16,, 05:33
Many were arrested, one shot, some took off with their tails between their legs and only about 4 remain at the refuge. The authorities are bringing in armored vehicles and tightening the noose. Oh and Bundy, the "leader and instigator" has already changed his tune.
http://news.yahoo.com/armored-vehicles-roll-oregon-refuge-231204344.html

Gun Grape
29 Jan 16,, 06:30
Many were arrested, one shot, some took off with their tails between their legs and only about 4 remain at the refuge. The authorities are bringing in armored vehicles and tightening the noose. Oh and Bundy, the "leader and instigator" has already changed his tune.
http://news.yahoo.com/armored-vehicles-roll-oregon-refuge-231204344.html


From the article

"We only had guns for our protection and never once pointed them at another individual or had any desire to do so," he added. "The people have a right to bear arms for their own protection. We never wanted bloodshed."

Does he understand that you don't have the right to "Protect" yourself when committing a crime?

Monash
29 Jan 16,, 07:06
Sadly Joseph A. Stetson (gotta love the name) didn't quite make it to the standoff. He was stopped near Burns and was arrested when he became abusive & threatening. Apparently drunk too....and armed with a pellet gun.

Mr Stetson says he says he was in the Green Berets, but unfortunately no one can check that because Reagan sealed his records. Damn that Reagan! Sure. Happens all the time. It should be noted that the Bundy posse contains a string of people who have exaggerated or fabricated military service.

Unfortunately for Mr Stetson, the Green Berets don't teach you to spell at a 6th grade level. Might put a dent in his plans to become President:





http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=64026

I'm not sure what is more precious, the two incorrect attempts to spell 'crooked', the inability of a would be President to spell 'politician', or a guy promising to fix 'egurcation'. :-D

Gotta say, the Bundys certainly attract the cream of the crop.

Still if the choice for President came down to either Mr Trump or Mr Stetson I'd choose err...... I'd choose .... Canada.

Bigfella
29 Jan 16,, 07:20
Still if the choice for President came down to either Mr Trump or Mr Stetson I'd choose err...... I'd choose .... Canada.

Ted Cruz???

Monash
29 Jan 16,, 07:30
Ted Cruz???

Isn't he the guy with a Cuban father and a Canadian mother whose anti-immigration? Not filling me with confidence here BF.

tbm3fan
29 Jan 16,, 07:50
isn't he the guy with a cuban father and a canadian mother whose anti-immigration? Not filling me with confidence here bf.

lmao...

tbm3fan
29 Jan 16,, 07:54
Sadly Joseph A. Stetson (gotta love the name) didn't quite make it to the standoff. He was stopped near Burns and was arrested when he became abusive & threatening. Apparently drunk too....and armed with a pellet gun.

Mr Stetson says he says he was in the Green Berets, but unfortunately no one can check that because Reagan sealed his records. Damn that Reagan! Sure. Happens all the time. It should be noted that the Bundy posse contains a string of people who have exaggerated or fabricated military service.

Unfortunately for Mr Stetson, the Green Berets don't teach you to spell at a 6th grade level. Might put a dent in his plans to become President:

I heard one today that can beat that story. Involves the Army Rangers, being in from 1951-1969 or 1960-1969 things are cloudy for him not me, only 90 men out of 90,000 survived, and a 3.2 km sniper shot.

Monash
29 Jan 16,, 08:40
lmao...

Just to clarify because I could be wrong he's not anti-immigration?

Monash
29 Jan 16,, 08:44
I heard one today that can beat that story. Involves the Army Rangers, being in from 1951-1969 or 1960-1969 things are cloudy for him not me, only 90 men out of 90,000 survived, and a 3.2 km sniper shot.

Personally I'm still having flashbacks to my days in the Legio XIII Gemina.

Bigfella
29 Jan 16,, 09:07
Isn't he the guy with a Cuban father and a Canadian mother whose anti-immigration? Not filling me with confidence here BF.

He's the guy who was a Canadian citizen with dual US citizenship until a couple of years ago. I figured you were talking about him. :-D

Bigfella
29 Jan 16,, 09:08
I heard one today that can beat that story. Involves the Army Rangers, being in from 1951-1969 or 1960-1969 things are cloudy for him not me, only 90 men out of 90,000 survived, and a 3.2 km sniper shot.

I can't properly respond to this without more & better emoticons. MANY emoticons.

