Bundy ranch situation in Nevada

[TheSanityAnnex]

I either know or I do not and you knowing is besides the point. Now go play in traffic.

You were so sure you knew what happened earlier and claimed such. Were you lying? One can live with being an asshole but to be an asshole and a liar? I pity you.

[boutons_deux]

btw, OWS dissenters are still being tried, forced to accept felony charges, long probations, pay legal fees, while this asshole and his impromptu terrorist/"patriot" armed militia walk around free.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You were so sure you knew what happened earlier and claimed such. Were you lying? One can live with being an asshole but to be an asshole and a liar? I pity you.

You really are too stupid to figure it out. This is true on many levels. More posturing such as above will be interpreted as more monkey dancing. Watching you flail around is amusing.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Why are you backing away from this statement now?


You are so full of shit. They went for a pass on people that were advertising their multiple accounts. All manner of accounts were banned and you were an asshat that advertised who your trolls are. I am not stupid and mine are still good. Critical thinking.

I find it amusing that you are now wishing me death a bit more discreetly with "DIAF" and "play in traffic". You should probably go back and delete your 2 previous posts where you specifically state you want someone to kill me, even if they were just made in jest. Wouldn't want that those quotes to be read by a few certain people, could get you in to some trouble.

And some advice for the future. Next time someone angers you so much on the Internet that you wish they were dead, try taking a deep breath and logging of your computer for a few days. Go outside and enjoy nature. Eat some pussy or suck a dick, whatever satisfies you. Do whatever you have to do to rid yourself of your psychotic thoughts.

[TSA]

FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE - BUNDY RANGE WAR - 4-25-14

We are trading one form of slavery for another.

What I am saying is that all we Americans are trading one form of slavery for another. All of us are in some measure slaves of the federal government. Through their oppressive tactics of telling the ranchers how many cows they can have on their land, and making that number too low to support a ranch, the BLM has driven every rancher in Clark County off the land, except me. The IRS keeps the people of America in fear, and makes us all work about a third or a half of the year before we have earned enough to pay their taxes. This is nothing but slavery from January through May. The NSA spies on us and collects our private phone calls and emails. And the government dole which many people in America are on, and have been for much of their lives, is dehumanizing and degrading. It takes away incentive to work and self respect. Eventually a person on the dole becomes a ward of the government, because his only source of income is a dole from the government. Once the government has you in that position, you are its slave.

I am trying to keep Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream alive. He was praying for the day when he and his people would be free, and he could say I’m free, free at last, thank God I’m free at last! But all of us here America, no matter our race, are having our freedom eroded and destroyed by the federal government because of its heavy handed tactics. The BLM, the IRS, the NSA--all of the federal agencies are destroying our freedom. I am standing up against their bad and unconstitutional laws, just like Rosa Parks did when she refused to sit in the back of the bus. She started a revolution in America, the civil rights movement, which freed the black people from much of the oppression they were suffering. I'm saying Martin Luther King's dream was not that Rosa could take her rightful seat in the front of the bus, but his dream was that she could take any seat on the bus and I would be honored to sit beside her. I am doing the same thing Rosa Parks did--I am standing up against bad laws which dehumanize us and destroy our freedom. Just like the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord, we are saying no to an oppressive government which considers us to be slaves rather than free men.

I invite all people in America to join in our peaceful revolution to regain our freedom. That is how America was started, and we need to keep that tradition alive.

Cliven D. Bundy

[TSA]

https://m.facebook.com/panthers4bundy?id=430498607094799&_rdr

Black Panthers for Bundy

[ChumpDumper]

Password mysteriously changed this morning. PM following asking to not discuss this further. Anyone else?

FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE - BUNDY RANGE WAR - 4-25-14

We are trading one form of slavery for another.

What I am saying is that all we Americans are trading one form of slavery for another. All of us are in some measure slaves of the federal government. Through their oppressive tactics of telling the ranchers how many cows they can have on their land, and making that number too low to support a ranch, the BLM has driven every rancher in Clark County off the land, except me. The IRS keeps the people of America in fear, and makes us all work about a third or a half of the year before we have earned enough to pay their taxes. This is nothing but slavery from January through May. The NSA spies on us and collects our private phone calls and emails. And the government dole which many people in America are on, and have been for much of their lives, is dehumanizing and degrading. It takes away incentive to work and self respect. Eventually a person on the dole becomes a ward of the government, because his only source of income is a dole from the government. Once the government has you in that position, you are its slave.

I am trying to keep Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream alive. He was praying for the day when he and his people would be free, and he could say I’m free, free at last, thank God I’m free at last! But all of us here America, no matter our race, are having our freedom eroded and destroyed by the federal government because of its heavy handed tactics. The BLM, the IRS, the NSA--all of the federal agencies are destroying our freedom. I am standing up against their bad and unconstitutional laws, just like Rosa Parks did when she refused to sit in the back of the bus. She started a revolution in America, the civil rights movement, which freed the black people from much of the oppression they were suffering. I'm saying Martin Luther King's dream was not that Rosa could take her rightful seat in the front of the bus, but his dream was that she could take any seat on the bus and I would be honored to sit beside her. I am doing the same thing Rosa Parks did--I am standing up against bad laws which dehumanize us and destroy our freedom. Just like the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord, we are saying no to an oppressive government which considers us to be slaves rather than free men.

I invite all people in America to join in our peaceful revolution to regain our freedom. That is how America was started, and we need to keep that tradition alive.

Cliven D. BundyWow!

Bundy took over TSA'a account!

Alert the blogosphere!

[boutons_deux]

FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE - BUNDY RANGE WAR - 4-25-14

We are trading one form of slavery for another.

What I am saying is that all we Americans are trading one form of slavery for another. All of us are in some measure slaves of the federal government. Through their oppressive tactics of telling the ranchers how many cows they can have on their land, and making that number too low to support a ranch, the BLM has driven every rancher in Clark County off the land, except me. The IRS keeps the people of America in fear, and makes us all work about a third or a half of the year before we have earned enough to pay their taxes. This is nothing but slavery from January through May. The NSA spies on us and collects our private phone calls and emails. And the government dole which many people in America are on, and have been for much of their lives, is dehumanizing and degrading. It takes away incentive to work and self respect. Eventually a person on the dole becomes a ward of the government, because his only source of income is a dole from the government. Once the government has you in that position, you are its slave.

I am trying to keep Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream alive. He was praying for the day when he and his people would be free, and he could say I’m free, free at last, thank God I’m free at last! But all of us here America, no matter our race, are having our freedom eroded and destroyed by the federal government because of its heavy handed tactics. The BLM, the IRS, the NSA--all of the federal agencies are destroying our freedom. I am standing up against their bad and unconstitutional laws, just like Rosa Parks did when she refused to sit in the back of the bus. She started a revolution in America, the civil rights movement, which freed the black people from much of the oppression they were suffering. I'm saying Martin Luther King's dream was not that Rosa could take her rightful seat in the front of the bus, but his dream was that she could take any seat on the bus and I would be honored to sit beside her. I am doing the same thing Rosa Parks did--I am standing up against bad laws which dehumanize us and destroy our freedom. Just like the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord, we are saying no to an oppressive government which considers us to be slaves rather than free men.

I invite all people in America to join in our peaceful revolution to regain our freedom. That is how America was started, and we need to keep that tradition alive.

Cliven D. Bundy

listen to 1 minute of Bundy's pititful attempt at speech, and you know he didn't write that. And whoever did write it, wouldn't write it if a Repug were President.

[ElNono]

proclaim to start a 'peaceful' revolution against government and that gets you off the hook of what you owe? :lol

He should talk to Wesley Snipes, he has experience on how that works out...

[Th'Pusher]

FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE - BUNDY RANGE WAR - 4-25-14

We are trading one form of slavery for another.

What I am saying is that all we Americans are trading one form of slavery for another. All of us are in some measure slaves of the federal government. Through their oppressive tactics of telling the ranchers how many cows they can have on their land, and making that number too low to support a ranch, the BLM has driven every rancher in Clark County off the land, except me. The IRS keeps the people of America in fear, and makes us all work about a third or a half of the year before we have earned enough to pay their taxes. This is nothing but slavery from January through May. The NSA spies on us and collects our private phone calls and emails. And the government dole which many people in America are on, and have been for much of their lives, is dehumanizing and degrading. It takes away incentive to work and self respect. Eventually a person on the dole becomes a ward of the government, because his only source of income is a dole from the government. Once the government has you in that position, you are its slave.

I am trying to keep Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream alive. He was praying for the day when he and his people would be free, and he could say I’m free, free at last, thank God I’m free at last! But all of us here America, no matter our race, are having our freedom eroded and destroyed by the federal government because of its heavy handed tactics. The BLM, the IRS, the NSA--all of the federal agencies are destroying our freedom. I am standing up against their bad and unconstitutional laws, just like Rosa Parks did when she refused to sit in the back of the bus. She started a revolution in America, the civil rights movement, which freed the black people from much of the oppression they were suffering. I'm saying Martin Luther King's dream was not that Rosa could take her rightful seat in the front of the bus, but his dream was that she could take any seat on the bus and I would be honored to sit beside her. I am doing the same thing Rosa Parks did--I am standing up against bad laws which dehumanize us and destroy our freedom. Just like the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord, we are saying no to an oppressive government which considers us to be slaves rather than free men.

I invite all people in America to join in our peaceful revolution to regain our freedom. That is how America was started, and we need to keep that tradition alive.

Cliven D. Bundy

You got a tea potty boner when you read this didn't you?

[TSA]

https://m.facebook.com/panthers4bundy?id=430498607094799&_rdr

Black Panthers for Bundy

[TSA]

listen to 1 minute of Bundy's pititful attempt at speech, and you know he didn't write that. And whoever did write it, wouldn't write it if a Repug were President.

Ever heard Obama without a teleprompter? Sounds no different. And if Obama doesn't write his own speeches I don't see why you hold Bundy to a higher standard.

[TSA]

You got a tea potty boner when you read this didn't you?

I don't support the tea party so no.

I posted this because it is exactly what I said he was trying to convey when I first heard his badly worded comments in the NYT.

[Shastafarian]

I posted this because it is exactly what I said he was trying to convey when I first heard his badly worded comments in the NYT.

Have you sent an offer to be his speech writer? Maybe chief of staff since you know him so well already.

[TSA]

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/7vnxsc8d6o3pd3gl/images/1-8f083b3338.jpg

http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/7vnxsc8d6o3pd3gl/images/2-925df0f0ac.jpg

Thanks for posting his letter. I posted an article a few pages back discussing this matter in TX/OK. As I've said all along, this whole thing is much much bigger than Bundy.


I'm thankful that Bundy, while technically in the wrong, has put the spotlight on the actions of the unelected crooked officials of the BLM.

[ElNono]

Nevada ‘a side issue’

Asked about Bundy on Thursday, Perry called the Nevada case “a side issue” compared with what’s occurring in Texas.
Meanwhile, Lauren Bean, a spokeswoman for the Texas attorney general’s office, said by email Thursday that Abbott’s letter to the agency was “in no way related to the dispute in Nevada.”
She said that Abbott’s office first received complaints from North Texas constituents about the Red River case and that its staff has been investigating since.

Still, Abbott followed Perry’s comments with a fundraising email Thursday claiming that the federal government is trying to “seize private property” in Texas.
Abbott’s letter noted that the Bureau of Land Management had proposed a scenario whereby 90,000 acres in the area was ceded to the federal government but that doing so would require congressional approval.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/04/25/5766077/perry-abbott-accuse-feds-of-red.html#storylink=cpy

[ElNono]

Then there's the issue of private companies — specifically oil pipeline interests, but also power companies and for-profit toll highway operators — using eminent domain to seize private property, with the state's blessing. In March, the Texas Supreme Court declined to hear a final appeal from northeast Texas landowner Julia Trigg, who refused to sell her land to TransCanada, which used eminent domain to put a leg of the Keystone XL pipeline through her land.

In January, the advocacy group Public Citizen wrote a letter to Abbott that should sound pretty familiar to the attorney general:

As citizens and landowners along the pipeline route, we also are concerned that a foreign company has come to our state, taken private property for corporate profit, and is now planning to operate a pipeline that was found to have a substantial number of potential violations of federal safety regulations. We ask that you, as the attorney general of Texas, use the full arsenal of your constitutional, statutory, and common law powers to protect our property rights and the health and safety of our families. [Public Citizen]

Maybe they should have said they were "deeply concerned."

http://theweek.com/article/index/260388/why-texas-republicans-may-want-to-cool-the-anti-obama-land-grab-talk

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/7vnxsc8d6o3pd3gl/images/1-8f083b3338.jpg

http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/7vnxsc8d6o3pd3gl/images/2-925df0f0ac.jpg

we beat the shit out of the mexicans in the middle of the 19th century and took what is now nevada, utah, arizona, etc for some cash. many of you were taught this several times in the texas school system as it surrounds the formation of our state. the 'first time' that the feds declared it was their land was the treaty of guadalupe hidalgo.

throughout the 19th century there were many homestead acts. most of america is taught this in american history. manifest destiny and all that. those homestead acts were all over with 100 years ago and when in existence they gave small acreages to individuals.

anything not claimed via one of those acts is by default the US federal governments.

this is not the 'first time' the land Bundy is using is been determined to be US land. people seem to construe that because BLM was not around until FDR, suddenly the land prior to that was a free for all. if ti was not claimed during that window then it is still the feds.

the reason why people want to go out to that area now that didn't back then was because of Lake Mead which again was FDR. why do you think they headed out there in the 1940s? ranching in the desert!

[TSA]

For those not wanting to read a drunken lumpkins rant on the TX/OK dispute


http://www.texastribune.org/2014/04/28/blurred-lines-texas-blm-spat-has-complicated-histo/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

For those not wanting to read a drunken lumpkins rant on the TX/OK dispute


http://www.texastribune.org/2014/04/28/blurred-lines-texas-blm-spat-has-complicated-histo/

I don't drink much at all. In the evenings I am likely stoned though. go drink some antifreeze.

[boutons_deux]

Bundy Ranch 'Oath Keepers Lucky They Didn't Get Shot In The Back For Deserting Bundy Battlefield' (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/29/1295445/-Bundy-Ranch-Oath-Keepers-Lucky-They-Didn-t-Get-Shot-In-The-Back-For-Deserting-Bundy-Battlefield)


This is an update to my diary yesterday "Bundy Ranch 'Security Chief' Kicks Oath Keepers off Bundy Ranch." (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/28/1295220/-Bundy-Ranch-Security-Chief-Kicks-Oath-Keepers-OFF-Bundy-Ranch-LMFAO)

The Oath Keepers weren't too happy when the audio video of Booda Bear (within my diary yesterday) was released and Booda Bear said, among other crazy things:

BOODA BEAR: "I can swear on the white skin that covers my ass there will not be an Oath Keeper -- there WILL NOT BE AN OATH KEEPER allowed to set foot on the internal ranch property."(emphasis Booda Bear, not me)


Sh*t got real, as they say, after yesterday's audio/video declaration by Booda Bear, who is "head of security" circulated. Booda Bear's right and left hand dudes, one named Jerry & I don't know the other one's name, were so pissed they charged the Oath Keepers with "stealing' being "deserters," "traitors" and accused them of committing "treason of the highest order" against Bundy Ranch.
In the real world, where we deal in real facts, this is just a pretend war on a pretend battlefield.


UNKNOWN BUNDY SECURITY LEADER: ...these are things you live by our entire lives. You do not ever leave a man behind on the battlefield. You do not ever turn tail and run in the face of danger. You do not ever leave a man behind to fall into the hands of the enemy and you drive on toward the objective even if you are the last man standing. This is [Oath Keepers leaving Bundy Ranch] is desertion. This is dereliction of duty that was done. Ok. ... Let's put this up to a quick vote. Do we all agree this was desertion?They obeyed a command that is outside of the command structure that they had volunteered to fall under. Which means they don't owe their allegiance to the objectives here because those objectives create a platform that the leadership revolves around ... and If they obey outside leadership that's called being a traitor.
(emphasis mine)


Here's when sh*t got real. One of the 3 heads of Bundy Security Detail, the one whose name I don't know, actually said they, the Oath Keepers, are "lucky you're [Oath Keepers] not getting shot in the back" for deserting Bundy "battlefield."


UNKNOWN BUNDY SECURITY LEADER: ".... but this man and the gentlemen that obeyed that order violated my personal creed. You don't fucking walk in and say "I'm sorry' and you're back in brother. You can walk in and say you're sorry and you're lucky you're not getting shot in the back because that's what happens to deserters on the battlefield.

"VOICE IN CROWD: Amen

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/29/1295445/-Bundy-Ranch-Oath-Keepers-Lucky-They-Didn-t-Get-Shot-In-The-Back-For-Deserting-Bundy-Battlefield?detail=email

[monosylab1k]

https://m.facebook.com/panthers4bundy?id=430498607094799&_rdr

Black Panthers for Bundy

:lmao yeah because if SpurTalk has taught us anything, it's that nobody has ever pretended to be a militant black person on the internet.

[boutons_deux]

Ongoing Militia Presence Raises Fears Among Locals Near Bundy Ranch (http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/04/30/ongoing-militia-presence-raises-fears-among-locals-near-bundy-ranch/)

People in rural southeastern Nevada and the surrounding area are not accustomed to being the center of national media attention, as they have increasingly been since their neighbor, rancher Cliven Bundy, began his notorious standoff with federal authorities. But what bothers them now is the threatening presence of armed militiamen who have taken up semi-permanent residency at Bundy’s ranch.

Some local residents, in fact, are complaining that the militiamen are setting up armed checkpoints and detaining people as they travel to their homes, asking for proof that they live nearby before allowing them to proceed. However, the militiamen themselves deny this, and investigating news crews have not found any evidence of it.

What these locals can say with certainty, though, is that the circus surrounding the standoff and the militias’ refusal to leave is not only disrupting their normally quiet lives, it is costing them money.

Congressman Steve Horsford of Las Vegas has been outspoken (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25371465/concerns-growing-about-militia-members-at-bundy-ranch) in criticizing the militiamen, charging that local residents have been confronted by militiamen who have set up armed checkpoints and demanded that they prove they live in the area before being allowed to pass. Horsford also says the militias have created a “persistent presence” along federal highways and state and county roads.

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/04/30/ongoing-militia-presence-raises-fears-among-locals-near-bundy-ranch/

imagine if black or Hispanics did the same. SWAT teams would take them out immediately

[baseline bum]

:lmao yeah because if SpurTalk has taught us anything, it's that nobody has ever pretended to be a militant black person on the internet.

My nigga :lol

[boutons_deux]

How The Cliven Bundy Saga Exposes America's Most Enduring Myth

When the anti-government rancher Cliven Bundy stepped before the cameras to “tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he also stepped into far-reaching and noxious American historical myths about self-sufficiency, race, and rugged individualism. Bundy’s actual words - delivered in a Western drawl by a man in cowboy hat and boots, against a backdrop of sagebrush and desert scenery – were mostly the same old “government makes people dependent” arguments that saturate the right-wing blogosphere and FOX News.

But there was something else embedded in Bundy’s observations about "the Negro" that bears mentioning.

Students of the history of the American West have long known that the strong, rugged individualists that populate our movies, TV shows, and myths always depended on government – to give them ownership of their farms and ranches, to subsidize private corporations like railroads for access to markets, for federal troops for protection from Indians, and federally funded dams and canals for irrigating their fields and sustaining their livestock and towns.

The idea that Bundy’s pioneer ancestors somehow made their fortunes (“built that”) without any help, before the invention of government assistance, the Bureau of Land Management or federal regulations, is preposterous.

Bundy’s claims also echoed Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” remarks to wealthy contributors during the 2012 campaign, when the Republican nominee intimated that nearly half of Americans believe they are victims and entitled to a range of government support to which they have become dependent. But Romney’s division of Americans into “makers” and “takers” gets a lot more complicated if you examine our country’s complex history of clearing, settling and subduing the West.


http://a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/w_652/axrcoag7rfkrbqniqrve.jpg

The question of what to do with the nearly unfathomable bounty of public lands west of the Mississippi River (land both bought and conquered by the United States at the expense of Native Americans) roiled our nation’s politics almost exactly 150 years ago. In May 1862, the first Republican President – Abraham Lincoln – signed the Homestead Act, passed by a Republican Congress only after Southern representatives had resigned their seats and their states seceded from the Union (the legislation was rightly viewed by Southerners as profoundly anti-slavery, since a West settled by independent proprietors would always vote to keep slaveholders out).

The Homestead Act was one of the most far-reaching and important pieces of legislation ever enacted in the United States. It was also undeniably a massive (and successful) social welfare program. It gave an applicant ownership – at no cost! – of farmland made up of 160 acres of undeveloped federal land. The land wasn’t what some on the libertarian right would archly call a “handout”: a would-be homesteader was required to file an application, improve the land by building fences and structures, and, after five years’ residency and toil, file for a permanent deed of title. But it was a government program designed both to settle the West with farmers and ranchers and to dispose of the public lands. “Winners” were undoubtably picked.

In a remarkably bold and broad stroke, homesteads were technically made available to all heads of household who had never taken up arms against the U.S. government, so claimants could include women, immigrants who intended to become citizens, and ex-slaves. Eventually the federal government granted 1.6 million homesteads and distributed 270,000,000 acres (420,000 sq. mi) of federal land for private ownership between 1862 and 1934, a total of 10 percent of all lands in the United States. But as anyone who has read Little House on the Prairie or O Pioneers! knows, making it on the Great Plains or in the Mountain West as a homesteader was difficult work. Blizzards, grasshoppers, withering droughts, financial panics, and plain old bad luck prevented a full 60 percent of those filing claims from successfully “proving up” and taking ownership of their land.
http://a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/w_652/aue0qxoca4iqdaaaprkr.jpg
African American homesteaders

Those who were successful tended not to be the urban working class, formerly-enslaved blacks, or the indigent (the parts of society the originators of the homestead laws had in mind in the 1840s and 50s). Instead, when the program really got going in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was immigrants from Europe who joined farmers from the Ohio and Mississippi valleys in populating the plains and West with homesteads. Making a farm work required significant agricultural know-how, and enough capital to get to your claim, buy seed, acquire tools, and put up a surplus in case of hard times. These factors all discriminated against the extremely poor, which included most people of color.

The government offered several revisions and updates to the original Homestead Act after 1862, including a Southern Homestead Act of 1866 (a failed program intended to turn ex-slaves and sharecroppers into landowners), the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 (enacted to enable dryland farming in the Plains and Mountain West), the Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916 (to allow ranchers 640 acres of land for grazing purposes instead of the normal 160).

In the last century several different models were tried to encourage ranchers like Bundy’s ancestors to use public lands – property owned by all Americans, in common – to graze cattle, including the U.S. Grazing Service (a creation of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934) and today’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), founded in the 1940s. Both federal agencies installed token costs per head of livestock called a grazing fee, and issued grazing permits that were periodically renewed.

Cliven Bundy tore up his grazing permit in 1992 because he disagreed with its terms. Since that time he has grazed his cattle with no permit on government lands. This makes him worse than a “moocher” – it makes him a trespasser, on property that every one of us owns in common.

The two most visible legacies of the Homestead Act and its successors remain our nation’s huge rural middle class and the checkerboard grid of quarter-sections you can see from the window of an airplane flying seven miles up. But a third can be found hidden in our current, still-unresolved debates about race and the role of government.

Jonathan Earle is associate professor of history and director of the University of Kansas’ Honors Program.



http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/cliven-bundy-homestead-act-history (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/cliven-bundy-homestead-act-history)

[boutons_deux]

Who pointed a gun at a government employee?




FBI Finally Show Up! Bundy's Thugs Suddenly Deny They Pointed Weapons at Federal Agents (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/09/1298029/-FBI-Finally-Show-Up-Bundy-s-Thugs-Suddenly-Deny-They-Pointed-Weapons-at-Federal-Agents-LMFAO)


http://images.dailykos.com/images/82904/large/Bundy_thugs_discussing_they're_ready_to_shoot_fed_ agents_TWO.JPG?1399648386\\

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/09/1298029/-FBI-Finally-Show-Up-Bundy-s-Thugs-Suddenly-Deny-They-Pointed-Weapons-at-Federal-Agents-LMFAO

CC's snipers ADMIT ON FACEBOOK they were pointing at the Feds. :lol

If they were black ...

[m>s]

the constitution trumps any bullshit federal laws. we have the right to form militias and the purpose of the militia is to protect against any and all transgressors including the BLM, and a militia without guns and the ability to aim them and use them wouldn't be a militia at all. in saying it's against the law to actually aim your weapons what you're really saying is that the militia itself is in violation of the law...but this is not the way the constitution readss. don't abuse power and break the law in the first place and you won't have guns pointed at you.

[pgardn]

the constitution trumps any bullshit federal laws. we have the right to form militias and the purpose of the militia is to protect against any and all transgressors including the BLM, and a militia without guns and the ability to aim them and use them wouldn't be a militia at all. in saying it's against the law to actually aim your weapons what you're really saying is that the militia itself is in violation of the law...but this is not the way the constitution readss. don't abuse power and break the law in the first place and you won't have guns pointed at you.

A Fckn nazi giving his views on the constitution and militias...

Get serious you fat piece of pansy brautwurst scum.

[ChumpDumper]

the constitution trumps any bullshit federal laws. we have the right to form militias and the purpose of the militia is to protect against any and all transgressors including the BLM, and a militia without guns and the ability to aim them and use them wouldn't be a militia at all. in saying it's against the law to actually aim your weapons what you're really saying is that the militia itself is in violation of the law...but this is not the way the constitution readss. don't abuse power and break the law in the first place and you won't have guns pointed at you.Yeah, the Constitution doesn't mean that at all.

[boutons_deux]

Dozens Of Protesters Ride In Off-Limits UT Canyon

Dozens of people rode their ATVs and motorcycles on an off-limits trail in southern Utah on Saturday in a protest against what the group calls the federal government's overreaching control of public lands.

San Juan County Sheriff Rick Eldredge says from 40 to 50 people drove about a mile down Recapture Canyon near Blanding and then turned around.

BLM Utah State Director Juan Palma, in a statement, says the riders may have damaged artifacts and dwellings that are up to 2,000 years old, and the agency will pursue "all available redress through the legal system" to hold them accountable.

Commissioner Phil Lyman, the protest's organizer, says it was designed to show that the federal agency isn't the "supreme authority" and local residents have a right to have their opinions heard.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/atv-protest-utah?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

Western/red-states, what fucktards.

[angrydude]

So I see this thread is devolving into buttons spam. Nice.

[boutons_deux]

angrydude :lol another asshole with nothing to say

[FuzzyLumpkins]

angrydude :lol another asshole with nothing to say

No he is saying he doesn't appreciate you spamming your shitty sources. That isn't 'nothing.' A lot of people get tired of you spamming your RSS SMS or wherever the fuck else you are spoonfeld your political takes.

[boutons_deux]

No he is saying he doesn't appreciate you spamming your shitty sources. That isn't 'nothing.' A lot of people get tired of you spamming your RSS SMS or wherever the fuck else you are spoonfeld your political takes.

FuzzyBrains still butthurt. :lol

[boutons_deux]

Here come da patriots! yee haw, yawl !!

Fuck the REDSKIN savages' sacred sites and artefacts.

We bring REDNECK CIVILIZATION!

http://www.trbimg.com/img-536eefab/turbine/la-apphoto-aptopix-public-lands-utah-showdown-jpg-20140510/750/16x9


http://www.trbimg.com/img-536ef3bd/turbine/la-apphoto-public-lands-utah-showdown-jpg-20140510/1450/1x1

[Th'Pusher]

Agenda 21 :lol fucking fringe freaks.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

FuzzyBrains still butthurt. :lol

And you have to try and characterize as that why? I am guess it is because you are scared to actually address my point head on.

Why do you use quotes that you know people will not find credible? You are no different than the fools that cite infowars or the like.

Go ahead and run away from that by saying "Fuzzy is mad" or "GFY." At the end of the day, you will still be unable to change a single persons mind.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Federal agents need to start arresting people. If there is a fire fight in the course of said arrests then they simply need not fire first and then unleash hell if the militia fucks start shooting. If they do it publicly and allow the public to see they did not fire first then the fallout will be against the militia groups.

I cannot believe this has gone on this long.

[pgardn]

Then there's the issue of private companies — specifically oil pipeline interests, but also power companies and for-profit toll highway operators — using eminent domain to seize private property, with the state's blessing. In March, the Texas Supreme Court declined to hear a final appeal from northeast Texas landowner Julia Trigg, who refused to sell her land to TransCanada, which used eminent domain to put a leg of the Keystone XL pipeline through her land.

In January, the advocacy group Public Citizen wrote a letter to Abbott that should sound pretty familiar to the attorney general:

As citizens and landowners along the pipeline route, we also are concerned that a foreign company has come to our state, taken private property for corporate profit, and is now planning to operate a pipeline that was found to have a substantial number of potential violations of federal safety regulations. We ask that you, as the attorney general of Texas, use the full arsenal of your constitutional, statutory, and common law powers to protect our property rights and the health and safety of our families. [Public Citizen]

Maybe they should have said they were "deeply concerned."

http://theweek.com/article/index/260388/why-texas-republicans-may-want-to-cool-the-anti-obama-land-grab-talk

So Mr. Abbott does not mind the State seizing property for federal reasons.

No contradiction Mr. Abbott, it's all good.

[pgardn]

Here come da patriots! yee haw, yawl !! Fuck the redskin savages sacred sites and artefects. We bring CIVILIZATION!

http://www.trbimg.com/img-536eefab/turbine/la-apphoto-aptopix-public-lands-utah-showdown-jpg-20140510/750/16x9


http://www.trbimg.com/img-536ef3bd/turbine/la-apphoto-public-lands-utah-showdown-jpg-20140510/1450/1x1

So child safety is a priority I see.
They are selecting themselves out of the gene pool.

[ChumpDumper]

So child safety is a priority I see.Human shields tbh.

[pgardn]

Human shields tbh.

The armor might fall off before the fightn begins.

[Nbadan]

Federal agents need to start arresting people. If there is a fire fight in the course of said arrests then they simply need not fire first and then unleash hell if the militia fucks start shooting. If they do it publicly and allow the public to see they did not fire first then the fallout will be against the militia groups.

I cannot believe this has gone on this long.

some fucktard will start shooting at the feds and then the feds will be shooting at families...that is just what the militias want on-camera ...

[Nbadan]

the ironic thing is that Bundy is a squatter...him and his kin have been mooching off government land for decades...a subsidy or 'entitlement'...he has no 'ancestral rights' to the land...

[boutons_deux]

some update an all y'all's Brother in Arms :lol

Bundy’s land claims were revealed as bogus.

Even though it’s legally irrelevant to owing grazing fees, Cliven Bundy had claimed that he should be exempt, because of “”ancestral rights,” claiming that his family had worked the land since the 1870s, well before the BLM came into existence. But a report from KLAS-TV in Las Vegas (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come-under-scrutin) revealed that even this excuse was pure fabrication on Bundy’s part. His family had actually purchased the land in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt, according to Clark County property records.

Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nevada, sent a letter to Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie, Fox-5 Las Vegas reported (http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/25372237/nv-lawmaker-presses-sheriff-to-probe-bundy-militiamen), concerning the militia members who remained in Bunkerville at and around the Bundy ranch. Horsford cited claims that armed militia members had set up checkpoints where they required residents to prove they live in the area before being allowed to pass, and have also established a presence along highways and roads, as well as in community areas, including churches and schools.

in nearby Mesquite, accord to a report from KLAS-TV (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25383607/businesses-lose-thousands-in-bundy-ordeal), where militiamen reportedly threatened people, and businesses claimed to have lost over $100,000 because of their presence, including a local hotel forced to evacuate all of its clients one evening due to a bomb threat. The hotel also received at least nine threatening calls after it allowed BLM rangers to stay there. If they weren’t kicked out, the callers threatened, the hotel “would not be standing in the morning.”

Violent internal split, with threats of shooting among Bundy supporters:

Apparently, someone within one of the major factions at the camp, the Oath Keepers, relayed word of the imminent drone attack to his leaders. Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes responded by pulling his people out of what they called “the kill zone” (the area the supposed drone would be striking). When the other militiamen learned that the Oath Keepers had pulled out, they were outraged.
As you can see in the video below, the angry militiamen – led by a Montana “Patriot” named Ryan Payne, who has been acting as the spokesman for the militiamen at the ranch – held an impromptu gathering at the camp to discuss the situation. They openly talk about shooting Rhodes and other Oath Keepers leaders – because in their view, the Oath Keepers’ actions constituted “desertion” and “cowardice” – and describe how “the whole thing is falling apart over there.” At the end, they vote unanimously to oust the Oath Keepers, or at least its leadership, from the Bundy Ranch camp.


Law enforcement sources told us that federal officials are preparing to move against Cliven Bundy, but they might wait months until things die down before making their move.
And, on May 8, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bundy-blm/sheriff-fbi-investigating-threats-made-law-enforcement-during-bundy-showdown) that the FBI had opened a criminal investigation as well, according to Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie.


“BLM workers on alert after wrangler threatened with gun on I-15 (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57917374-78/wrangler-blm-reid-pickup.html.csp).” During the incident:

The men, wearing hoods, held up a sign, apparently scrawled on a piece of paper, that read, “You need to die.” One of the men pointed what appeared to be a Glock handgun at the wrangler.
The wrangler tried to make out a license plate number, but the plate had been covered with duct tape, Reid said.

http://www.alternet.org/you-need-die-cliven-bundy-and-violent-militias-still-terrorizing-utah-nevada?akid=11809.187590.dppE7R&rd=1&src=newsletter992577&t=3&paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

If these assholes were black ...

[cantthinkofanything]

^didn't read much past the first few sentences but who gives a fuck
It's great TV.

and riding on the front of a 4 wheeler going a few miles an hour isn't fucking dangerous you pussies

It's not like the fucker is hauling ass doing wheelies up the hill side.

[boutons_deux]

This protest was the brainchild of a public official, San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman, who contends that this town of 3,500 residents has tried hard to compromise with the bureau to reopen scenic Recapture Canyon to all-terrain vehicles. BLM officials banned the vehicles to protect archaeological sites, a move residents say has cheated them out of a prime recreational area.

Unlike in the Bundy incident, no guns were brandished here, but the words were volatile. "If you make a rule that I have to lick your boots," Lyman said of federal officials, "I'm just not going to do that." :lol


"This is not about Recapture. It is not about ATVs. It is not politics, it is not economics," he said. "It is part of who I am. It is part of Blanding, and it is our culture, too. We don't not want to see groups come in and say these trails did not exist ... it was a thoroughfare since the mid-1800s."

Which is about when a big-government program called the U.S. Cavalry came along and cleared out all the natives so that, one day, Phil Lyman could help people dodge taxes and act like a jackass on weekends.

If you vote for Phil Lyman, you are voting for sedition.

If you are Fox News, and you celebrate him, you are celebrating sedition.

It is long past time for the Republican party to fish or cut bait on this end of movement conservatism.

Either support the seditious philosophy of local control (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56976191-78/county-lyman-national-park.html.csp), or oppose it.

But they shouldn't be allowed any more to use its energy during election years and then walk away after the votes are cast.

There far too much loose talk in respectable Republican circles about nullification, secession, and the crackpot theories of county government that used to be the exclusive ideological province of the Posse Comitatus movement.

(There is also too much loose talk about impeachment, too, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of scrod.) Increasingly, there is no apparent fringe to conservative rhetoric, let alone any real limits.

Somebody within that party has to step up and rein this lunacy in, or else embrace it publicly as the party's basic philosophy, or else euphemisms may not be the only things that die in those deserts.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/utah-blm-battle-protest-051214

Have to wonder how much of this bubba bawling, roused rabble, conspiracies, witch hunting, govt defieance would have happened under a Repug WH?

Obviously under Clinton and now The Negro, it's going full blast

[boutons_deux]

BLM Shooting Suspect Was Allegedly Camping Illegally On Federal Land

Brent Douglas Cole, the man accused of shooting a Bureau of Land Management ranger and a California Highway Patrol officer earlier this month in a national forest, was allegedly camping illegally on federal land when the confrontation occurred.

The Sacramento Bee reported (http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/21/6500522/nevada-county-shooting-suspect.html) Saturday that the BLM ranger and the highway patrol officer, who were both wounded, had been investigating Cole's campground when the gunfire erupted. Cole, who was also shot in the incident, is facing charges of attempted murder, according to the Bee.

The law enforcement officers were attempting to tow motorcycles from Cole's campsite immediately preceding the shootout, according to the Bee.
As TPM previously reported (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/brent-douglas-cole-blm-shooting-suspect), Cole has been linked to the "sovereign citizens" movement, which views the federal government as an illegitimate conspiracy.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/brent-douglas-cole-campaing-illegal?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com

[boutons_deux]

OK's weirdest of the weird

Oath Keepers NY official calls on cops to disobey orders, join war vs. socialist tyranny

An official with New York’s Oath Keepers organization (http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_35719.php) denied the group held “far-right, anti-government views,” and then called on law enforcement officers to disobey orders and join them in their fight against socialist tyranny.

t, vice president of the state’s Oath Keepers group, cited an alleged New York State Intelligence Center counterterrorism bulletin reportedly leaked to InfoWars (http://www.infowars.com/leaked-counter-terrorism-bulletin-warns-police-of-impending-far-right-violence/) that linked the organization and similar groups to the recent shootings of law enforcement officers by extremists.

Wallace complains that the document, which has not been confirmed as legitimate, based its conclusions on news reports by “left-wing” and “communist” organizations such as the New York Times, Huffington Post, and CNN.

“How can you be in favor of the Constitution, how can you take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and be a patriot, and be somehow put on a terrorist list made up and manufactured by basically communist organizations?”

The Oath Keepers are primarily made up of current and former law enforcement officers who promise not to enforce laws they deem to be unconstitutional – and they urge others to do the same.

“Should the time ever come when you find yourselves in the streets of our cities or small towns facing your fellow American citizens who are simply exercising their constitutional God-given guaranteed rights to demand that freedom and liberty exist in this state, and we ask you – all the police officers out there – to remember your oath,” Wallace said.