Bigfella
29 Jan 16,, 09:09
Just to clarify because I could be wrong he's not anti-immigration?

He's anti OTHER immigrants. His family are OK. Him too. Was that not clear? ;-)

bonehead
29 Jan 16,, 15:48
From the article


Does he understand that you don't have the right to "Protect" yourself when committing a crime?



Before the arrest he and his buddies were calling for reinforcements and those reinforcements were supposed to shoot their way past the roadblocks.

Parihaka
29 Jan 16,, 21:12
LaVoy Finicum's killing. The FBI arranged a town hall meet and then ambushed them on the way to that meet.
Killing roughly nine minutes in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAGxDWKrjPQ

Mihais
29 Jan 16,, 23:04
Personally I'm still having flashbacks to my days in the Legio XIII Gemina.

How did you liked Apulum? :D

zraver
30 Jan 16,, 01:10
LaVoy Finicum's killing. The FBI arranged a town hall meet and then ambushed them on the way to that meet.
Killing roughly nine minutes in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAGxDWKrjPQ

He runs a road block, then hits a cop as he crashes in the snow bank and jumps out of the vehicle. Seems to surrender then twists at the waste and reaches into his pockets, at which point a cop behind him, who watched him run one of his brothers over shoots him dead. While I remain convinced the hammonds were done dirty by a corrupt System, the more I've dug in to the Bundy issue the less I like them.

Bigfella
30 Jan 16,, 03:34
He runs a road block, then hits a cop as he crashes in the snow bank and jumps out of the vehicle. Seems to surrender then twists at the waste and reaches into his pockets, at which point a cop behind him, who watched him run one of his brothers over shoots him dead. While I remain convinced the hammonds were done dirty by a corrupt System, the more I've dug in to the Bundy issue the less I like them.

He also had ample opportunity to surrender. There is a period of over 5 minutes not long before the 'ambush' where his car is stopped on the road with LEOs sitting in vehicles just behind him. Another vehicle with Ammon Bundy in it had already been stopped & those inside apprehended. Finnicum & his people could just have opened the doors & stepped out. Instead they sped off (another offence) and tried to run a roadblock. They were armed & had made statements about not being taken alive. Those who stayed in the vehicle lived.

The Bundys & their hangers on have form for pointing weapons at LEOs and have associated with cop killers. They also have a history of criminal behaviour. These guys are 'thugs' who suck people in by spouting forth on 'freedom'. They have been trying to provoke a confrontation this whole time. Given the way they behaved they are lucky it was only 1 dead.

bonehead
30 Jan 16,, 03:50
He runs a road block, then hits a cop as he crashes in the snow bank and jumps out of the vehicle. Seems to surrender then twists at the waste and reaches into his pockets, at which point a cop behind him, who watched him run one of his brothers over shoots him dead. While I remain convinced the hammonds were done dirty by a corrupt System, the more I've dug in to the Bundy issue the less I like them.

I am still waiting for the "militias lives matter" movement. A bunch of people in cowboy hats choke off the afternoon commute on a bridge in California, close a mall and airport at Easter, take over the next democratic debate. Rioting…ahem…"demonstrating" in Burns would be pointless.

Bigfella
30 Jan 16,, 04:01
I am still waiting for the "militias lives matter" movement. A bunch of people in cowboy hats choke off the afternoon commute on a bridge in California, close a mall and airport at Easter, take over the next democratic debate. Rioting…ahem…"demonstrating" in Burns would be pointless.

You're 20 years too late. Google 'Murrah Building' if you want to see how white folks angry about other white folks being killed by agents of the state roll. I'd be surprised if McVeigh, Nichols et. al were the only terrorists who claimed Ruby Ridge & Waco as inspiration/justification.

bonehead
30 Jan 16,, 22:46
You're 20 years too late. Google 'Murrah Building' if you want to see how white folks angry about other white folks being killed by agents of the state roll. I'd be surprised if McVeigh, Nichols et. al were the only terrorists who claimed Ruby Ridge & Waco as inspiration/justification.