He claimed Gov. Andrew Cuomo had used the intelligence bulletin – if it’s legitimate – to turn “hundreds of thousands” of “peaceable” New Yorkers into criminals “with the stroke of a pen.”

etc. etc. etc

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/23/oath-keepers-chief-calls-on-cops-to-disobey-orders-in-war-against-socialist-tyranny/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com

[boutons_deux]

Fun Times with Cliven Bundy

The Nevada Sheriff who played the role of intermediary between Cliven Bundy and the BLM says the BLM's tactics helped escalate the crisis. But this quote also gives some sense of the frustrations inherent in trying to deal with Mr. Bundy ...

"My counsel (to Bundy) was:

You have no legal standing; you choose not to go to federal court and argue your case," Gillespie said. "But he would not recognize the federal government.

So dealing with him wasn't making a lot of success."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/fun-times-with-cliven-bundy?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

Feds should give Bundy's $M bill to a collection agency, or maybe Dog The Bounty Hunter, or Lizard Lick.

[boutons_deux]

BIG MISTAKE for Feds to have backed down from Bundy's gunslingers, now we get more Bundy Buttholes

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/article_imgs12/012964-idaho-river-070314.jpg

Miners dredge protected Idaho river in protest of federal oversight

Protesters gathered to illegally dredge for gold on Tuesday in an Idaho river where such mining is banned, in an open challenge to the U.S. government's authority to regulate public waters and lands in Western states, an organizer said.

Six of nearly 60 miners at the rally were using portable pumps and hoses to collect gravel and sand from the streambed of a stretch of the federally protected Salmon River, which is closed to suction dredging and other mining by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to protect imperiled fish.

"It's a matter of states' rights," Organizer John Crossman, head of the Southwest Idaho Mining Association in Boise, said in a telephone interview in which he described as overreach a recent rule by the EPA requiring permits to mine rivers in mostly Western states.

"This is the United States of America, not the 'United State' of America. The feds can't come in here like storm troopers and start running our lands and rivers," he added.

The week-long demonstration in Idaho by a group of self-styled constitutionalists will be capped on by an Independence Day rally in Riggins to denounce what Crossman termed "government tyranny."

The miners at the protest near the town of Riggins said they hadn't sought permits to suction dredge in the river, required under the federal Clean Water Act, because they don't recognize the EPA's regulatory powers.

The EPA said in a statement it respects the rights of citizens to peacefully protest on federal lands but added dredging the Salmon could harm habitat for species like Chinook salmon protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, and violating federal law.

http://news.yahoo.com/miners-dredge-protected-idaho-river-protest-federal-oversight-220729993.html

Will White Right-wing, Repug Terrorists, Oath Keepers, gun fellators, sovereign assholes, etc show up with guns?

[m>s]

The ship has already set sail on this one, what else were they going to do engage in a shoot out with the bundy protesters and REALLY get shit started? The failures of 60 years of liberal politics are coming home to roost and there's nothing you or they can do to stop it. There will be more standoffs, we'll take back more rights, and that's whether they want to do the right thing and give them back or if we have to go and take them ourselves.

[m>s]

I'll be spending the 4th of July today out on a ranch firing the Barrett 50 cal anti communist rifle, what are you metrosexual pantywaists going to do about it?

[boutons_deux]

Sheriff, feds: Rancher must be held accountable

U.S. Bureau of Land Management officials say they agree with a Nevada sheriff's position that rancher Cliven Bundy must be held accountable for his role in an April standoff between his supporters and the federal agency.



Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie said Bundy crossed the line when he allowed states' rights supporters, including self-proclaimed militia members, onto his property to aim guns at police.

"If you step over that line, there are consequences to those actions," Gillespie told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. "And I believe they stepped over that line. No doubt about it. They need to be held accountable for it."

Bureau spokeswoman Celia Boddington, in a statement released Saturday to The Associated Press, said the agency continues to pursue the matter "aggressively through the legal system."

"There is an ongoing investigation and we are working diligently to ensure that those who broke the law are held accountable," she said, declining to elaborate.

The FBI declined comment Saturday on its investigation. Bundy did not respond to a request for comment.

The Bureau of Land Management says Bundy owes over $1 million in fees and penalties for trespassing on federal property without a permit over 20 years. Bundy, whose ancestors settled in the area in the late 1800s, refuses to acknowledge federal authority on public lands.

A federal judge in Las Vegas first ordered Bundy in 1998 to remove "trespass cattle" from land the bureau declared a refuge for the endangered desert tortoise. Bureau officials obtained court orders last year allowing the roundup.

Boddington disputed Gillespie's contention the agency mishandled the roundup of Bundy's cattle 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

The bureau backed down during the showdown with Bundy and his armed supporters, citing safety concerns, and released some 380 Bundy cattle collected during a weeklong operation from a vast arid range half the size of the state of Delaware.

Gillespie blamed the bureau for escalating the conflict and ignoring his advice to delay the roundup after he had a confrontational meeting with Bundy's children a few weeks before it began.

"I came back from that saying, 'This is not the time to do this,' " the sheriff told the Review-Journal. "They said, 'We do this all the time. We know what we're doing. We hear what you're saying, but we're moving forward.'"

Tensions further escalated early in the roundup after a video showed one of Bundy's sons being stunned with a Taser. The video drew militia members and others to Bundy's ranch.

Bundy was not a hardened criminal, Gillespie told the newspaper. He was a rancher who stopped paying his fees, the sheriff said, and that was not worth risking violence.

http://m.sfgate.com/news/science/article/Sheriff-feds-Rancher-must-be-held-accountable-5602089.php

[boutons_deux]

threatening armed violence on govt officials for political objectives is terrorism. lock the dickless gun fellators up.

kids get suspended from kindergarten for point finger guns, or drawings.

[m>s]

kids get suspended from kindergarten for point finger guns, or drawings.

and that's exactly what is wrong with this country. hang federal officials who walk all over the constitution and hang all supporters of ZOG.

[m>s]

lol raging homosexual stalker is back

[pgardn]

I'll be spending the 4th of July today out on a ranch firing the Barrett 50 cal anti communist rifle, what are you metrosexual pantywaists going to do about it?

Specific for communists, cool.

What caliber of weapon was dropped on Dresden, ya Nazi fuck?

[Winehole23]

I'll be spending the 4th of July today out on a ranch firing the Barrett 50 cal anti communist rifle, what are you metrosexual pantywaists going to do about it?Ate BBQ, drank beer and blew up fireworks.

Did you shoot any Communists, or were you just fantasizing?

[Winehole23]

superpatriots itching for another armed standoff with the Feds threaten a local sheriff for refusing to help:

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/12/militiamen_ranchers_in_showdow.html

[Winehole23]

three of Cliven Bundy's sons seize federal building in OR:

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html#incart_big-photo

[baseline bum]

I hope they get their wish of martyrdom.

[boutons_deux]

If they were unarmed Black Panthers, OWS, BlackLivesMatter ....?

No worries, mate, their white male privilege will protect the armed white terrorists.

[ElNono]

I hope they get their wish of martyrdom.

Got them all in one spot, this is what carpet bombing was made for...

[TheSanityAnnex]

superpatriots itching for another armed standoff with the Feds threaten a local sheriff for refusing to help:

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/12/militiamen_ranchers_in_showdow.html
There is no armed standoff.

"There is absolutely no armed standoff," she wrote. "They want us to know: They are simply occupying land and a building owned by 'We The People.' Our tax dollars. And that for them, this is a civil peaceful protest."
Law enforcement has so far not engaged protesters.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/oregon_militants_in_high_spiri.html#incart_most-commented_portland_article

[TheSanityAnnex]

(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail that would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for 6 days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Much of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury. For example, Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings that the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.

[ElNono]

(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail that would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for 6 days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Much of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury. For example, Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings that the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.

There's a legal remedy for that, it's called an appeal.

We moved on from duels and other armed bullshit to adjudicate justice 100+ years ago.

It ain't coming back either...

[boutons_deux]

‘I didn’t come here to shoot, I came here to die’: Oregon militia occupiers fess up to local reporters

Amanda Peacher (https://twitter.com/amandapeacher)
(https://twitter.com/amandapeacher)✔@amandapeacher (https://twitter.com/amandapeacher)

"I didn't come here to shoot I came here to die."#bundymilitia (https://twitter.com/hashtag/bundymilitia?src=hash), (will ID only as "Capt. Moroni")

According to Jason Wilson, (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/03/oregon-militia-threatens-showdown-with-us-agents-at-wildlife-refuge?CMP=share_btn_tw) who drove in from Portland to cover the stand-off for theGuardian, “There were no law enforcement agents visible in the area around the refuge. A man with a goatee beard and wraparound sunglasses stood guard, armed with an AR-15-style rifle, and refused entry to the federally owned facility.”
“He declined to give his name or affiliation, citing ‘operational security,'” :lol Wilson wrote.

“He did confirm, however, that the men – several of whom were openly carrying assault weapons – would be camping on the site.

‘This public land belongs to we the people,’ he said. :lol

‘We’ll be here enjoying the snow and the scenery.’”
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/i-didnt-come-here-to-shoot-i-came-here-to-die-oregon-militia-occupiers-fess-up-to-local-reporters/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

goddam, these gun fellatin, paranoid assholes are confused, deluded. self-aggrandizing sickos.

[boutons_deux]

As The Bundy Brothers Occupy Federal Building, Here Are The GOP Candidates Who Supported Their Dad

Candidates who strongly supported Bundy

Rand Paul

Sen. Paul was one of the earliest endorsers of Cliven Bundy, telling Fox News in 2014 (http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/18/after-domestic-terrorist-remark-rand-paul-urges-harry-reid-to-calm-the-rhetoric-on-cliven-bundy/), “There is a legitimate constitutional question here about whether the state should be in charge of endangered species or whether the federal government should be.”

He rejected classifying Bundy and his gun-toting supporters as domestic terrorists, urging Sen. Harry Reid and others who used the term to “calm the rhetoric.”

Paul also personally met with the rancher (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rand-paul-cliven-bundy-meeting-119576) for about 45 minutes during a campaign stop last June, when he two “mainly discussed federal land oversight and states’ rights, in addition to education policy,” according to Politico. One of Bundy’s sons was reportedly also present during the encounter, although it’s unclear which one.

Despite Paul’s support, however, Bundy wasn’t impressed with the senator’s support for groups such as the American Lands Council, which raises money to buy land from the federal government and return it to the states.

“I disagree with that philosophy,” Bundy said. “My stand is we are already a sovereign state. The federal government doesn’t need to turn this land back to us. It’s already state land. I don’t want to sell this land to private ownership, because I believe I already have stewardship…I don’t claim ownership. I claim rights.”

He added, “I educated Rand on that point.”

Ted Cruz

In April 2014, Cruz aligned himself (http://www.mediaite.com/online/cruz-bundy-standoff-culmination-of-obamas-jackboot-of-authoritarianism/) with Bundy’s core complaint — government overreach — and called the standoff “the unfortunate and tragic culmination of the path that President Obama has set the federal government on.”

Ben Carson

Carson was a vocal supporter (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/flashback-ben-carson-hailed-cliven-bundy-and-militia-members-outstanding-people) of Bundy, saying he and the militia members who stood with him were “pretty upstanding people.” He also outlined a dystopian vision for the future that closely mirrors conspiracy theories embraced by branches of the radical right.

“But the fact of the matter is if you look back through history, what our government is doing is not unprecedented by any stretch of the imagination. It always starts like this, and freedom is not free — and there may come a time when people have to actually stand up against the government,” Carson said. “I hope that doesn’t happen.”

Candidates who broadly supported Bundy’s cause

Donald Trump

While appearing on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show in April 2014, Trump expressed sympathy (https://grabien.com/story.php?id=7501) for Bundy, saying, “I like him, I like his spirit, his spunk and the people that are so loyal…I respect him.”

Trump stopped short of uniformly endorsing Bundy’s resistance to the government, however, noting, “You do have laws in the country and you know, if everybody did what he’s doing, where does it all go?” Instead, Trump saw the protest as an opportunity for the rancher to “cut a deal” with the government.

“He’s in a great position to cut a great deal and I think that’s what he should do,” he said.

Meanwhile, Bundy himself is a Trump supporter (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/man-behind-donald-trump-run-lewandowski-120443).

Mike Huckabee

Huckabee addressed the Bundy standoff (http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4496760/mike-huckabee-talks-cliven-bundy) while speaking at the conservative Freedom Summit in April 2014. He insisted that he didn’t want address Bundy’s specific grievances about land usage, explaining, “I’m not here to jump in to the middle of whether Cliven Bundy ought to pay the state or pay anybody for the chance for his cows to eat some grass.”

But Huckabee did criticize the federal government taking action to enforce the law.

“There is something wrong when a government believes that some blades of grass that a cow is eating is so…an egregious affront to the government of the United States that we would literally put a gun in a citizen’s face and threaten to shoot him over it,” Huckabee said, drawing applause from the crowd.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/01/03/3735627/gop-candidates-who-supported-cliven-bundy/

[boutons_deux]

The Feds backed down, wimped out on free-rider/moocher Bundy, so now they have more assholes terrorizing US govt property.

[TheSanityAnnex]

There's a legal remedy for that, it's called an appeal.

We moved on from duels and other armed bullshit to adjudicate justice 100+ years ago.

It ain't coming back either...
It was appealed to the Supreme Court which refused to hear it meaning 9th circuit ruling stands. The whole militia thing is stupid, and the Hammonds don't even want them there, but I don't doubt the Hammonds were fucked with royally by the Feds leading up to all of this.

[TheSanityAnnex]

The Feds backed down, wimped out on free-rider/moocher Bundy, so now they have more assholes terrorizing US govt property.
It's entertaining watching you bitch and moan about an overreaching government in one thread and lick the boots of an overreaching government in another.

[Clipper Nation]

Radical Islamic terrorists go on a killing spree: "Blame the NRA and all conservatives! It's not terrorism! #NotAllMuslims #RefugeesWelcome"

A couple white inbreds squat in some shack in the woods: "Jail those terrorists! Traitors!"

[ElNono]

It was appealed to the Supreme Court which refused to hear it meaning 9th circuit ruling stands. The whole militia thing is stupid, and the Hammonds don't even want them there, but I don't doubt the Hammonds were fucked with royally by the Feds leading up to all of this.

I'm no fan of how things are relatively tilted toward prosecutors and the criminal system is certainly not all roses, but they had their day in court, apparently more than once. Furthermore they appear willing to surrender to authorities.

[boutons_deux]

It's entertaining watching you bitch and moan about an overreaching government in one thread and lick the boots of an overreaching government in another.

it's hilarious to see your fucked up takes, GFY

[TheSanityAnnex]

I'm no fan of how things are relatively tilted toward prosecutors and the criminal system is certainly not all roses, but they had their day in court, apparently more than once. Furthermore they appear willing to surrender to authorities.
The Hammonds have been fucked with by the Feds for 50 years, sounds like they just want it to be over.

HISTORY: (aa) The Harney Basin (were the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.
(ab) In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
(a) In 1964 the Hammonds purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.
(a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.

(a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told that, “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”. 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.
(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentional diverted the water to bypassing the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede and now the once thriving privately owned Silvies pains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.
(a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers that still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling fact about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study that was done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed that the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed that the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced 4 times more ducks and geese than the refuge did. It also showed that the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.
(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out that the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive towards the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found that the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*
(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.
(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.
(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds intended to still use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.
(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.
(g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sale their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later.
(h) The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.
(i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries.
(j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.
(j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff’s office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined that the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.
(k) In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges, they accused them of being “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death. Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over the news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”. Susan Hammond (Wife & Mother) said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me”.
(l) Shortly after the sentencing, Capital Press ran a story about the Hammonds. A person who identified as Greg Allum posted three comments on the article, calling the ranchers “clowns” who endangered firefighters and other people in the area while burning valuable rangeland. Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, soon called Capital Press to complain that he had not made those comments and request that they be taken down from the website. Capital Press removed the comments. A search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments revealed it is owned by the BLM’s office in Denver, Colorado. Allum said, he is friends with the Hammonds and was alerted to the comments by neighbors who knew he wouldn’t have written them. “I feel bad for them. They lost a lot and they’re going to lose more,” Allum said of the ranchers. “They’re not terrorists. There’s this hatred in the BLM for them, and I don’t get it,” The retired BLM employee said. Jody Weil, deputy state director for communications at BLM’s Oregon office, indicated to reporters that if one of their agents falsified the comments, they would keep it private and not inform the public.
(m) In September 2006, Dwight & Susan Hammond’s home was raided. The agents informed the Hammonds that they were looking for evidence that would connect them to the fires. The Hammonds later found out that a boot print and a tire tracks were found near one of the many fires. No matching boots or tires were found in the Hammonds home or on their property. Susan Hammond (Wife) later said; ” I have never felt so violated in my life. We are ranchers not criminals”. Steven Hammond openly maintains his testimony that he started the backfire to save the winter grass from being destroyed and that the backfire ended up working so well it put out the fire entirely altogether.
(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail that would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for 6 days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Much of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury. For example, Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings that the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.
(o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.
(p) Judge Michael Hogan & Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how the land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton everyday. Some drove more than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home.
On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict. Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision. Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual that has convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area, influenced by the prosecutors for 6 straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, made a verdict and went home.
(q) June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were found guilty of starting both the 2001 and the 2006 fires by the jury. However, the federal courts convicted them both as “Terrorist” under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. They were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Hogan overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commenting that if the full five years were required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The day of the sentencing Judge Hogan retired as a federal judge. In his honor the staff served chocolate cake in the courtroom.
(r) On January 4,, 2013, Dwight and Steven reported to prison. They fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months). Dwight was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014.
(s) Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM, and her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank Papagni exemplifying further vindictive behavior by filing an appeal with the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight’s and Steven’s return to federal prison for the entire 5 years.*
(t) In October 2015, the 9th District Court “resentenced” Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years. Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children. Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74) to be alone after 55 years of marriage. If he survives, he will be 79 when he is released.
(u) During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.
(v) Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their re-sentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them.
To date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of this year (2015). If the Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution. (more citations here) (http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/facts-events-in-hammond-case.html)


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/

[TheSanityAnnex]