Swing and a miss. A lone mentally imbalanced psychotic terrorist blew up the building. The POS that I refuse to name was in fact more upset of U.S. foreign policy than what was going on domestically. Oh and in case you missed it, there were no marches in support of this terrorist. As insulting as your reply was, you are dead wrong. There are a lot of "angry white folks" in the U.S. Except for a few fringe groups like the ones that took over the refuge, the overwhelming majority are not going to align themselves to the wrong cause and support who are generally known as criminals. Case in point. There were at most 30 at the refuge and most of them came from out of state. I know a couple of dozen militia members in the Salem area alone and not one of them would have anything to do with the idiots in the refuge. They sure as hell are not going to bomb a building full of innocent people to make a point to the government. people could even describe me as an "angry white folk" but guess what? When I look at what transpired in burns i see that as justice served. Bundy's crew may have had a point, but they went about it in absolutely the wrong way and they should pay the consequences of their actions. One thing they have going for them is that they didn't blow up a building full of innocent people. You must be oh so disappointed.

Speaking of waco, The feds learned their lesson, Unless there is a good reason to storm in, it is better to be patient and take advantage of the criminals mistakes.

Bigfella
01 Feb 16,, 09:05
Thug life, Bundy style. When Ammon roll, he roll heavy yo:


Duane Leo EHMER

Ehmer’s criminal history militates against release. Ehmer has a series of convictions stretching
back more than two decades. While Ehmer’s convictions are old, they demonstrate a pattern of
behavior that prove Ehmer is unamenable to supervision. Ehmer’s use of firearms in connection
with the charged offense also underscores his danger to the community. Ehmer is a convicted
felon and is prohibited from possession of firearms


Jason PATRICK

Patrick is currently charged with Making Terrorist Threats in Houston County,
Georgia. This charge arises from an incident in August 2014 where he threatened to kill everyone
inside the Warner Robins Municipal Court Complex. Patrick posted bond and was released in
that case. One of the conditions of his release was that he not possess weapons.
Notwithstanding this condition, Patrick travelled across the country and participated in an armed
occupation of the MNWR. Patrick was photographed with a pistol and reportedly used an
AR-15-style rifle during the occupation, both in violation of his current release plan


Dylan ANDERSON

His criminal history is minor, but it includes drug and
alcohol offenses and a failure to appear. He has no ties to Oregon. He is unemployed and has no
income. He reports living with his mother in Utah.
Anderson poses an unacceptable danger to the community. While on the MNWR, he told
a reporter, “I didn’t come here to shoot, I came here to die.”


Brian CAVALIER

Defendant Cavalier should be detained as a danger to the community and a flight risk.
Cavalier is a danger to the community because his prior criminal conduct, use of firearms, and role
in the offense. Cavalier has a series of criminal convictions dating to the 1990s, including felony
convictions that restrict his access to firearms. Notwithstanding this prohibition, Cavalier
continues to possess firearms. In an undated picture from an article posted to the Daily Mail
website Cavalier is shown lying in a bed with a handgun. The picture is undated but Cavalier’s physical appearance resembles his current appearance. Cavalier was also arrested weeks ago in Arizona, after temporarily leaving the MNWR, in a car with a firearm and allegedly provided police with a false name and social security number.


Ryan BUNDY

While Bundy’s criminal history consists of misdemeanors, they reflect his disdain for
authority and refusal to follow court orders. In 2008, he was convicted of obstructing police–
resisting/interfering with an arrest in Cedar City, Utah. He has a 2012 theft conviction. In 2015,
he was charged with failure to appear, interfering with an officer, and interfering with an arresting
officer in Iron County, Utah. Public media accounts of this incident report that Ryan Bundy had
to be restrained by three court bailiffs who were attempting to take him into custody on a failure to
appear warrant.


Joseph O’SHAUGHNESSY

O’Shaughnessy poses a risk of flight. He has no ties to the District of Oregon. He also
has no legitimate employment. His criminal history includes arrests for disorderly conduct,
domestic violence, and drugs. In 2007, he was convicted for failure to appear.


http://media.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/other/2016/01/29/Ammonbundymemodetention.pdf

Parihaka
04 Feb 16,, 20:07
You're 20 years too late. Google 'Murrah Building' if you want to see how white folks angry about other white folks being killed by agents of the state roll. I'd be surprised if McVeigh, Nichols et. al were the only terrorists who claimed Ruby Ridge & Waco as inspiration/justification.

What's the difference between Timothy McVeigh and Bill Ayers?

SteveDaPirate
04 Feb 16,, 22:52
What's the difference between Timothy McVeigh and Bill Ayers?

About 168 people.

Bigfella
05 Feb 16,, 00:10
About 168 people.

Snap!

Parihaka
05 Feb 16,, 05:30
So Bill and his crew couldn't build as good a bomb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Village_townhouse_explosion

Not like he didn't try though.
Nowdays.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpSXLqikT9I

Bigfella
12 Feb 16,, 02:04
OK, so the great standoff of '16 is over. The FBI surrounded the place & the last morons....I mean patriots....decided to surrender.


The final holdouts in the armed occupation of a wildlife refuge in eastern Oregon surrendered peacefully Thursday morning, ending a 40-day standoff, but not until one antigovernment militant stalled long past the others, airing a range of grievances and conspiracy theories, saying he was suicidal, and suggesting that he would rather die than go to prison....

The last holdout offered a stinging & well reasoned critique of the US Government before leaving.


“I’m actually feeling suicidal right now,” said Mr. Fry, 27, who lives in Ohio. “It’s liberty or death. I will not go another day as a slave to this system.” He railed against taxpayer money being used for abortions and drone strikes in Pakistan, said bankers were to blame for the world wars, complained of being unable to obtain medical marijuana in his home state, and accused the government of suppressing breakthrough inventions, concealing U.F.O.’s, and “chemically castrating everybody.”

“I declare war against the federal government,” he said a few minutes later. “I’ve peacefully voted and nothing is ever done.”

But after more than an hour sitting in his tent, Mr. Fry abruptly gave himself up without a fight.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/us/oregon-standoff.html?_r=0

This gets even better, however. When it came out that the FBI was surrounding the wildlife refuge this appeared on the facebook page of the Bundy Ranch


WAKE UP AMERICA!
WAKE UP WE THE PEOPLE!
WAKE UP PATRIOTS!
WAKE UP MILITA!
IT'S TIME!!!!!
CLIVEN BUNDY IS HEADING TO THE HARNEY COUNTY RESOURCE CENTER IN BURNS OREGON.


HEAD TO BURNS NOW!!! GATHER AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE AND GO NOW!!! WE WILL KEEP YOU UPDATED!

When he arrived at the airport in Portland there was a welcome committee there for him:


Bundy, 69, who was arrested in Portland, Oregon, late Wednesday, was charged with leading a "massive armed assault" against authorities outside his ranch to extort them into abandoning roughly 400 Bundy cattle they had rounded up.

Bundy had "trespassed his cattle" on federal public lands for more than 20 years, refusing to pay for required permits and thwarting federal court orders to keep the cattle off the lands, the complaint alleges.

"Bundy was the leader, organizer and chief beneficiary of the conspiracy, possessing ultimate authority over the scope, manner and means of the conspiratorial operations and receiving economic benefits of the extortion," the complaint states.

According to the FBI complaint, the federal felony charges against him include conspiracy, assault on a federal law enforcement officer, obstruction of justice and extortion.

The conspiracy to block the cattle roundup and interfere with government operations is alleged to have continued through the filing of the complaint Thursday.

So, yet another member of the Bundy family decides he is above the law & finds out he isn't. Another attempt to foment an 'uprising' fails. on the upside, no opportunity for terrorists to foment their hatred for the government like their was last time he tried. What a maroon!

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nation-and-world/federal-charges-filed-against-cliven-bundy-nevada-standoff

DonBelt
12 Feb 16,, 02:20
I blame television. Can't keep the kids down on the farm anymore.

TopHatter
12 Feb 16,, 02:40
OK, so the great standoff of '16 is over. The FBI surrounded the place & the last morons....I mean patriots....decided to surrender.

A total of one dead...a far cry from the 90's, that's for sure.



“I’m actually feeling suicidal right now,” said Mr. Fry, 27, who lives in Ohio. “It’s liberty or death. I will not go another day as a slave to this system.” He railed against taxpayer money being used for abortions and drone strikes in Pakistan, said bankers were to blame for the world wars, complained of being unable to obtain medical marijuana in his home state, and accused the government of suppressing breakthrough inventions, concealing U.F.O.’s, and “chemically castrating everybody.”

Why can't they just chemically castrate HIM? I mean seriously, this oxygen thief is consuming valuable resources with his very existence, please cut off the stupid now before he can breed.

TopHatter
12 Feb 16,, 02:40
I blame television. Can't keep the kids down on the farm anymore.

I blame Paree (https://youtu.be/UgqVCJpRqWQ)

Bigfella
12 Feb 16,, 04:06
A total of one dead...a far cry from the 90's, that's for sure.