The latest scene involved two ranchers being sentenced to five years in federal prison for inadvertantly burning about 140 acres of BLM rangeland in two separate fires, years ago. That is an area big enough to feed about three cow-calf pairs for a year in that neck of the woods.
Dwight, 73 and son Steven, 46, admitted in a 2012 court case, to lighting two different fires. Both fires started on Hammonds’ private property. 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 “back burn” fire break worked and protected the Hammond’s ranch. BLM firefighters saw the back-burn and called it into their headquarters as an “arson.”
Sadly, wind drove the back-burn onto federal land, on which the Hammonds paid for grazing rights. Despite this, the US Attorney for Oregon prosecuted the two men, saying they committed arson against federal property along with nine other charges. The jury convicted the men of only two charges, starting the fires they readily admitted to starting.
Arson against federal property calls for a mandatory minimum sentence of five years prison. The Hammonds argued that such minimum mandatory sentences were unconstitutional and a judge agreed. He sentenced the two men to LESS than the five years. Not satisfied, the US Attorney appealed and the Ninth US Circuit ordered the District Court to re-sentence the men in accordance with the statute.
The fires
The first, 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.
Dwight’s wife Susan shared some crucial details in an exclusive interview with SuperStation95.
“They called and got permission to light the fire,” she 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 would be a problem.” Susan said her son Steven was told that the BLM was conducting a burn of their own somewhere in the region that very same day, but that they believed there would be no problem with the Hammonds going ahead with their planned fire. The court transcript includes the same information in a recording from that phone conversation.
In cross-examination of a prosecution witness, the court transcript also includes admission from Mr. Ward, a range conservationist that the 2001 fire improved the rangeland conditions on BLM.
Maupin, a former range technician and watershed specialist 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 the woman whose family also 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.
Susan said the second fire, in 2006, was a backfire started by Steven to protect their property from lightening 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. “Lightening strikes were everywhere, fires were going off,” she 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.
After 34 years working for the U.S. Forest Service in Oregon, Rusty Inglis resigned from his position with the federal government and now ranches about 40 miles from the Hammonds and is unique in the area – he has no federal land permits and operates strictly on private land.
“The Hammond family is not arsonists. They are number one, top notch. They know their land management.”
Charges
The Hammonds were charged with 9 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 with 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 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 killed about 65 cows.
A youtube.com 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.
Two South Dakota prescribed burns, ignited by the U.S. Forest Service, blew out of control, burning thousands of acres of federal and private land in 2013. Ranchers that suffered extensive property damage from the Perkins County, South Dakota, “Pautre fire,” filed 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 breathtaking 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 the anti-grazing groups to create a 170,000 acre wilderness, with almost 100,000 acres being “cow-free.”
“The last holdouts on that cow-free wilderness were the Hammonds,” explained Maupin. And because the Hammonds have large chunks of private property in the heart of the cooperative management area, they carried a target on their backs.
“It’s become more and more obvious over the years that that the BLM and the wildlife refuge want that ranch. It would tie in with what they have,” said Inglis.
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, building 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 land and BLM leases, 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 are sheduled to turn themselves in for their prison sentences next week but there is a severe Constitutional problem with their entire case: The federal government is not authorized to own or manage the land involved in this affair! Thus, it was patently illegal for the feds to have ever prosecuted these men and thrown them in jail. Even worse, after the men served their sentences, the government came back to court to have them jailed LONGER! That’s what is set to begin this coming week! THAT is why the militia is stepping-up; because the feds are running roughshod over the Constitution. They are exercising power they do not have and ignoring the constitution. Some view the federal government as having become tyrants.
The Hammond family has sold their cattle. Their BLM permit has not been renewed for two years, leaving them unable to use even 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.”
The new, 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, though, Maupin points out.
Susan Hammond isn’t sure where to go from here.
“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 that “it’s not going to be our fault,” she said.
Maupin talked about the Hammonds helping her and her husband with ranch work, like hauling cattle, lending portable panels and never expecting anything in return. 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?”
Which brings us to today . . .
Several hundred armed Patriots from various Militia have now seized the federal wildlife refuge and its buildings. Instead of the feds getting the Hammond Ranch, the feds have now lost their wildlife refuge. The Militia have brought trailer loads of supplies and plan to keep control of the federal wildlife area “for years.”
Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and two of his brothers. Militia members at the refuge claimed they had as many as 150 supporters with them. The refuge was closed and unoccupied for the weekend.
In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if law enforcement tries to remove them, they said, though they declined to elaborate.
“The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds,” Ammon Bundy said.
“We’re planning on staying here for years, absolutely,” he added. “This is not a decision we’ve made at the last minute.”
Neither would say how many people are in the building or whether they are armed. Ryan Bundy said the group would release a statement shortly.
“We will do whatever it takes to maintain our freedom,” he said.
Government sources told SuperStation95 that the militia also was planning to occupy a closed wildland fire station near the town of Frenchglen. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management posts crews there during the fire season.
Law enforcement officials so far have not commented on the situation. Oregon State Police, the Harney County Sheriff’s Office and the FBI were involved.
Ammon Bundy had a video posted on his Facebook page calling on patriots from across the country should to report to the refuge – with their weapons.
The dramatic turn came after other militia groups had tried to damp down community concerns they meant trouble.
Brandon Curtiss, a militia leader from Idaho, told SuperStation95 he knew nothing about the occupation. He helped organize Saturday’s protest and was at the Harney County Fairgrounds with dozens of other militia for a post-parade function.
The occupation is being led by hard-core militia who adopted the Hammond cause as their own.
Ammon Bundy met with Dwight Hammond and his wife in November, seeking a way to keep the elderly rancher from having to surrender for prison. The Hammonds professed through their attorneys that they had no interest in ignoring the order to report for prison.
Ammon Bundy said the goal is to turn over federal land to local ranchers, loggers and miners. He said he met with 10 or so residents in Burns on Friday to try to recruit them, but they declined.
“We went to the local communities and presented it many times and to many different people,” he said. “They were not strong enough to make the stand. So many individuals across the United States and in Oregon are making this stand. We hope they will grab onto this and realize that it’s been happening.”
Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move.
He has been a steady presence in Burns in recent weeks, questioning people who were critical of the militia’s presence. He typically had a holstered sidearm as he moved around the community.
At a community meeting in Burns Friday, Payne disavowed any ill intentions.
“The agenda is to uphold the Constitution. That’s all,” he said.
Cooper, another militia leader, said at that meeting he participated in the Bundy standoff in Nevada.
“I went there to defend Cliven with my life,” Cooper said.
The Constitution Proves the Militia is RIGHT!
The militia is correct in it’s interpretation of this case.
Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads as follows:
“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Based upon the Constitution itself the federal government has no actual authority over the lands that they claim the Hammonds burned. It is State land as there is none of the above functions of the Federal level land ownership uses.
http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm
And as an added note, Congress can not legally and lawfully add to their listed duties, jurisdiction and authority through the legislative process. That must be done by the Amendment process in the Constitution itself despite all the lies that the saboteurs will try on you. Any so called ‘act of Congress’ that furthers their power in violation of the listed duties in the Constitution itself is in fact null and void as if it had never been enacted.
https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/723

[TheSanityAnnex]

fuck the BLM

[ChumpDumper]

There is no armed standoff.

"There is absolutely no armed standoff," she wrote. "They want us to know: They are simply occupying land and a building owned by 'We The People.' Our tax dollars. And that for them, this is a civil peaceful protest."
Law enforcement has so far not engaged protesters.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/oregon_militants_in_high_spiri.html#incart_most-commented_portland_articleSo it's an armed occupation?


‘I didn’t come here to shoot, I came here to die’: Oregon militia occupiers fess up to local reporters

Amanda Peacher (https://twitter.com/amandapeacher)
(https://twitter.com/amandapeacher)✔@amandapeacher (https://twitter.com/amandapeacher)

"I didn't come here to shoot I came here to die."#bundymilitia (https://twitter.com/hashtag/bundymilitia?src=hash), (will ID only as "Capt. Moroni") lol a Mormon paraphrasing a Muslim before he killed invading Christians.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Rhonda Karges, Resource Field Manager for the BLM is the wife of Chad Karges Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife refuge.
Rhonda specifically deals with all the BLM issues relating to the area in and around Hammonds property including “grazing denial”. Her husband just happens to be the person in charge of all the issues surrounding the Hammonds ranch such as “water and access”.

[boutons_deux]

feds are going after them with terrorism law, which is mandatory minimum 5 years.

lock 'em up for 5 years and show the sicko gun fellators who the fuck is boss.

[TheSanityAnnex]

feds are going after them with terrorism law, which is mandatory minimum 5 years.

lock 'em up for 5 years and show the sicko gun fellators who the fuck is boss.

Is your hypocrisy a troll job or are you just this stupid?

[ElNono]

The Hammonds have been fucked with by the Feds for 50 years, sounds like they just want it to be over.

Maybe they just needed better lawyers.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Maybe they just needed better lawyers.
Or an impartial judge.

They'd have bankrupt themselves trying to continuously fight the FWS and BLM. It's disgusting how the Fed pushes these people around to acquire land and resources.

[ElNono]

Or an impartial judge.

They'd have bankrupt themselves trying to continuously fight the FWS and BLM. It's disgusting how the Fed pushes these people around to acquire land and resources.

They were found guilty by a jury. They admitted to burning public space. They were re-sentenced by a different set of judges. They don't have to like the federal government or our justice system, they just have to abide by it.

[TheSanityAnnex]

They were found guilty by a jury. They admitted to burning public space. They were re-sentenced by a different set of judges. They don't have to like the federal government or our justice system, they just have to abide by it.
And they are abiding by it. You ever pause and think why the Feds are going after them so hard on the arson charges and not others who have started similar fires on public land?

[ElNono]

And they are abiding by it. You ever pause and think why the Feds are going after them so hard on the arson charges and not others who have started similar fires on public land?

Because the law is on their side? I don't know of any similar situations.

[TeyshaBlue]

There's a legal remedy for that, it's called an appeal.

We moved on from duels and other armed bullshit to adjudicate justice 100+ years ago.

It ain't coming back either...

*Slaps Nono across the face with a gauntlet*

[ElNono]

I'm not a fan of eminent domain either, but we're way past the discussion of whether the government, state or federal, has authority to seize land. State and Federal laws have as much weight as the Constitution, as long they don't interfere with eachother.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Because the law is on their side? I don't know of any similar situations.
You haven't heard of similar situations because the other ranchers were forced out and sold their property without a fight.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I'm not a fan of eminent domain either, but we're way past the discussion of whether the government, state or federal, has authority to seize land. State and Federal laws have as much weight as the Constitution, as long they don't interfere with eachother.
Bullying and intimidating land owners to submit is not okay.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Rhonda Karges, Resource Field Manager for the BLM is the wife of Chad Karges Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife refuge.
Rhonda specifically deals with all the BLM issues relating to the area in and around Hammonds property including “grazing denial”. Her husband just happens to be the person in charge of all the issues surrounding the Hammonds ranch such as “water and access”.



These two are responsible for the case being re-opened after the Hammonds served their initial sentence. It was never about time served, they got what they wanted. During the second preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal if they ever sold their land.

[TheSanityAnnex]

KHyZQrMZ7lA
BLM at work

[TheSanityAnnex]

it's hilarious to see your fucked up takes, GFY
You fully support an overreaching government when it is oppressing those you hate, white people.

[boutons_deux]

You fully support an overreaching government when it is oppressing those you hate, white people.

it's hilarious to see your fucked up takes, GFY

[TheSanityAnnex]

Related

http://buddfalen.com/marita-noon-environmental-shakedown/


Environmental Shakedown through bastardized application of science, policy and education
Over a three-year period, 2009-2012, Department of Justice data shows American taxpayers footed the bill for more than $53 million in environmental groups’ legal fees—and the actual number could be much higher. The real motivation behind the Endangered Species Act (ESA) litigation, perhaps, could have more to do with vengeance and penance than with a real desire to protect flora and fauna.
On May 7, I spoke at the Four Corners Oil and Gas Conference in Farmington, New Mexico. During the two-day event, I sat in on many of the other sessions and had conversations with dozens of attendees. I left the event with the distinct impression that the current implementation of the ESA is a major impediment to the economic growth and job creation that comes with oil-and-gas development. I have written on ESA issues many times, most recently I wrote (http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2014/03/23/job-creators-sue-federal-government-n1813160/page/full) about the lesser prairie chicken’s proposed “threatened” listing (which the Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS] listed (http://www.texastribune.org/2014/03/27/lesser-prairie-chicken-listed-threatened/) on March 27) and the Oklahoma Attorney General’s lawsuit against the federal government over the “sue and settle” tactics of FWS and the Department of the Interior.
While at the conference, I received an email announcing that FWS has asked a federal court for a six-month delay in making a final determination on whether to list the Gunnison sage grouse as an endangered species—moving the decision past the November elections. Up for re-election, Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) “cheered” the extension request. The E & E report states (http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2014/05/06/stories/1059999092): Colorado elected leaders “fear the listing could have significant economic impacts.”
Kent Holdsinger, a Colorado attorney specializing in lands, wildlife and water, posited: “Senator Udall is among those lauding the move—perhaps because a listing decision would affect his fate in the U.S. Senate. Gunnison sage grouse populations are stable, if not on the increase. In addition, myriad state, local and private conservation efforts have been put into place over the last decade. Those efforts, and the Gunnison sage grouse, are at risk if the FWS pursues listing.”
The report continues: “WildEarth Guardians is not opposing the latest extension after Fish and Wildlife agreed to some extensive new mitigation measures that will be made in the interim, including increasing buffer zones around sage grouse breeding grounds, called leks, and deferring coal, oil and gas leasing, said Erik Molvar, a wildlife biologist with WildEarth Guardians.” It goes on to say: “But the Center for Biological Diversity, which is a party to the settlement agreements with WildEarth Guardians, said the latest extension is a bad move for the grouse, which it says has needed ESA protections for years.”
Two important items to notice in the Gunnison sage grouse story. One, the power the environmental groups wield. Two, part of appeasing the environmental groups involves “deferring coal, oil and gas leasing.”
It is widely known that these groups despise fossil fuels. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) brags (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/energy/dirty_energy_development/oil_and_gas/) about its use of lawsuits to block development—but it is not just oil and gas they block, it is virtually all human activity (which is the plan).
In researching for this week’s column, I have talked to people from a variety of industry and conservation efforts. The conversations started because I read something they’d written about CBD. Whether I was talking to someone interested in protecting big horn sheep, a fishing enthusiast, or an attorney representing ranching or extractive industries, CBD seems to be a thorn in their side. All made comments similar to what Amos Eno (http://www.resourcesfirstfoundation.org/our-people), who has been involved in conservation for more than forty years, told me: “CBD doesn’t care about the critters. They are creating a listing pipeline and then making money off of it.” Environmental writer Ted Williams, in a piece on wolves, called (http://e360.yale.edu/feature/should_wolves_stay_protected_under_endangered_spec ies_act/2674/)CBD: “perennial plaintiffs.”
New Mexico rancher Stephen Wilmeth directed me to a CBD profile he’d written. In it he addressed how the CBD’s efforts targeted livestock grazing and sought “the removal of cattle from hundreds of miles of streams.” Wilmeth states (http://thewesterner.blogspot.com/2013/09/green-hucksters.html): “CBD has elevated sue and settle tactics, injunctions, new species listings, and bad press surrounding legal action to a modern art form. Consent decrees more often than not result in closed door sessions with concessions or demands made on agency policy formulation.”
In a posting on the Society for Big Horn Sheep website titled: Legal tactics directly from the Center for Biological Diversity, board member Gary Thomas states (http://sheepsociety.com/news-opinion/40-legal-tactics-directly-from-center-for-biological-diversity): “The Center ranks people second. By their accounting, all human endeavors, agriculture, clean water, energy, development, recreation, materials extraction, and all human access to any space, are subordinate to the habitat requirements of all the world’s obscure animals and plants. But these selfish people don’t care about any person, plant, or animal. The Center collects obscure and unstudied species for a single purpose, specifically for use in their own genre of lawsuits. They measure their successes not by quality of life for man nor beast, but by counting wins in court like notches in the handle of a gun.
You’d expect someone like me, an energy advocate, to dis the CBD—and I have (http://www.energytribune.com/8939/on-cbd-and-marita-noons-piece-in-et-of-september-16-2011) (CBD is not too fond of me (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/noon-10-28-2011.html))—but how’d it get such a broad-based collection of negativity from within the environmental community?
Ted Williams told me: “environmentalists who are paying attention are not happy with CBD.” He has written the most comprehensive exposé (http://www.adventure-journal.com/2011/07/opinion-center-for-biological-diversity-is-a-stain-on-environmentalism/) on CBD that can be found—for which he was threatened with a lawsuit. Without Williams’ work, one has to resort to bits and pieces off the internet to put together CBD’s modus operandi—but there is plenty to choose (http://milliontrees.me/2012/11/13/center-for-biological-diversity-is-about-power-and-control/) from!
One of the most interesting ones to catch my eye was a part of the post on SheepSociety.com. There, Thomas points out the fact that the three founders of CBD are ex-forest service workers. He states: “To donors, their motives appear altruistic. To the informed, they look more like a 20-year quest for revenge for their firing.”
I am fairly well acquainted with CBD, but Thomas’ accusation was new to me—though it fit what I knew. (One of the very first pieces I ever wrote (http://www.responsiblenergy.org/newsletter/display.asp?id=23), when I originally got into this work seven plus years ago, was on the one and only legal victory ever won against CBD. Arizona rancher Jim Chilton won a defamation suit against CBD with a $600,000 dollar settlement. Nearly everyone I talked to as a part of my research for this story mentioned Chilton’s name with reverence. Chilton is on my board.)
I dug around and found an interesting story from Backpacker Magazine that gave credence to Thomas’ claim. The February 2003 issue features a multi-page profile on Kieran Suckling, co-founder and executive director. Addressing the three founders, who were working for the Forest Service, Backpacker reports (http://books.google.com/books?id=ad4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=Kieran+suckling+former+forest+Service+employee&source=bl&ots=wO2VZL0hkV&sig=UilItuOmacYnK-pQokzoHP-cgBo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k05tU4exMoyayATT4oK4BA&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false): “All three of them were frustrated by their agencies’ inaction.” The story goes on to explain how the threesome “hatched a plan” to petition the Forest Service and force it to list the spotted owl.
Then, I found a 2009 profile on Suckling in High Country News (HCN). It quotes (https://www.hcn.org/issues/41.22/firebrand-ways) Suckling describing how the roots of his full-time activism started while working for the Forest Service doing spotted owl surveys: “We had signed contracts saying we wouldn’t divulge owl locations, but we went the next day to the Silver City Daily Press, with a map that told our story. We were fired within seconds. That was the start of us becoming full-time activists.”
These snippets help explain Suckling’s animosity toward the Forest Service and other government agencies. CBD is gleeful over its results. It has sued government agencies hundreds of times and has won the majority of the cases—though many never go to court and are settled in a backroom deal (hence the term: “sue and settle”). Thomas writes: “They are extremely proud to report that single-handedly they deplete the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s entire annual budget, approximately $5 million, for endangered species listings year after year by forcing them to use their limited funds defending lawsuits instead of their intended purpose.
The HCN piece describes Suckling’s approach to getting what he wants—which he explains (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1999/11/22/1999_11_22_096_TNY_LIBRY_000019580) in the New Yorker, as “a new order in which plants and animals are part of the polity”: “The Forest Service needs our agreement to get back to work, and we are in the position of being able to powerfully negotiate the terms of releasing the injunction. … They [federal employees] feel like their careers are being mocked and destroyed—and they are. So they become much more willing to play by our rules and at least get something done. Psychological warfare is a very underappreciated aspect of environmental campaigning.”
“In CBD speak,” adds Wilmeth, “the suggestion of playing by the rules equates to its rules of manipulating positive outcomes for its mission.”
Putting the pieces together, it does appear, as Thomas asserts, that Suckling is on a 20+ year “quest for revenge” for being fired—vengeance that American taxpayers are funding.
Suckling is an interesting character. The Backpacker story cites his ex-wife, who said the following: “He’s not tethered on a daily basis to the same things you and I are tethered to.”
Tierra Curry is another name that comes up frequently in CBD coverage. CBD’s staff section of the website lists her as “senior scientist” and says she “focuses on the listing and recovery of endangered species.” As Warner Todd Huston reports: “Curry has an odd profile for an activist. She once claimed to have enjoyed dynamiting creek beds in rural Kentucky (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2012/07/steve_duin_salamanders_and_oth.html) and taking perverse pleasure at sending fish and aquatic animals flying onto dry land and certain death. Now Curry spends her time filing petitions to ‘save’ some of the same animals she once enjoyed killing.”
Perhaps Curry’s frenetic listing efforts are her way of doing penance for her childhood penchant of killing critters.
The role vengeance and penance may play in CBD’s shakedown (http://blog.pacificlegal.org/2010/environmentalist-shakedown/) of the American public is just a hypothesis based on facts. But the dollars paid out are very real.
In an April 8, 2014 hearing before the House Committee on Natural Resources, fifth-generation rancher and attorney specializing in environmental litigation, Karen Budd-Falen talked (http://buddfalen.com/video-karen-budd-falen-testifies-regarding-the-endangered-species-recovery-transparency-act/) about the need for ESA reform, as four different House bills propose: “Public information regarding payment of attorney’s fees for ESA litigation is equally difficult to access.” Addressing HR 4316—which requires a report on attorney’s fees and costs for ESA related litigation—she says: “It should not be a radical notion for the public to know how much is being paid by the federal government and to whom the check is written.” As she reports in her testimony, Budd-Falen’s staff did an analysis of the 276-page spreadsheet run released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) listing litigation summaries in cases defended by the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Wildlife Section. She explains: “The spreadsheets are titled ‘Endangered Species Defensive Cases Active at some point during FY09-FY12 (through April 2012).’ Although the DOJ release itself contained no analysis, my legal staff calculated the following statistics.” Budd-Falen then shows how she came up with the nearly $53 million figure of taxpayer money paid out over an approximate three-year period. However, she then shows how her own Freedom of Information Act requests have proven “that the DOJ does not keep an accurate account of the cases it defends”—making the actual dollar figure much higher.
Budd-Falen has stated (https://www.westernlegacyalliance.org/eaja-abuse-home-page/activist-green-lawyers-billing-u-s-millions-in-fraudulent-attorney-fees): “We believe when the curtain is raised we’ll be talking about radical environmental groups bilking the taxpayer for hundreds of millions of dollars, allegedly for ‘reimbursement for attorney fees.’”
Budd-Falen’s research shows that for groups like CBD—who sue on process not on substance—it really is about the money.
Eno believes that for the CBD, it isn’t about the critters: “CBD endangers the endangered species program on multiple fronts. First, their petitions and listing suits use up significant financial and personnel resources of both Office of Endangered Species and solicitors office in DOI. This means less funding and personnel devoted to species recovery. Second, CBD suits antagonize and jeopardize recovery programs of cooperating federal land management agencies, particularly USFS and BLM. Third, their suits have hampered forest and grassland management thereby inviting forest fires which endanger both human and wildlife (sage grouse) communities throughout the west. Fourth, CBD suits antagonize, alienate and create financial hardship for affected private land owners, thereby reducing both public support and initiatives and active assistance for listed species recovery.”
Despite numerous attempts, the ESA has not had any major revisions in more than 25 years. The Wall Street Journal states (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303933104579302941981656818): “The ESA’s mixed record on wildlife restoration and its impact on business have made the law vulnerable to critics.” Groups like CBD have twisted the intent of the law. Reform (http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2014/02/10/shoot-shovel-and-shut-up-n1792290/page/full) is now essential—not just to save taxpayer dollars, but to put the focus back on actually saving the species rather than, as Wilmeth calls it: “the bastardized application of science, policy and education.”