Which will hopefully mean its safe to leave your kids in daycare in a Federal building.


Why can't they just chemically castrate HIM? I mean seriously, this oxygen thief is consuming valuable resources with his very existence, please cut off the stupid now before he can breed.

He'll probably be spending some time in jail. I don't think he'll be finding a wife there, though he may find he has a 'husband' he doesn't want.

TopHatter
12 Feb 16,, 06:36
Which will hopefully mean its safe to leave your kids in daycare in a Federal building.
I'm willing to bet there are hundreds of these militia idiots and their like-minded brethren that are devastated that this ended with a comparative whimper, rather than a massacre.

- It crushes their worldview of the federal government as the heavy-handed jackbooted oppressor (unfortunately the 90's did much to foster that belief)
- It ruined their opportunity for martyrdom, going out gloriously in a blaze of firepower against the hated Federals. (which means these men didn't have the courage of their convictions...huge surprise)
- Despite their shrill and hysterical appeals for help, the country by-and-large, ignored them at best and considered them idiotic kooks at worst)
- A precedent has been established for dealing with these people...massive restraint and patience have proven their worth.

Of course, none of that will affect these guys. Their kind never learns.

Monash
12 Feb 16,, 07:55
He'll probably be spending some time in jail. I don't think he'll be finding a wife there, though he may find he has a 'husband' he doesn't want.

That 50 gallon drum of sexual lubricant they were sent might come in useful after all.

Monash
12 Feb 16,, 08:00
I'm willing to bet there are hundreds of these militia idiots and their like-minded brethren that are devastated that this ended with a comparative whimper, rather than a massacre.

- It crushes their worldview of the federal government as the heavy-handed jackbooted oppressor (unfortunately the 90's did much to foster that belief)
- It ruined their opportunity for martyrdom, going out gloriously in a blaze of firepower against the hated Federals. (which means these men didn't have the courage of their convictions...huge surprise)
- Despite their shrill and hysterical appeals for help, the country by-and-large, ignored them at best and considered them idiotic kooks at worst)
- A precedent has been established for dealing with these people...massive restraint and patience have proven their worth.

Of course, none of that will affect these guys. Their kind never learns.

Also, unless public safety is at risk never cut off their communication flow with the outside world , let them preach and rant to their hearts content. These clowns do more harm to their cause every time they open their mouths than any number of official press conferences by public officials could hope to achieve.

Bigfella
12 Feb 16,, 08:37
I'm willing to bet there are hundreds of these militia idiots and their like-minded brethren that are devastated that this ended with a comparative whimper, rather than a massacre.

- It crushes their worldview of the federal government as the heavy-handed jackbooted oppressor (unfortunately the 90's did much to foster that belief)
- It ruined their opportunity for martyrdom, going out gloriously in a blaze of firepower against the hated Federals. (which means these men didn't have the courage of their convictions...huge surprise)
- Despite their shrill and hysterical appeals for help, the country by-and-large, ignored them at best and considered them idiotic kooks at worst)
- A precedent has been established for dealing with these people...massive restraint and patience have proven their worth.

Of course, none of that will affect these guys. Their kind never learns.

I can certainly think of a few folk I encounter online who will be let down. After idiot tarpman committed suicide by cop they were jumping up & down about 'ethnic cleansing' etc. As you point out, the Feds have become better at this sort of thing since the 90s and loss of life was minimal. Maybe a few police departments could follow their lead. Monash makes a good point that ties in with yours - let these folk talk to the outside world to the extent it is safe to do so. They do more to undermine their cause than a legion of sane people criticizing them could ever do.

Bigfella
12 Feb 16,, 08:38
That 50 gallon drum of sexual lubricant they were sent might come in useful after all.

I think it was glitter lube too. I'm sure Bubba will love that. Bit of colour in an otherwise drab existence.

TopHatter
12 Feb 16,, 17:03
Also, unless public safety is at risk never cut off their communication flow with the outside world , let them preach and rant to their hearts content. These clowns do more harm to their cause every time they open their mouths than any number of official press conferences by public officials could hope to achieve.

Agreed...the crazy just comes vomiting out like a amateur drinker after an all-night bender.