[TheSanityAnnex]

it's hilarious to see your fucked up takes, GFY
Pointless for you to deny it as the proof is plastered all over this board by yourself.

[boutons_deux]

Ian KullgrenVerified account‏@IanKullgren (https://twitter.com/IanKullgren)



I talked to Ryan Bundy on the phone again. He said they're willing to kill and be killed if necessary. #OregonUnderAttack (https://twitter.com/hashtag/OregonUnderAttack?src=hash)

https://twitter.com/IanKullgren/status/683524884484390912

==========

so where are the swat teams, the batons, the armored humvees, the stun grenades, the tear gas?

White people sent a swat team to deliver a summons to a black barber shop, etc, etc, etc.

[TheSanityAnnex]

so where are the swat teams, the batons, the armored humvees, the stun grenades, the tear gas?






Should there be just because the government happened to overreach somewhere else?

[boutons_deux]

The armed right-wing insurrectionists (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/) who have taken over a federal building in Oregon are claiming to protest “tyranny” by the federal government in how the Bureau of Land Management treats ranchers on federal property. This particular group of armed white men seizing land and claiming “oppression” is clearly lacking in knowledge of American history, and what actually defines “tyranny.”

The Bundy militia occupying the Maiheur National Wildlife Refuge (http://www.fws.gov/refuge/malheur/) should seriously reconsider their use of the word “tyranny,” and how the land they’re claiming as theirs rightfully belongs to the indigenous tribes that armed white men illegally stole centuries ago.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/03/armed-white-terrorists-oregon-stealing-sacred-native-american-land.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[boutons_deux]

‘Y’all Qaeda’: Twitter users mock Oregon right-wing militia action — and it’s awesome


http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Ammon-Bundy-screen-shot-with-hashtags-800x430.png

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/yall-qaeda-twitter-users-mock-oregon-right-wing-militia-action-and-its-awesome/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[Spurminator]

The trending nicknames are hilarious.

YallQaeda
Yee Hadists
Vanilla Isis

Now that's how you do derogatory nicknames. If you still say "repug" or "libcuck," take note.

[ElNono]

You haven't heard of similar situations because the other ranchers were forced out and sold their property without a fight.

So there were no other similar cases not getting prosecuted :tu


Bullying and intimidating land owners to submit is not okay.

Thats not why they're going back to jail though. They fucked up and a jury of his peers found them guilty.

[ElNono]

Look if you want me to have sympathy because they were screwed with federal mandatory minimum sentences, I can do that. That part certainly sucks.

[DMX7]

The Feds backed down, wimped out on free-rider/moocher Bundy, so now they have more assholes terrorizing US govt property.

If they hadn't, there could have been a blood bath.

[Clipper Nation]

http://i.imgur.com/jFn45ka.jpg

[TheSanityAnnex]

Look if you want me to have sympathy because they were screwed with federal mandatory minimum sentences, I can do that. That part certainly sucks.
The initial judge saw they were being screwed with the federal mandatory sentencing and made his ruling based upon the federal mandatory sentencing violating the Hammonds 8th amendment rights. They served their time, the government still wants their land and this is why they are being fucked with again. The forced first right of refusal to the BLM says it all.

[Clipper Nation]

As a freshman at Columbia University in 1970, future Attorney General Eric Holder participated in a five-day occupation of an abandoned Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) headquarters with a group of black students later described by the university’s Black Students' Organization as "armed," The Daily Caller has learned.

Holder was then among the leaders of the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS), which demanded that the former ROTC office be renamed the "Malcolm X Lounge." The change, the group insisted, was to be made "in honor of a man who recognized the importance of territory as a basis for nationhood."

Black radicals from the same group also occupied the office of Dean of Freshman Henry Coleman until their demands were met. Holder has publicly acknowledged being a part of that action.


http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/30/as-college-sophomore-eric-holder-participated-in-armed-takeover-of-former-columbia-university-rotc-office/#ixzz3wFcTLJzR

[ChumpDumper]

As a freshman at Columbia University in 1970, future Attorney General Eric Holder participated in a five-day occupation of an abandoned Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) headquarters with a group of black students later described by the university’s Black Students' Organization as "armed," The Daily Caller has learned.

Holder was then among the leaders of the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS), which demanded that the former ROTC office be renamed the "Malcolm X Lounge." The change, the group insisted, was to be made "in honor of a man who recognized the importance of territory as a basis for nationhood."

Black radicals from the same group also occupied the office of Dean of Freshman Henry Coleman until their demands were met. Holder has publicly acknowledged being a part of that action.


http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/30/as-college-sophomore-eric-holder-participated-in-armed-takeover-of-former-columbia-university-rotc-office/#ixzz3wFcTLJzR
How is this relevant?

[CosmicCowboy]

What they did to the Hammond's is totally fucked up and typical of those assholes at the BLM.

That being said, Bundy and those other outsider idiots occupying that federal property are fucking up big time. If they even have guns, much less use them. they are going to prison for a LONG time.

[boutons_deux]

"What they did to the Hammond's is totally fucked up and typical of those assholes at the BLM."

the broke federal law.

[CosmicCowboy]

"What they did to the Hammond's is totally fucked up and typical of those assholes at the BLM."

the broke federal law.

You are such an asshole. Terrorists for starting a small back fire to protect their home? 147 acres? They already served the jail sentences the judge originally gave them. What is the point of extending it to five years? they are trying to break them so they can steal their land.That is malicious prosecution. There are fucking armed robbers that get less time.

[boutons_deux]

here's an example of what law enforcement does to blacks that the Feds should follow now:

I'm From Philly. 30 Years Later, I'm Still Trying To Make Sense Of The MOVE Bombing

She was actually inside the targeted house at 6221 Osage as it was battered by police bullets and deluge guns and, eventually, brought down by a makeshift bomb dropped from a police helicopter.

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/05/13/406243272/im-from-philly-30-years-later-im-still-trying-to-make-sense-of-the-move-bombing

but, white male privilege is bomb-proof

[Winehole23]

Terrorists for starting a small back fire to protect their home?According to a witness to the fire, it was done to keep hunters away and to improve public land for grazing their own herd on.

[Winehole23]

setting public land on fire to keep law abiding sportsmen off might not be terrorism.

what would you call it, CC?

[CosmicCowboy]

According to a witness to the fire, it was done to keep hunters away and to improve public land for grazing their own herd on.

Even if that is true setting fires to kill off encroaching brush on grasslands is good for the land and a universally accepted range management tool. I have done it here in Texas several times.

[CosmicCowboy]

setting public land on fire to keep law abiding sportsmen off might not be terrorism.

what would you call it, CC?

I call it a fabricated bullshit claim by the BLM.

[Winehole23]

the witness was with the perps.

[Winehole23]

was encouraged to start fires with hunters nearby.

[Winehole23]

so, the BLM didn't make that up

[boutons_deux]

bundy sez they are occupying "for years"

No Fed Action Planned, but Oregon Militia Loons Post Hilarious "Goodbye" Videos (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/3/1465762/-No-Fed-Action-Planned-but-Oregon-Militia-Loons-Post-Hilarious-Goodbye-Videos)

http://images.dailykos.com/images/192167/story_image/image.jpg?1451852431

the ammosexual brigade is so prepared to die on this manufactured hill, some have posted “goodbye” videos, which are maybe the funniest things of 2016. Here is one from known freedum doofus, Jon Ritzheimer:

Wow — Daddy couldn’t be home for Christmas OR New Year’s because of this idiocy? Looks like there’s a fine line between "defending the Constitution” and hating spending time with the family.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/3/1465762/-No-Fed-Action-Planned-but-Oregon-Militia-Loons-Post-Hilarious-Goodbye-Videos?detail=email

Real Patriots Don't Cry :lol

these gun fellatin assholes been drinkin the slave state, red state secessionist, revenoor-hatin yankee-hatin koolaid. Jim Jones is proud of them.

[Winehole23]

so then, CC. what do you make of fires set to chase hunters off public land?

[Winehole23]

is that responsible land management, in your book?

[CavsSuperFan]

Currently #YallQaeda is engaged in an act of #YeeHawd in rural Oregon in defense of arsonists...
If successful they will receive 21 strippers...:smokin

[Winehole23]

the Hammands setting fires to cover up illegal hunting of their own and setting backfires during a burn ban?

more good land management?

[Winehole23]

it's an outrage that the Federal minimum sentence applies to serial arsonists who destroy public property.

an outrage!

[boutons_deux]

Oath Keepers Urge Members To Back Off Oregon Standoff: 'This Is The Opposite Of The Bundy Ranch'

The leader of the extremist Oath Keepers, one of the biggest players in the standoff at the Bundy ranch (https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/04/30/back-bundy-ranch-its-oath-keepers-vs-militiamen-wild-rumors-fly)in Nevada, thinks that the Bundy brothers have gone too far. In a statement (https://www.oathkeepers.org/the-hammond-family-does/) issued on New Year’s Day, Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes said that although he’s sympathetic to Dwight and Steven Hammond, the ranchers convicted of arson, he wants no part in the Bundy sons’ takeover of a federal wildlife refuge because the Hammonds had not asked for help.

In a video statement, Rhodes said that the Oregon situation is “exactly the opposite of the Bundy ranch,” claiming that while militia groups “went to Bundy ranch to prevent that family from being Waco’d,” the current standoff is being “manufactured by potheads who want a fight” and is no longer a “peaceful protest.” He added that the Hammonds “were found guilty by a jury of their peers.”

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/oath-keepers-urge-members-back-oregon-standoff-opposite-bundy-ranch

[boutons_deux]

Militia Leader: Oregon Takeover Possible False Flag That Could Lead To 'Ghastly Civil War'

Mike Vanderboegh, the leader of the Three Percenters militia group, wrote on his blog yesterday that the group in Oregon, which is being led by sons of rancher Cliven Bundy, is full of “sociopaths and idiots” and probably includes some who are working for the government.

Nevertheless, Vanderboegh, who warned (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/bundy-ranch-speaker-warns-civil-war-vast-scale-promises-harry-reid-will-have-his-balls-rippe)at the Bundy ranch that the standoff could lead to “civil war on a vast scale” and more recently warned (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/militia-groups-warn-oregon-background-check-law-could-lead-civil-war) that a new Oregon gun buyers’ background check law could also lead to a civil war, wrote that if the federal government ends the Oregon standoff with force, he will have no choice but to join the Bundys in — you guessed it — a civil war.

In a statement published on his blog (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2016/01/no-more-free-wacos-national-three.html), Sipsey Street Irregulars, yesterday, Vanderboegh called the leaders of the Oregon takeover “federal provocateurs, sociopaths and idiots with a John Brown complex” and said that there are “far fewer than is claimed” occupying the building, adding that they have “written a check that they expect the rest of us to cash in our own blood in a ghastly civil war.”

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/militia-leader-oregon-takeover-possible-false-flag-could-lead-ghastly-civil-war

[boutons_deux]

Oregon Considers Wall to Keep Out Angry White Men


http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Borowitz-Oregon-Considers-Wall-to-Keep-Out-Angry-White-Men1-690.jpg

BURNS, OREGON — A majority of Oregonians favor building a twenty-foot wall along the border of their state to prevent angry white men from getting in, a poll released on Monday shows.

The survey indicates that Oregonians are fed up with irate male Caucasians pouring into their state and bringing with them guns, violence, and terrorism.

“This used to be such a nice state,” said Oregon State Senator Carol Foyler, a pro-wall lawmaker. “Since the angry white men came here, parts of it are unrecognizable.”

But even as support for the Oregon wall grows, critics of the proposal say that it does nothing to address the fact that there are already thousands of angry white men living in the state.

Those critics favor forcibly removing the angry white men through mass deportations and resettling them elsewhere, possibly in Texas. :lol

While some argue that the deportation of angry white men would separate them from their families, others believe that their families would be O.K. with seeing them go.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/oregon-considers-wall-to-keep-out-angry-white-men?mbid=nl_010316%20Borowitz%20Newsletter%20(1)&CNDID=&spMailingID=8397254&spUserID=MjczNzc0Njk0NDAS1&spJobID=840333605&spReportId=ODQwMzMzNjA1S0 (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/oregon-considers-wall-to-keep-out-angry-white-men?mbid=nl_010316%20Borowitz%20Newsletter%20(1)&CNDID=&spMailingID=8397254&spUserID=MjczNzc0Njk0NDAS1&spJobID=840333605&spReportId=ODQwMzMzNjA1S0)

[ChumpDumper]

Why do you try to hide your Borowitz links now?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why do you try to hide your Borowitz links now?

Now? It's been hiding sources it knows are shit for awhile. Sophist stupidity is what it is.

[boutons_deux]

Why do you try to hide your Borowitz links now?

hilarious to see You People take some of them seriously

[boutons_deux]

Now? It's been hiding sources it knows are shit for awhile. Sophist stupidity is what it is.

Fuzzy's so butthurt, and he needs to look the definition of sophistry

[TeyshaBlue]

hilarious to see You People take some of them seriously
Nobody takes your links seriously. It might help if Borowitz was occasionally funny.

[TheSanityAnnex]

(o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.o
the witness was with the perps.

[Winehole23]

that's one side of it. did the court allow the testimony?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy's so butthurt, and he needs to look the definition of sophistry

Oh so your crusade against your VRWC and repugs doesn't assume itself. Sure thing. Let's get another big helping of megalomania that reeks of mental illness please. Perhaps referring to yourself in the 3rd person and titling yourself great?

[Winehole23]

the Hammonds propping up their troubled grandson as a shield and hiding behind his alleged mental incapacity hardly does them credit

[Winehole23]

setting fires on public ranges is cool with you, TSA?

no jail time for serial arson?

[Winehole23]

http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/daily-cartoon/monday-january-4th-oregon-militia

[CosmicCowboy]

the Hammands setting fires to cover up illegal hunting of their own and setting backfires during a burn ban?

more good land management?

Sounds like a totally fabricated bullshit claim to me. BLM land is hundreds of thousands of acres. Lets get this in perspective....it was 147 acres...that's no "running hunters off of public land".

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sounds like a totally fabricated bullshit claim to me. BLM land is hundreds of thousands of acres. Lets get this in perspective....it was 147 acres...that's no "running hunters off of public land".

Well thank goodness we have you to look deeply into things because of course your off the hip confirmation bias has demonstrated to be oh so accurate. You're like a dog that keeps going after skunks.

[CosmicCowboy]

Well thank goodness we have you to look deeply into things because of course your off the hip confirmation bias has demonstrated to be oh so accurate. You're like a dog that keeps going after skunks.

Yep. And you are the skunk.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yep. And you are the skunk.

If your entire schtick is for my benefit that is pretty sad.

So what should I conclude about your weight gain after a knee replacement btw? You cannot run or really walk for quite some time and you demonstrate poor impulse control. That tells me you probably cannot control your eating. I'm guessing at least 30 lbs. More if you aren't a midget.

[CosmicCowboy]

If your entire schtick is for my benefit that is pretty sad.

So what should I conclude about your weight gain after a knee replacement btw? You cannot run or really walk for quite some time and you demonstrate poor impulse control. That tells me you probably cannot control your eating. I'm guessing at least 30 lbs. More if you aren't a midget.

Same weight as when I played sports in college and ran 10 miles a day. You sure seem obsessed about my personal life, though. Pretty fucking gay.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Same weight as when I played sports in college and ran 10 miles a day. You sure seem obsessed about my personal life, though. Pretty fucking gay.

I don't believe you. And I think it's pretty clear the contempt I have for you. I'm not above hate fucking but I actually have to love you first. Rape much?