I can certainly think of a few folk I encounter online who will be let down. After idiot tarpman committed suicide by cop they were jumping up & down about 'ethnic cleansing' etc. As you point out, the Feds have become better at this sort of thing since the 90s and loss of life was minimal. Maybe a few police departments could follow their lead. Monash makes a good point that ties in with yours - let these folk talk to the outside world to the extent it is safe to do so. They do more to undermine their cause than a legion of sane people criticizing them could ever do.

Yep...sure is hard to convince people of "ethnic cleansing" when the body count is a grand total of one.

Parihaka
12 Feb 16,, 20:58
agreed...the crazy just comes vomiting out like a amateur drinker after an all-night bender.

like

Bigfella
12 Feb 16,, 23:11
Yep...sure is hard to convince people of "ethnic cleansing" when the body count is a grand total of one.

NO! NO! its the START of ethic cleansing. Don't you see it! Has the government blinded you so much that you don't understand what is happening! It always starts with one person!!!. First they came for the ranchers, but I did nothing because I wasn't a rancher.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

....OK, that was the satire, this is the real thing, posted in the wake of the Finnicum 'execution':


What is so strange?
The language being tossed around these days is identical to what was used prior to the Armenian Genocide, Rwanda, what was attempted in Bosnia/Croatia and a host of others.
First you dehumanize the enemy, justify the future corse of action with inflammatory language, and then take that action.

This guy actually made an attempt to get to the Bundy Ranch last year, but only got half way before it ended (much to the amusement of many). he didn't go this time, but this is the general tone. I find him funny because the Pacific Ocean affords me the luxury. Given that he is well armed and lives in America, you might find him less amusing.

Funny thing is that he is always one of the first to justify police shooting unarmed black guys. Of course, they are 'thugs'.

Parihaka
09 Mar 16,, 19:51
The buildup and shooting from inside the cab


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cwwc_vVEkk

antimony
09 Mar 16,, 20:07
The buildup and shooting from inside the cab


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cwwc_vVEkk

I can clearly see him reach inside his jacket at 5:42

Albany Rifles
09 Mar 16,, 20:10
Cover up? Really?!?!

The ass hat tried to crash through a road block after running away from police. He then got out of the car and refused to show his hands as he advanced towards a police officer.

They are lucky the state police didn't just light up the truck as they approached at high speed.

When there is a warrant out for your arrest you don't get to say which law enforcement official you want get arrested by. If he insisted on that sheriff then he should have had an attorney contact OSP, the state's attorney and that sheriff and arranged for it.

Parihaka
09 Mar 16,, 21:28
The conspiracy theorists are now full out, hence the graphics on the clip. Couldn't find a clip without the 'proves cover up' schtick.

Bigfella
11 Mar 16,, 03:41
Cover up? Really?!?!

The ass hat tried to crash through a road block after running away from police. He then got out of the car and refused to show his hands as he advanced towards a police officer.

They are lucky the state police didn't just light up the truck as they approached at high speed.

When there is a warrant out for your arrest you don't get to say which law enforcement official you want get arrested by. If he insisted on that sheriff then he should have had an attorney contact OSP, the state's attorney and that sheriff and arranged for it.

The guy spent most of the last 6 minutes of his life yelling at LEOs to shoot him. First at the stop, then at the roadblock he tried to run. In fact, at the moment he is reaching for his waistband he is yelling the same thing. On the back of his internet declarations that is rolled gold suicide by cop. I'm amazed more shots weren't fired, given the people in the truck were known to be armed. Once it stopped they just lobbed gas rounds - the right decision.

Not exactly the 'final solution'. Just some very luck extremists.

Albany Rifles
11 Mar 16,, 15:09
The conspiracy theorists are now full out, hence the graphics on the clip. Couldn't find a clip without the 'proves cover up' schtick.

Well they can get in line with the folks who believe in the Trilateral Commission, the Second Shooter and Elvisisstillalive folks.

Asshats.

I am not a big fan of the death penalty...but I perhaps could be convinced of euthanasia....

Officer of Engineers
11 Mar 16,, 15:27
Well they can get in line with the folks who believe in the Trilateral Commission, the Second Shooter and Elvisisstillalive folks.

Asshats.

I am not a big fan of the death penalty...but I perhaps could be convinced of euthanasia....Strong argument for putting them out of my misery.

Parihaka
28 Oct 16,, 05:58
and there you go


Bundy brothers found not guilty of conspiracy in Oregon militia standoff (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/27/oregon-militia-standoff-bundy-brothers-not-guilty-trial)