Your problem is that I am insightful and I really cannot help it. It's not like I have to study you to come up with these takes. They are obvious. Prima facia youre scum due to a lack of empathy and an extreme selfish streak. Congratulations if that is what you were going for.

:lol gay? you realize such comments reveal more about you then me right?

[boutons_deux]

Fox Promotes Conspiracy Theorist Who Threatened Sexual Violence Against Hillary Clinton As Militia Spokesperson

During a May 17, 2013 rant about Hillary Clinton, Santilli said that he "would volunteer to shoot her right in the vajayjay,"

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/01/04/fox-promotes-conspiracy-theorist-who-threatened/207723

you gun fellators really got a bunch of classy, deluded, lying, ignorat, paranoid assholes as spokesmen

[boutons_deux]

Oregon 'terrorists' don't plan siege very well, put out plea for snacks and supplies

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/oregon-terrorists-dont-plan-siege-very-well-put-out-plea-for-snacks-and-supplies--ZJglh9sRjx

These aren't Real Patriots. Real Patriots subsist on delicious patriotism alone.

Feds should cut them off, nobody, nothing, in or out, drink urine, eat each other. Real Patriots are delicious.

[TheSanityAnnex]

setting fires on public ranges is cool with you, TSA?

no jail time for serial arson?

Serial arson :lol

backfires have been lit before by other ranchers that spilled over to BLM land and they were fined and maybe did some a week or two in county jail. The Hammonds did their time and paid a large fine to BLM and in my eyes repaid their debt to society.

The BLM going after them again and forcing them to give the first rights of refusal on their land is sickening.

(j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.

(j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff's office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined that the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.

k) In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges, they accused them of being “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death.

[TheSanityAnnex]

If your entire schtick is for my benefit that is pretty sad.

So what should I conclude about your weight gain after a knee replacement btw? You cannot run or really walk for quite some time and you demonstrate poor impulse control. That tells me you probably cannot control your eating. I'm guessing at least 30 lbs. More if you aren't a midget.
Why the fuck are you fantasizing about his weight? :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That isn't fantasy. He said he had a knee replacement.


Patients who undergo total knee replacement are at substantial risk for weight gain during the 5 years after the surgery, a large retrospective study showed.

On an adjusted multivariable analysis, recipients of knee arthroplasty were 60% more likely to gain 5% or more of their baseline body weight than matched controls who did not have the procedure (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.2, P=0.003), according to Daniel L. Riddle, PhD, of Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, and colleagues.

And the chance of that "clinically important" weight gain doubled for individuals who had a second arthroplasty during the subsequent 5 years (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.4 to 3.1, P<0.001), the researchers reported in the May Arthritis Care & Research.

"The logical assumption may be that persons who are overweight or obese prior to surgery are more likely to lose weight following surgery. Because there is less pain and improved mobility, the impediments to increased activity and exercise are eased following surgery, and weight loss would logically follow," they observed.

However, that hasn't been the case consistently in previous studies, which have been hampered by short follow-up times and a lack of controls.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Surgery/Orthopedics/38786

He does have poor impulse control. It is what it is.

[TheSanityAnnex]

That isn't fantasy. He said he had a knee replacement.



http://www.medpagetoday.com/Surgery/Orthopedics/38786

He does have poor impulse control. It is what it is.

Still fantasizing about another man's weight :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Still fantasizing about another man's weight :lol

And this is why I stopped responding in real time. You see it and are now deflecting. You get no more dopamine from me though, weirdo.

[RandomGuy]

Wow. I was hoping for a mildly interesting discussion about whether these asshats were going to be charged with sedition or not...

(sighs)

Looks like a case of armed rebellion to me.

Just about any other government in the world would be sending in the army. I can see it now... let the asshats plunk away at an Abrams or two with their peashooters. Run over their trucks and laugh at them.

[RandomGuy]

so then, CC. what do you make of fires set to chase hunters off public land?

That is actually a good question. I wonder if that would give a hunter with a permit a cause of action to sue the rancher.

Sounds a bit like the rancher was deciding for everybody else what the best use of that public land was for, and deciding it in such a way as to benefit himself financially at the expense of other stakeholders.

[CosmicCowboy]

Still fantasizing about another man's weight :lol

Yeah, this little maggot keeps talking smack about my (his) imaginary weight problem. Pretty bizarre. It's classic elementary school bullshit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wow. I was hoping for a mildly interesting discussion about whether these asshats were going to be charged with sedition or not...

(sighs)

Looks like a case of armed rebellion to me.

Just about any other government in the world would be sending in the army. I can see it now... let the asshats plunk away at an Abrams or two with their peashooters. Run over their trucks and laugh at them.

There are some accounts such as this one where I will actually argue on merit so I apologize for mucking up the thread.

The thing that gets me is that this is an issue of enforcement that comes down to a direct act of Obama. Our local GOP stooges seem completely lots to this notion. Instead they try and deflect. I guess they identify with the seditionists.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:cry little maggot :cry

It certainly is childish but you lack introspection into your own role. You decided to fantasize about me and have been flailing about my home and income for a year now. I am just showing you that insults are actually effective when they are based off of truth. I'm rubbing your face in the notion because you are perhaps the most willfully ignorant person this side of Wild Cobra.

You did say you had a knee replacement and I jsut linked a study demonstrating the dynamic I am talking about. Your poor impulse control continues to be on display. You don't even argue points but instead whine that I am making them. Childish indeed, fatty.

[CosmicCowboy]

Wow. I was hoping for a mildly interesting discussion about whether these asshats were going to be charged with sedition or not...

(sighs)

Looks like a case of armed rebellion to me.

Just about any other government in the world would be sending in the army. I can see it now... let the asshats plunk away at an Abrams or two with their peashooters. Run over their trucks and laugh at them.

I agree. These outside agitators (Bundy, etc.) are even stupider than Fuzzy Lumpkins. I can agree that the ranchers got fucked by the BLM without agreeing with these idiots occupying that center.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I agree. These outside agitators (Bundy, etc.) are even stupider than Fuzzy Lumpkins. I can agree that the ranchers got fucked by the BLM without agreeing with these idiots occupying that center.

It takes rubbing your face in it but you always come around.

[TheSanityAnnex]

There are some accounts such as this one where I will actually argue on merit so I apologize for mucking up the thread.

The thing that gets me is that this is an issue of enforcement that comes down to a direct act of Obama. Our local GOP stooges seem completely lots to this notion. Instead they try and deflect. I guess they identify with the seditionists.

Not a single person in this thread is supporting the militia take over of the government building. You'd have known that if you'd pay attention and stop talking about other poster's weights.

[CosmicCowboy]

It takes rubbing your face in it but you always come around.

Fuck you, asshole. My position on these outside agitators has never changed. You are just making shit up again. Ignorant arrogant little prick.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

TheSanityAnnex
whatdifferencedoesitmake?
This message is hidden because TheSanityAnnex is on your ignore list.
View Post
Remove user from ignore list

I have sufficient impulse control for this task. You can always try quoting me and including your message in a few words cause of the notification system.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuck you, asshole. My position on these outside agitators has never changed. You are just making shit up again. Ignorant arrogant little prick.


Sounds like a totally fabricated bullshit claim to me. BLM land is hundreds of thousands of acres. Lets get this in perspective....it was 147 acres...that's no "running hunters off of public land".

Sorry that you get so mad when your challenged on your opinions. It still is what it is.

[TheSanityAnnex]

That is actually a good question. I wonder if that would give a hunter with a permit a cause of action to sue the rancher.

Sounds a bit like the rancher was deciding for everybody else what the best use of that public land was for, and deciding it in such a way as to benefit himself financially at the expense of other stakeholders.

Or not.

(j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff's office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined that the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.


Fast forward 5 years


(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail that would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for 6 days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Much of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury. For example, Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings that the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.

(o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.

[CosmicCowboy]

Sorry that you get so mad when your challenged on your opinions. It still is what it is.

You are a fucking idiot. The fire had nothing to do with the outside agitators taking over the building. Knowing the rancher is getting persecuted by the BLM does not mean I support these militia idiots.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I can agree that the ranchers got fucked by the BLM without agreeing with these idiots occupying that center.Two very separate issues that some posters are having trouble grasping and discussing.

[CosmicCowboy]

Two very separate issues that some posters are having trouble grasping and discussing.

Mostly little Fuzzy, the forum idiot.

[pgardn]

That is actually a good question. I wonder if that would give a hunter with a permit a cause of action to sue the rancher.

Sounds a bit like the rancher was deciding for everybody else what the best use of that public land was for, and deciding it in such a way as to benefit himself financially at the expense of other stakeholders.

I think it's sort of humorous if they just let the Bundy offspring sit there. Not let anyone in.


Now if they had a Qiran on the premises they might get blowed up.

[vy65]

TheSanityAnnex
whatdifferencedoesitmake?
This message is hidden because TheSanityAnnex is on your ignore list.
View Post
Remove user from ignore list

I have sufficient impulse control for this task. You can always try quoting me and including your message in a few words cause of the notification system.


Not a single person in this thread is supporting the militia take over of the government building. You'd have known that if you'd pay attention and stop talking about other poster's weights.

The Platform

[Quetzal-X]

You are such an asshole. Terrorists for starting a small back fire to protect their home? 147 acres? They already served the jail sentences the judge originally gave them. What is the point of extending it to five years? they are trying to break them so they can steal their land.That is malicious prosecution. There are fucking armed robbers that get less time.

When the honkeys came to steal the native americans land , they slaughtered the buffalo to squeeze them out and off their ancestral lands as well . Im happy for every white honkey that gets kicked off his so called 'property' .

[Wild Cobra]

Got them all in one spot, this is what carpet bombing was made for...

No, we can't have any innocent Douglas Fir die as collateral damage.

Just let them go hungry.

[Quetzal-X]

bundy sez they are occupying "for years"

No Fed Action Planned, but Oregon Militia Loons Post Hilarious "Goodbye" Videos (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/3/1465762/-No-Fed-Action-Planned-but-Oregon-Militia-Loons-Post-Hilarious-Goodbye-Videos)

http://images.dailykos.com/images/192167/story_image/image.jpg?1451852431

the ammosexual brigade is so prepared to die on this manufactured hill, some have posted “goodbye” videos, which are maybe the funniest things of 2016. Here is one from known freedum doofus, Jon Ritzheimer:

Wow — Daddy couldn’t be home for Christmas OR New Year’s because of this idiocy? Looks like there’s a fine line between "defending the Constitution” and hating spending time with the family.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/3/1465762/-No-Fed-Action-Planned-but-Oregon-Militia-Loons-Post-Hilarious-Goodbye-Videos?detail=email

Real Patriots Don't Cry :lol

these gun fellatin assholes been drinkin the slave state, red state secessionist, revenoor-hatin yankee-hatin koolaid. Jim Jones is proud of them.



Stupid honkeys make my fucking day with these boohoo oppressed little ol me EMO videos. Lord, let this devil drink himself to sleep like they do to themselves nowadays lol

MaryKah!lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are a fucking idiot. The fire had nothing to do with the outside agitators taking over the building. Knowing the rancher is getting persecuted by the BLM does not mean I support these militia idiots.

You said complete fabricated lie. Your hair splitting is adorable, fatty. The Bundy people are there on the strength of your position.

[Wild Cobra]

Funny thing is, I haven't head squat about this here in Oregon. Must not be newsworthy here.

[Quetzal-X]

Oregon 'terrorists' don't plan siege very well, put out plea for snacks and supplies

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/oregon-terrorists-dont-plan-siege-very-well-put-out-plea-for-snacks-and-supplies--ZJglh9sRjx

These aren't Real Patriots. Real Patriots subsist on delicious patriotism alone.

Feds should cut them off, nobody, nothing, in or out, drink urine, eat each other. Real Patriots are delicious.



These asshole patriots mostly pass themselves off as the outdoorsie type. Truth be told , they are too americanized fo det lyfe. Ellos quieren Taco Bell.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Funny thing is, I haven't head squat about this here in Oregon. Must not be newsworthy here.

Here is the state's largest newspaper.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/oregon_standoff_update_7_thing.html

Here is Oregon Public Broadcasting:

http://www.opb.org/news/article/burns-oregon-standoff-militia/

Your critical thinking skills suck.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You already outed the vy65 fake lawyer account. Try a different one.

[vy65]

You already outed the vy65 fake lawyer account. Try a different one.

What?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol counselor crayola

I already told you that account gets no play.

[vy65]

Wtf are you talking about? Use your words.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You already outed the vy65 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=11399) fake lawyer account. Try a different one.
this should be entertaining

[vy65]

this should be entertaining

Is he saying I'm one of your trolls? My coffee shop fake-intellectual speak isn't what it used to be.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Is he saying I'm one of your trolls? My coffee shop fake-intellectual speak isn't what it used to be.

if so lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That doesn't look like sbmk, sa210, ****** spam at all on ignore. Really it doesn't.

[CosmicCowboy]

Fuzzy is so delusional he actually thinks his posts sound intelligent. :lmao

[TheSanityAnnex]

There are some accounts such as this one where I will actually argue on merit so I apologize for mucking up the thread.

The thing that gets me is that this is an issue of enforcement that comes down to a direct act of Obama. Our local GOP stooges seem completely lots to this notion. Instead they try and deflect. I guess they identify with the seditionists.

You should make another thread about the standoff and pretend you didn't say any of this.

[vy65]

You already outed the vy65 fake lawyer account. Try a different one.

Still waiting for an explanation of what this means.

[CosmicCowboy]

Still waiting for an explanation of what this means.

it means fuzzy is a delusional asshole.

[Clipper Nation]

FuzzyCuckins fagging up another thread per par.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy is so delusional he actually thinks his posts sound intelligent. :lmao

Yeah the misspellings, sentence fragments, and profanity are a dead giveaway, huh? Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Oregon Protests: Civil Disobedience Justified

Watching the news yesterday, a person could be forgiven for thinking that a small group of Americans had literally lost their minds. Militias are marching through Oregon on behalf of convicted arsonists? A small band of armed men has taken over a federal building? The story practically writes itself. Or does it? Deranged militiamen spoiling for a fight against the federal government make for good copy, but what if they’re right? What if the government viciously and unjustly prosecuted a rancher family so as to drive them from their land? Then protest, including civil disobedience, would be not just understandable but moral, and maybe even necessary. Ignore for a moment the #OregonUnderAttack hashtag — a rallying cry for leftists accusing the protesters of terrorism — and the liberal media’s self-satisfied cackling. Read the court documents in the case that triggered the protest, and the accounts of sympathetic ranchers. What emerges is a picture of a federal agency that will use any means necessary, including abusing federal anti-terrorism statutes, to increase government landholdings. The story as told by the protesters begins not with the federal criminal case against Steven and Dwight Hammond but many years earlier, with the creation and expansion of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, a tract of federal land set aside by President Theodore Roosevelt as “a preserve and breeding-ground for native birds.” The federal government has since expanded the preserve in part by buying adjacent private land. Protesters allege that when private landowners refused to sell, the federal government got aggressive, diverting water during the 1980s into the “rising Malheur lakes.” Eventually, the lakes flooded “homes, corrals, barns, and graze-land.” Ranchers who were “broke and destroyed” then “begged” the government to buy their “useless ranches.” What if the government viciously and unjustly prosecuted a rancher family so as to drive them from their land? By the 1990s, the Hammonds were among the few private landowners who remained adjacent to the Refuge. The protesters allege that the government then began a campaign of harassment designed to force the family to sell its land, a beginning with barricaded roads and arbitrarily revoked grazing permits and culminating in an absurd anti-terrorism prosecution based largely on two “arsons” that began on private land but spread to the Refuge. While “arsons” might sound suspicious to urban ears, anyone familiar with land management in the West (and to a lesser degree, in the rural South and Midwest) knows that land must sometime be burned to stop the spread of invasive species and prevent or fight destructive wildfires. Indeed, the federal government frequently starts its own fires, and protesters allege (with video evidence) that these “burns” often spread to private land, killing and injuring cattle and damaging private property. Needless to say, no federal officers are ever prosecuted. The prosecution of the Hammonds revolved mainly around two burns, one in 2001 and another in 2006. The government alleged that the first was ignited to cover up evidence of poaching and placed a teenager in danger. The Hammonds claimed that they started it to clear an invasive species, as is their legal right. Whatever its intent, the fire spread from the Hammonds’ property and ultimately ignited 139 acres of public land. But the trial judge found that the teenager’s testimony was tainted by age and bias and that the fire had merely damaged “juniper trees and sagebrush” — damage that “might” total $100 in value. The other burn was trifling. Here’s how the Ninth Circuit described it: In August 2006, a lightning storm kindled several fires near where the Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven responded by attempting back burns near the boundary of his land. Although a burn ban was in effect, Steven did not seek a waiver. His fires burned about an acre of public land. In 2010 — almost nine years after the 2001 burn — the government filed a 19-count indictment against the Hammonds that included charges under the Federal Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which mandates a five-year prison term for anyone who “maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States.”

At trial, the jury found the Hammonds guilty of maliciously setting fire to public property worth less than $1,000, acquitted them of other charges, and deadlocked on the government’s conspiracy claims. While the jury continued to deliberate, the Hammonds and the prosecution reached a plea agreement in which the Hammonds agreed to waive their appeal rights and accept the jury’s verdict. It was their understanding that the plea agreement would end the case. At sentencing, the trial court refused to apply the mandatory-minimum sentence, holding that five years in prison would be “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses” and that the Hammonds’ fires “could not have been conduct intended [to be covered] under” the Anti-terrorism act: When you say, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles where there are houses up those ravines? Might apply. Out in the wilderness here, I don’t think that’s what the Congress intended. And in addition, it just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality. . . . It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me. Thus, he found that the mandatory-minimum sentence would — under the facts of this case — violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” He sentenced Steven Hammond to two concurrent prison terms of twelve months and one day and Dwight Hammond to one prison term of three months. The Hammonds served their sentences without incident or controversy.

The federal government, however, was not content to let the matter rest. Despite the absence of any meaningful damage to federal land, the U.S. Attorney appealed the trial judge’s sentencing decision, demanding that the Hammonds return to prison to serve a full five-year sentence. The case went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the court ruled against the Hammonds, rejecting their argument that the prosecutor violated the plea agreement by filing an appeal and dismissing the trial court’s Eighth Amendment concerns. The Hammonds were ordered back to prison. At the same time, they were struggling to pay a $400,000 civil settlement with the federal government, the terms of which gave the government right of first refusal to purchase their property if they couldn’t scrape together the money.There’s a clear argument that the government engaged in an overzealous, vindictive prosecution here. By no stretch of the imagination were the Hammonds terrorists, yet they were prosecuted under an anti-terrorism statute. The government could have let the case end once the men had served their sentences, yet it pressed for more jail time. And the whole time, it held in its back pocket potential rights to the family’s property. To the outside observer, it appears the government has attempted to crush private homeowners and destroy their livelihood in a quest for even more land. If that’s the case, civil disobedience is a valuable course of action. By occupying a vacant federal building, protesters can bring national attention to an injustice that would otherwise go unnoticed and unremedied. Moreover, they can bring attention once again to the federal government’s more systemic persecution of private landowners. RELATED: The Case for a Little Sedition With vast segments of the American West in government hands, private landowners often find themselves at the mercy of the federal government — a government that often seems to delight in expanding its power and holdings at the expense of ranchers and farmers, one in the habit of placing turtles before people. Ranchers and farmers fighting the federal government are a tiny minority up against the world’s most powerful body. “David versus Goliath” simply doesn’t do the conflict justice. While civil disobedience is justified, violence is not. So far, no one has been hurt, the “occupation” is occurring in a vacant federal building in the middle of nowhere, and there is no reported threat to innocent bystanders. It would be absurd for the federal government to treat the protesters like it treated the men and women at Waco or Ruby Ridge, and it would be absurd for the protesters to shoot police officers who are ordered to reasonably and properly enforce the law. The occupation is far less intrusive and disruptive than the Occupy Movement’s dirty and violent seizure of urban public parks, and authorities permitted that to go on for weeks. Now is the time for calm, not escalation. RELATED: The Problem with Cliven Bundy I sympathize with the ranchers’ fury, and I’m moved by the Hammonds’ plight. According to multiple accounts, they are good American citizens. Even the prosecutor noted that they “have done wonderful things for their community.” The district court noted that the character letters submitted on the Hammonds’ behalf were “tremendous” and that “these are people who have been a salt in their community.” Yet now they’re off to prison once again — not because they had to go or because they harmed any other person but because the federal government has pursued them like a pack of wolves. They are victims of an all-too-common injustice. Ranchers and other landowners across the country find themselves chafing under the thumb of an indifferent and even oppressive federal government. Now is the time for peaceful protest. If it gets the public to pay attention, it won’t have been in vain. — David French is an attorney and a staff writer at National Review.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429214/oregon-rancher-protests-civil-disobedience-justified

[TheSanityAnnex]

At trial, the jury found the Hammonds guilty of maliciously setting fire to public public property worth less than $1,000, acquitted them of other charges, and deadlocked on the government’s conspiracy claims. While the jury continued to deliberate, the Hammonds and the prosecution reached a plea agreement in which the Hammonds agreed to waive their appeal rights and accept the jury’s verdict. It was their understanding that the plea agreement would end the case. At sentencing, the trial court refused to apply the mandatory-minimum sentence, holding that five years in prison would be “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses” and that the Hammonds’ fires “could not have been conduct intended [to be covered] under” the Anti-terrorism act: When you say, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles where there are houses up those ravines? Might apply. Out in the wilderness here, I don’t think that’s what the Congress intended. And in addition, it just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality. . . . It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me. Thus, he found that the mandatory-minimum sentence would — under the facts of this case — violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” He sentenced Steven Hammond to two concurrent prison terms of twelve months and one day and Dwight Hammond to one prison term of three months. The Hammonds served their sentences without incident or controversy.

The federal government, however, was not content to let the matter rest. Despite the absence of any meaningful damage to federal land, the U.S. Attorney appealed the trial judge’s sentencing decision, demanding that the Hammonds return to prison to serve a full five-year sentence. The case went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the court ruled against the Hammonds, rejecting their argument that the prosecutor violated the plea agreement by filing an appeal and dismissing the trial court’s Eighth Amendment concerns. The Hammonds were ordered back to prison. At the same time, they were struggling to pay a $400,000 civil settlement with the federal government, the terms of which gave the government right of first refusal to purchase their property if they couldn’t scrape together the money.There’s a clear argument that the government engaged in an overzealous, vindictive prosecution here. By no stretch of the imagination were the Hammonds terrorists, yet they were prosecuted under an anti-terrorism statute. The government could have let the case end once the men had served their sentences, yet it pressed for more jail time. And the whole time, it held in its back pocket potential rights to the family’s property

[TheSanityAnnex]

5 reasons you should side with the Hammonds


http://www.dailywire.com/news/2303/here-are-five-reasons-you-should-side-hammond-ben-shapiro?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=010416-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro (http://www.dailywire.com/news/2303/here-are-five-reasons-you-should-side-hammond-ben-shapiro?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=010416-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro)

[vy65]

According to a witness to the fire, it was done to keep hunters away and to improve public land for grazing their own herd on.


You do realize that the trial judge who, unlike you, heard the witnesses testimony, rejected this story as not-credible, right?

[vy65]

that's one side of it. did the court allow the testimony?

Some of the circumstances of the 2001 fire were disputed at trial. The government’s main witness on the 2001 fire was Dwight Hammond’s grandson, Dusty Hammond, who asserted that the fire had placed him in physical danger. App. 3. The defense presented substantial evidence contradicting Dusty Hammond’s version of the events. See SER-11-22. At sentencing, the trial judge rejected Dusty’s version of what had happened, based on his age and bias. App. 14.

[vy65]

Getting evidence in past FRE 403 (relevance vs prejudice) is a ridiculously low threshold. It means nothing that the witness was allowed to testify because the substance of his testimony was in all likelihood relevant. The judge wanted the jury to assess his credibility. That the judge discounted such testimony during sentencing is telling.

[vy65]

That being said, occupying the empty park office is a fucking stupid move and ultimately hurts the Hammonds otherwise sympathetic story.

[vy65]

the Hammonds propping up their troubled grandson as a shield and hiding behind his alleged mental incapacity hardly does them credit

A shield? Was the grandson the Hammonds main witness or the Governments?

[vy65]

it's an outrage that the Federal minimum sentence applies to serial arsonists who destroy public property.

an outrage!

Serial arsonists? Poaching cover ups? Funny, given your disdain for government overreach, I never would have taken you as as a beuracratic shill. Being uninformed is a bitch, ain't it.

[TheSanityAnnex]

The Bundy's and the militia may be smarter than I'm giving them credit for. They aren't going to fire any shots and what they are doing in the gov building is stupid, they'll leave peacefully when push comes to shove. But this is now getting major attention and the BLM is being exposed for the pieces of shit they are. Maybe this was Bundy's plan all along.

[TheSanityAnnex]

BLM version of "to make a murderer"

[ElNono]

I still don't get why the Hammonds didn't appeal in the first place and instead decided to do time in jail if they thought they were innocents.

THAT is what doesn't jive with this story, it's basically a tacit admission of guilt. They could've just appealed and had a hearing in front of a different judge.

Like I said, they probably just needed better lawyers...

[TheSanityAnnex]

I still don't get why the Hammonds didn't appeal in the first place and instead decided to do time in jail if they thought they were innocents.

THAT is what doesn't jive with this story, it's basically a tacit admission of guilt. They could've just appealed and had a hearing in front of a different judge.

Like I said, they probably just needed better lawyers...

At trial, the jury found the Hammonds guilty of maliciously setting fire to public public property worth less than $1,000, acquitted them of other charges, and deadlocked on the government’s conspiracy claims. While the jury continued to deliberate, the Hammonds and the prosecution reached a plea agreement in which the Hammonds agreed to waive their appeal rights and accept the jury’s verdict. It was their understanding that the plea agreement would end the case. At sentencing, the trial court refused to apply the mandatory-minimum sentence, holding that five years in prison would be “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses” and that the Hammonds’ fires “could not have been conduct intended [to be covered] under” the Anti-terrorism act: When you say, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles where there are houses up those ravines? Might apply. Out in the wilderness here, I don’t think that’s what the Congress intended. And in addition, it just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality. . . . It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me. Thus, he found that the mandatory-minimum sentence would — under the facts of this case — violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” He sentenced Steven Hammond to two concurrent prison terms of twelve months and one day and Dwight Hammond to one prison term of three months. The Hammonds served their sentences without incident or controversy

[ElNono]

^ that doesn't excuse the Hammonds. If they thought they were innocent, they don't have to agree to any plea deal and have every right to appeal.

Considering the alleged egregious behavior by the judge, why wouldn't they opt to keep exercising their rights on a different forum?

Either the judge/prosecutor behavior isn't what the one sided storyline you've been posting was, or they had terrible advice from their lawyers.

[pgardn]

That being said, occupying the empty park office is a fucking stupid move and ultimately hurts the Hammonds otherwise sympathetic story.

This is what I find so funny.
Just let them stay until the get the Snickers urge.
Bunch a country folk eating bark...

[TheSanityAnnex]

^ that doesn't excuse the Hammonds. If they thought they were innocent, they don't have to agree to any plea deal and have every right to appeal.

Considering the alleged egregious behavior by the judge, why wouldn't they opt to keep exercising their rights on a different forum?

Either the judge/prosecutor behavior isn't what the one sided storyline you've been posting was, or they had terrible advice from their lawyers.
After being harassed for as long as they were it's fairly easy to see how they would give in to the initial demands just to end the debacle with the BLM. They appear to be genuine upstanding citizens that were simply tired of fighting and up against a wall. I have little reason to doubt their side of he story, to me it's clear bullying by the BLM.

[vy65]

^ that doesn't excuse the Hammonds. If they thought they were innocent, they don't have to agree to any plea deal and have every right to appeal.

Considering the alleged egregious behavior by the judge, why wouldn't they opt to keep exercising their rights on a different forum?

Either the judge/prosecutor behavior isn't what the one sided storyline you've been posting was, or they had terrible advice from their lawyers.

Parties constantly settle and give up their rights for assurance that they avoid something worse.

[pgardn]

Parties constantly settle and give up their rights for assurance that they avoid something worse.

So where is the ACLU?

[vy65]

So where is the ACLU?

Explain

[pgardn]

Explain

Protecting Civil Liberties?

Not a good fit?

[vy65]

Protecting Civil Liberties?

Not a good fit?

What does that have to do with what I said?

[pgardn]

What does that have to do with what I said?

In general man, why have they not entered the fray? It's great pub? Protecting Nazi marches and all..
Maybe it really has gone so astray with Bundentrance that it's considered too silly to get pub...

[TheSanityAnnex]

Parties constantly settle and give up their rights for assurance that they avoid something worse.
Especially up against the Feds. They will win 98% of the time

[Winehole23]

like the family, he hides behind the troubled grandson and says the BLM made him testify instead of admittiing they used him to set fire to public range land.

[Winehole23]

taking advantage of his putative mental incapacity then hiding behind it like a shield...

[Winehole23]

CC says idiots occupying the bird sanctuary got no credibility.

Werd.

[boutons_deux]

Oregon refuge occupation: 'It's getting dark, and it is freezing'

“Their morale has been up for most of the day, but it’s getting dark and it is freezing,”

“But they have layers on; they seem very able-bodied men and women.”
“And there are women there,”


the occupying group has made "no direct demands," but the participants have stated that they will leave if the federal government gives up control of the nearby Malheur National Forest.
They are also demanding freedom or a reduced sentence for two Oregon ranchers whose imprisonment sparked the current standoff, Bundy said.

“We don't want it to end with violence,”

“We're not looking for bloodshed.”

“These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives, to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States,”

“There's 17 buildings and all of them full of people,”

dipping below 15 degrees,

“We can enforce the Constitution in Harney County and that’s what we intend to do,” :lol Ammon Bundy told reporters. “We have a lot of plans.” :lol


The Southern Poverty Law Center said in a report on that standoff that the militiamen and the federal land-return movement are part of the same spectrum.
“Anti-government extremists have long pushed, most fiercely during Democratic administrations, rabid conspiracy theories about a nefarious New World Order, a socialist, gun-grabbing federal government and the evils of federal law enforcement,”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ff-militia-oregon-20160103-story.html

[boutons_deux]

Feds won't oust militant occupiers, leader Ammon Bundy says
"They intend not to come up on us," Bundy said. :lol WTF? is that Mormon-speak?

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

[boutons_deux]

The people will need to be able to use the land and resources without fear as free men and women, we know it will take some time. (http://www.quotes.net/citizen-quote/157821)
– Ammon Bundy (http://www.quotes.net/authors/Ammon%20Bundy)
Found on CNN (http://rss.cnn.com/c/35492/f/676961/s/4c9f96bf/sc/7/l/0L0Scnn0N0C20A160C0A10C0A40Cus0Coregon0Ewildlife0E refuge0Eprotest0Cindex0Bhtml0Deref0Frss0Itopstorie s/story01.htm)
1 day ago
TOP NEWS (http://www.quotes.net/citizen.php?category=Top+News)


It is the people's facility, owned by the people, it has been provided for us to be able to come together and unite and make a hard stand against this overreach - this taking of the people's land and resources. (http://www.quotes.net/citizen-quote/157765)
– Ammon Bundy (http://www.quotes.net/authors/Ammon%20Bundy)
Found on Reuters (http://feeds.reuters.com/~r/Reuters/domesticNews/~3/p-W87QzueYY/story01.htm)
1 day ago
US NEWS (http://www.quotes.net/citizen.php?category=US+News)


For those that understand what is going on, and those who want to and feel a need to stand, we’re asking them to come, we have a facility that we can house them in. (http://www.quotes.net/citizen-quote/157766)
– Ammon Bundy (http://www.quotes.net/authors/Ammon%20Bundy)
Found on Reuters (http://feeds.reuters.com/~r/Reuters/domesticNews/~3/p-W87QzueYY/story01.htm)
1 day ago
US NEWS (http://www.quotes.net/citizen.php?category=US+News)


We want the government to abide by the Constitution... and to play by the rules. (http://www.quotes.net/citizen-quote/157724)
– Ammon Bundy (http://www.quotes.net/authors/Ammon%20Bundy)

http://www.quotes.net/authors/Ammon%20Bundy



Like the Oath Keeper sheriffs who claim to be the supreme judges, interpreters, enforcers of the Constitution (probably without college degree, law degree, even without HS diploma), these Bundy sons are ignorant, simplistic, religiously warped Mormon Moroni idiots.

[pgardn]

The Republican candidates are on radio silence.

"We must fully evaluate the ramifications of this deeply disturbing government intervention on the fruitbat arm of our voting public"

The Democrats eagerly await Boots to infiltrate Donald's hair and lay claim to the massive structure as a carbon eating resource to be managed by the federal government.

But I digress...

[boutons_deux]

public lands belong to The American People (c), not the states, not to any ignorant rurals who think they are supreme defenders of the Constitution, which the don't understand.

[boutons_deux]

Here’s What Happened When Black People Tried Armed Occupation


http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/04202104/AP_8505131584-1024x688.jpg

Members of the liberation group sought a natural lifestyle (http://globalgrind.com/2013/09/26/11-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-time-police-bombed-an-american-neighborhood-move-philadelphia-list/), free of government control, law enforcement, and technology. They lived together in a barricaded house, protested for animal rights, and ate raw foods. Similar to Bundy’s supporters, they believed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE) the federal government violated their constitutional rights. And with a cache of weapons in their possession, they also advocated armed defense if targeted by the city’s authorities.

On May 13, 1985 (http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/05/13/406243272/im-from-philly-30-years-later-im-still-trying-to-make-sense-of-the-move-bombing), officers with warrants and military-grade weapons surrounded their house. Police claimed they were there to evict the group, in response to complaints from locals about MOVE’s use of blow-horns to proselytize late into the night. They pointed deluge guns at the house and yelled at the people inside to evacuate. Tear gas was thrown into the building to smoke them out. But when someone started shooting back, the officers returned the gunfire with 10,000 rounds. Without knowing how many people were inside, they began throwing explosives at the house. And when nobody came out, they dropped a bomb from a helicopter — setting off a fire that spread to 65 homes and that firefighters were ordered not to put out.

In the end, one woman and one child made it out of the house alive. Five children and six adults were killed.

According to survivor Ramona Africa, MOVE residents tried to exit the house but police would not stop shooting at them. “We were met with a barrage of police gunfire. And you could see it hitting all around us, all around the house,” she told Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/13/25_years_ago_philadelphia_police_bombs). “And it forced us back in to that blazing inferno, several times. And finally, you know, you’re in a position where either you choke to death and burn alive or you possibly are shot to death.” Local journalist Juan Gonzalez verified her account.

Africa also believes the attack on MOVE was aimed at killing its members — not responding to neighbors’ complaints. Years before the bombing, MOVE struck a deal with Philadelphia officials (http://articles.philly.com/2010-05-06/news/24958732_1_cops-move-compound-move-members) to hand over its weapons and evacuate the house in exchange for the release of some if its detained members. When the city obliged the request, MOVE did not budge. Police subsequently attacked the building with water cannons and battering rams. Some of the radicals opened fire, killing one officer and injuring 16 additional cops and firefighters.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/04/3735745/move-vs-oregon-standoff/

[boutons_deux]

Ammon Bundy, like his father before him, hates the Fed except when taking money from the Fed (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/4/1466117/-Ammon-Bundy-like-his-father-before-him-hates-the-Fed-except-when-taking-money-from-the-Fed)

Ammon Bundy runs a Phoenix-based company called Valet Fleet Services LLC, which specializes in repairing and maintaining fleets of semitrucks throughout Arizona. On April 15, 2010—Tax Day, as it happens—Bundy's business borrowed $530,000 through a Small Business Administration loan guarantee program. The available public record does not indicate what the loan was used for or whether it was repaid. The SBA website notes (https://www.usaspending.gov/transparency/Pages/TransactionDetails.aspx?RecordID=286CEDE8-41F8-205F-902D-3046F93E2AD6&AwardID=40084141&AwardType=L) that this loan guarantee was issued under a program "to aid small businesses which are unable to obtain financing in the private credit marketplace." The government estimated that this subsidy could cost taxpayers $22,419 (https://www.usaspending.gov/transparency/Pages/TransactionDetails.aspx?RecordID=286CEDE8-41F8-205F-902D-3046F93E2AD6&AwardID=40084141&AwardType=L). Bundy did not respond to an email request for comment about the SBA loan.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/01/04/1466117/-Ammon-Bundy-like-his-father-before-him-hates-the-Fed-except-when-taking-money-from-the-Fed?detail=email

Bundy pere still owes taxpayers $1M for using THEIR land for free.

Sounds like rightwingnuts "love free stuff" from that damned guvmint.

[boutons_deux]

Schools forced to close for another week while grown men play militia in Oregon (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/4/1466078/-Schools-forced-to-close-for-another-week-while-grown-men-play-militia-in-Oregon)

“Ensuring staff and student safety is our greatest concern,” Marilyn L. McBride, the superintendent of Harney County School District #3, wrote in an e-mail. Schools were originally scheduled to reopen Monday following the winter break.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/4/1466078/-Schools-forced-to-close-for-another-week-while-grown-men-play-militia-in-Oregon??detail=email

[TheSanityAnnex]

At trial, the jury found the Hammonds guilty of maliciously setting fire to public public property worth less than $1,000, acquitted them of other charges, and deadlocked on the government’s conspiracy claims. While the jury continued to deliberate, the Hammonds and the prosecution reached a plea agreement in which the Hammonds agreed to waive their appeal rights and accept the jury’s verdict. It was their understanding that the plea agreement would end the case. At sentencing, the trial court refused to apply the mandatory-minimum sentence, holding that five years in prison would be “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses” and that the Hammonds’ fires “could not have been conduct intended [to be covered] under” the Anti-terrorism act: When you say, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles where there are houses up those ravines? Might apply. Out in the wilderness here, I don’t think that’s what the Congress intended. And in addition, it just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality. . . . It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me. Thus, he found that the mandatory-minimum sentence would — under the facts of this case — violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” He sentenced Steven Hammond to two concurrent prison terms of twelve months and one day and Dwight Hammond to one prison term of three months. The Hammonds served their sentences without incident or controversy.

The federal government, however, was not content to let the matter rest. Despite the absence of any meaningful damage to federal land, the U.S. Attorney appealed the trial judge’s sentencing decision, demanding that the Hammonds return to prison to serve a full five-year sentence. The case went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the court ruled against the Hammonds, rejecting their argument that the prosecutor violated the plea agreement by filing an appeal and dismissing the trial court’s Eighth Amendment concerns. The Hammonds were ordered back to prison. At the same time, they were struggling to pay a $400,000 civil settlement with the federal government, the terms of which gave the government right of first refusal to purchase their property if they couldn’t scrape together the money.There’s a clear argument that the government engaged in an overzealous, vindictive prosecution here. By no stretch of the imagination were the Hammonds terrorists, yet they were prosecuted under an anti-terrorism statute. The government could have let the case end once the men had served their sentences, yet it pressed for more jail time. And the whole time, it held in its back pocket potential rights to the family’s property

[Winehole23]

Greed for a few more acres of worthless rangeland caused the government to prosecute the Hammonds maliciously? seems kinda far fetched.

[Winehole23]

sentencing them under an anti-terrorism statute does seem a reach. that law is a problem if it's broad enough to cover what the Hammonds did -- it should be scrapped.

[Winehole23]

funny that the Bundys need NR and others to spell out for them what exactly they're protesting. their own press conferences are far less coherent than their indignant media defenders.

[boutons_deux]

there's one fat lady in fashionable camo, probably wishing she could grow beard, who's pissed that she's applied many times for BLM to give her more taxpayer land (aka "free stuff" that the Repugs love to hate) but is always turned down.

[ElNono]

Parties constantly settle and give up their rights for assurance that they avoid something worse.

But that's exactly what I pointed out. They agreed to this. They're even going to show up to go back to jail, last I heard. They had a forum to fight for a better outcome and it was their own choice not to pursue it, not the prosecutor or 'evil' BLM.

[vy65]

But that's exactly what I pointed out. They agreed to this. They're even going to show up to go back to jail, last I heard. They had a forum to fight for a better outcome and it was their own choice not to pursue it, not the prosecutor or 'evil' BLM.


While the jury deliberated on the remaining charges, the
parties reached an oral agreement and presented it to the
court.1
The government told the court that the Hammonds had
agreed to “waive their appeal rights” — except with respect
to ineffective assistance of counsel claims — “and accept the
verdicts as they’ve been returned thus far by the jury.” In
return, the government promised to “recommend” that
Steven’s sentences run concurrently and agreed that the
Hammonds “should remain released pending the court’s
sentencing decision.”
The Hammonds agreed with the government’s summary
of the plea agreement. Their attorneys also added that the
Hammonds wanted the “case to be over” and hoped to “bring
th[e] matter to a close.” According to the defense, the “idea”
of the plea agreement was that the case would “be done with
at the sentencing” and that the “parties would accept . . . the
sentence that’s imposed.” The district court then accepted the
plea agreement and dismissed the remaining charges.

The issue, to me at least, seems that the government didn't live up to its end of the plea -- it's not an issue with the plea bargain as such.

It's settlement -- the Hammonds ostensibly thought they were "buying peace" with the plea agreement.

There may be some fuckery abreast considering the 9th Circuit's opinion suggests the Hammonds thought that their deal was to accept whatever sentence prescribed by the Judge. They're probably thinking the prosecution backed out of the deal by not accepting - and instead appealing - the district court's sentence.

[TheSanityAnnex]

But that's exactly what I pointed out. They agreed to this. They're even going to show up to go back to jail, last I heard. They had a forum to fight for a better outcome and it was their own choice not to pursue it, not the prosecutor or 'evil' BLM.
While the jury continued to deliberate, the Hammonds and the prosecution reached a plea agreement in which the Hammonds agreed to waive their appeal rights and accept the jury’s verdict. It was their understanding that the plea agreement would end the case

[vy65]

Your point about it being on the lawyer's to counsel the Hammond's on the effect of the deal is well taken. Notable that there are claims for ineffective assistance of counsel.

My guess is that counsel was a federal public defender -- probably not the greatest lawyer in the world considering its rural Oregon.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Greed for a few more acres of worthless rangeland caused the government to prosecute the Hammonds maliciously? seems kinda far fetched.

So far fetched the government harassed them for 50 years

In 1964 the Hammonds purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.

(a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.


(a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told that, “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”. 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.


(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentional diverted the water to bypassing the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede and now the once thriving privately owned Silvies pains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.




(a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers that still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling fact about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study that was done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed that the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed that the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced 4 times more ducks and geese than the refuge did. It also showed that the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.


(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out that the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive towards the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found that the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*


(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with "disturbing and interfering with" federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.


(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.


(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds intended to still use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.


(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.




(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F9WOe5UHSL8/Vn_lvg3IoUI/AAAAAAAABXk/DGqdMxQEqSw/s1600/Hammond%2BRanch%2BDwight.png)













(g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sell their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later.

[CosmicCowboy]

Your point about it being on the lawyer's to counsel the Hammond's on the effect of the deal is well taken. Notable that there are claims for ineffective assistance of counsel.

My guess is that counsel was a federal public defender -- probably not the greatest lawyer in the world considering its rural Oregon.

You can't receive or accept a plea agreement WITHOUT THE PROSECUTOR AGREEING TO IT. The Hammond's agreed to the plea deal then the prosecutor fucked them by then turning around and appealing the agreement. That is just total bullshit.

[vy65]

You can't receive or accept a plea agreement WITHOUT THE PROSECUTOR AGREEING TO IT. The Hammond's agreed to the plea deal then the prosecutor fucked them by then turning around and appealing the agreement. That is just total bullshit.

Right, that's why I said it doesn't seem like the government lived up to their end of the bargain.

The 9th Circuit's opinion suggests the Hammonds, in open court, stated that their understanding of the plea was that the case would be over upon sentencing -- I understand that to mean no appeals from either side. There's no indication that the AUSA rejected the Hammond's interpretation of the deal -- or reserved a right to appeal in the event it didn't like the district court's sentence. Although it still doesn't explain why the 9th Circuit accepted the prosecution's appeal/refused to enforce the plea -- but then again -- it's the 9th Circuit.

[vy65]

Right, that's why I said it doesn't seem like the government lived up to their end of the bargain.

The 9th Circuit's opinion suggests the Hammonds, in open court, stated that their understanding of the plea was that the case would be over upon sentencing -- I understand that to mean no appeals from either side. There's no indication that the AUSA rejected the Hammond's interpretation of the deal -- or reserved a right to appeal in the event it didn't like the district court's sentence. Although it still doesn't explain why the 9th Circuit accepted the prosecution's appeal/refused to enforce the plea -- but then again -- it's the 9th Circuit.

The 9th Circuit's opinion is kind of laughable: "The Hammonds respond by arguing that the statements of defense counsel show that an all-around waiver of appellate rights was the sine qua non of the plea agreement. The record, however, belies that assertion. The statements made by defense counsel just before the judge accepted the plea agreement underscore that all parties sought to resolve the case swiftly, but finality was not the only benefit supporting the plea agreement. Other benefits included favorable recommendations from the government and the dismissal of charges. We thus cannot reasonably read defense counsels’ references to finality as meaning that no party could take an appeal."

So defense counsel says that one of the reasons why his client accepts the deal is ending the litigation upon sentencing, the prosecution says nothing, the 9th circuit acknowledges this is what happened, but somehow -- and despite these uncontested facts -- the prosecution reserved a right to appeal?

[TheSanityAnnex]

sentencing them under an anti-terrorism statute does seem a reach. that law is a problem if it's broad enough to cover what the Hammonds did -- it should be scrapped.

This was all about the BLM getting first right of refusal to the Hammond's land, which they got.

[CosmicCowboy]

The 9th Circuit's opinion is kind of laughable: "The Hammonds respond by arguing that the statements of defense counsel show that an all-around waiver of appellate rights was the sine qua non of the plea agreement. The record, however, belies that assertion. The statements made by defense counsel just before the judge accepted the plea agreement underscore that all parties sought to resolve the case swiftly, but finality was not the only benefit supporting the plea agreement. Other benefits included favorable recommendations from the government and the dismissal of charges. We thus cannot reasonably read defense counsels’ references to finality as meaning that no party could take an appeal."

So defense counsel says that one of the reasons why his client accepts the deal is ending the litigation upon sentencing, the prosecution says nothing, the 9th circuit acknowledges this is what happened, but somehow -- and despite these uncontested facts -- the prosecution reserved a right to appeal?

Best guess is the prosecutor agreed to the plea deal because the local BLM guys agreed to accept it... then when Washington heard about the plea results they shit backwards on the deal and forced the appeal.

[boutons_deux]

What's Happening in Oregon Is Nothing Less Than Armed Sedition

By Charles Pierce, Esquire
04 January 16

Its roots in our politics are deep and tangled.


"If three years ago any person had told me that at this day, I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws & constitutions of our own making as now appears I should have thought him a bedlamite—a fit subject for a mad house."
—George Washington to Henry Knox, on the subject of Shays Rebellion, February 3, 1787

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-Y.jpgou have to give Captain Daniel Shays this: When he launched his armed sedition against lawful authority, he at least was invited in. Overnight on Saturday, in an obscure corner of the Oregon wilderness, and contrary to the law, and in defiance of democratic authority, both federal and local, another act of armed sedition was committed (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.oregonlive.com_pacific-2Dnorthwest-2Dnews_index.ssf_2016_01_drama-5Fin-5Fburns-5Fends-5Fwith-5Fquiet.html&d=CwMFaQ&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=2tv5ouGuZ3OUL42RauXnO55zSH_92u3BGEgdgNJbNIk&m=6sTA97N02SDYCZk5q0RtcsHwhZKMhdYK2_wUvOpxu8E&s=HSiso21dP_MGYjef5zq7B1mIU62dP9yQr6fbOPZsSpQ&e=). It seems to me that this ought to be a bigger story than, say, the belated prosecution of Bill Cosby, or whatever most recently came out of the mouth of the vulgar talking yam. In a small place in Oregon, the essential compact of the United States of America has come apart.

The Bundy family of Nevada joined with hard-core militiamen Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 30 miles southeast of Burns for years. The occupation came shortly after an estimated 300 marchers—militia and local citizens both—paraded through Burns to protest the prosecution of two Harney County ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday. Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and two of his brothers. Militia members at the refuge claimed they had as many as 100 supporters with them. The refuge, federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was closed and unoccupied for the holiday weekend.


(This is also something you have to give to Captain Daniel Shays. He put a little more of his ass on the line. His act of armed sedition aimed a little higher than the occupation of the vacant headquarters of a bird sanctuary.)

Before moving on to the larger issues, it's important to note that the local authorities, and the local citizenry, want no part of this noisy claque of armed meatheads (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.cbsnews.com_news_oregon-2Dranchers-2Dreject-2Dcliven-2Dbundy-2Dfamily-2Doccupation_&d=CwMFaQ&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=2tv5ouGuZ3OUL42RauXnO55zSH_92u3BGEgdgNJbNIk&m=6sTA97N02SDYCZk5q0RtcsHwhZKMhdYK2_wUvOpxu8E&s=hadMoSFBVOU4uECfQyrkEjKd2fVb-ym6sSFGLEFSn6U&e=). It is popular among these people who apparently have brains wired like short-wave radios broadcasting from upper Michigan to say that the real constitutional authority in this country resides in its local sheriffs. Well, the local sheriff in this case would like it very much if this particular invasive species would abandon his jurisdiction and go back to freeloading on federal lands in Nevada.

Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward told people to stay away from the building as authorities work to defuse the situation, The Oregonian (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__is.gd_bK7d4E&d=CwMFaQ&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=2tv5ouGuZ3OUL42RauXnO55zSH_92u3BGEgdgNJbNIk&m=6sTA97N02SDYCZk5q0RtcsHwhZKMhdYK2_wUvOpxu8E&s=gl_7-jGd9lgo8iziwXUUJfDIiHaxmMf072X3LiTU4JE&e=) 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.

Hell, even the convicted arsonists on whose behalf this action allegedly was undertaken have distanced themselves from these clowns.

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.

This is an act of armed sedition against lawful authority. That is all that it is, and that is quite enough. This is not "an expression of anti-government sentiment." (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.denverpost.com_ci-5F29333613_oregon-2Dranching-2Dcase-2Dsparks-2Danti-2Dgovernment-2Dsentiment&d=CwMFaQ&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=2tv5ouGuZ3OUL42RauXnO55zSH_92u3BGEgdgNJbNIk&m=6sTA97N02SDYCZk5q0RtcsHwhZKMhdYK2_wUvOpxu8E&s=fBrDGNpoZLj-WOCY3SWb18A4v3WOJMR5BvUViaS0UAc&e=)

Flipping off the governor as he drives by is "an expression of anti-government sentiment."

What Alex Jones does every day is "an expression of anti-government sentiment," and god bless them all for it.

That's what the Founders had in mind. This is not an "occupation" following "a peaceful protest." (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__abcnews.go.com_US_wireStory_peaceful-2Dprotest-2Doregon-2Dwildlife-2Drefuge-2Daction-2D36061121&d=CwMFaQ&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=2tv5ouGuZ3OUL42RauXnO55zSH_92u3BGEgdgNJbNIk&m=6sTA97N02SDYCZk5q0RtcsHwhZKMhdYK2_wUvOpxu8E&s=_DYjIuRGfIpKhuea5_25ynsr7ohvDy7_ztiN_gipSzM&e=) That would be all those folks who got bludgeoned and pepper-sprayed out of Zuccotti Park a couple of years back. (And when exactly did ABC News decide it wasn't a news organization anymore?) These are men with guns who have declared themselves outside the law. These are men with guns who have taken something that belongs to all of us. These are traitors and thieves who got away with this dangerous nonsense once, and have been encouraged to get away with it again, and they draw their inspiration not solely from the wilder fringes of our politics, either. Ammon Bundy and his brothers should have been thrown in jail after they gathered themselves in rebellion the first time.

This is another step down the road that leads to the broken shell of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. There are respectable people in our respectable politics who have been shamefully silent on the subject, and there are respectable people in our respectable media who seem terrified of calling this what it is. You want an example of the deadening effect of "political correctness" in our politics? Watch what the people running for president have to say about this episode. Look at how it is being framed already—or ignored entirely—by the elite political media. There is a constituency for armed rebellion in this country that is larger than any of our respectable political and social institutions want to admit. It is fueled by reckless, ambitious people who engage in reckless, ambitious rhetoric.

It did not begin in Burns. It did not begin on the Bundy Ranch, either. In its most modern form, and in the form most relevant to recent events, it began, as so many noxious elements of our politics did, with the Reagan Administration.

It began with a man named Ron Arnold (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.publiceye.org_magazine_v07n2_wiseuse.html&d=CwMFaQ&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=2tv5ouGuZ3OUL42RauXnO55zSH_92u3BGEgdgNJbNIk&m=6sTA97N02SDYCZk5q0RtcsHwhZKMhdYK2_wUvOpxu8E&s=0sO3NlYkDTEt6BS_TI0Q1bAndB3H7ZlhaqVcmf_lKes&e=), and a Secretary of the Interior named James Watt, and in something called the Wise Use movement with which the Republican party (and the conservative movement that became its fundamental life force) allied itself for its political advantage in the western part of the country.

Much of this popularity can be explained by the lingering economic recession of the early 1980s, which provided a receptive grassroots audience for the Wise Use claim that it is easier to force nature to adapt to current corporate policies than to encourage the growth of more environmentally sound ways of doing business.

Wise Use pamphlets argue that extinction is a natural process; some species weren't meant to survive. The movement's signature public relations tactic is to frame complex environmental and economic issues in simple, scapegoating terms that benefit its corporate backers.

In the movement's Pacific Northwest birthplace, Wise Users harp on a supposed battle for survival between spotted owls and the families of the men and women who make their livings harvesting and milling the old growth timber that is the owl's habitat. In preparation for President Clinton's forest summit in Portland, Oregon, Wise Use public relations experts ran seminars to teach loggers how to speak in sound bites. Messages such as "jobs versus owls" have been adapted to a variety of environmental issues and have helped spark an anti-green backlash that has defeated river protection efforts and threatens to open millions of acres of wilderness to resource extraction.

That was the respectable—if undeniably destructive—part of the movement. Its philosophy, however, was embraced by the growing militia movement in the same part of the country. Its philosophy ran in poisoned tributaries to all points of the political compass until it gathered itself into a great reservoir of toxic fantasy, and that is where the essential compact of the United States of America was encouraged to break down.

There is no actual tyranny in this country against which to take up arms.

There is bureaucratic inertia.

There is pigheaded bureaucracy.

There even is political chicanery.

But there is no actual tyranny in the Endangered Species Act, or in the Bureau of Land Management, or in the Environmental Protection Agency, or in the Affordable Care Act, or in IRS dumbassery, or even in whatever it is that the president plans to say about guns in the next week or so.

Anyone who argues that actual tyranny exists is a dangerous charlatan who should be mocked from the public square. Anyone who argues that there is out of political ambition, or for their own personal profit, should be shunned by decent people until they regain whatever moral compass they once had.

It does us no good to ignore what is going on in this obscure little corner of the Pacific Northwest. It does us no good to refuse to hold to account the politics that led to this, and the politicians who sought to profit from it. It does us no good to deny that there is a substantial constituency for armed sedition in this country, and to deny the necessity of delegitimizing that constituency in our politics, and the first step in that process is to face it and to call it what it is.

And, in related news, of course, Tamir Rice is still dead.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40914/oregon-bundy-militia/

[ElNono]

Your point about it being on the lawyer's to counsel the Hammond's on the effect of the deal is well taken. Notable that there are claims for ineffective assistance of counsel.

My guess is that counsel was a federal public defender -- probably not the greatest lawyer in the world considering its rural Oregon.

Exactly. There's no way the defense lawyer isn't aware of the federal minimum, IMO. No way.

Also, is the plea deal sealed? It would be interesting to see what's in it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

funny that the Bundys need NR and others to spell out for them what exactly they're protesting. their own press conferences are far less coherent than their indignant media defenders.

They are using guns to take over a federal building for political purposes. Do they have to start shooting for it to be terrorist? Is that your distinction?

[ElNono]

Even judges hate mandatory minimums... they remove some of their own authority. But, they're known to every party.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Even judges hate mandatory minimums... they remove some of their own authority. But, they're known to every party.

Keep them for violent crimes. Get rid of the rest of them.

[boutons_deux]

more laughable evidence the Burns Buttholes are hallucinating freaks

Oregon Militia Man: We Face ‘Backlash’ But Black Lives Matter Doesn’t

“The Black Lives Matter movement, they can go and protest, close freeways down and all that stuff, and they don’t get any backlash, not on the level that we’re getting.”

Militia members this week have repeatedly drawn comparisons between themselves and Black Lives Matter. Leader Ammon Bundy, whose father is infamous Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy,told CNN (https://twitter.com/sarasidnerCNN/status/684030045342437376) on Monday that there are “some similarities” between the groups. He framed both groups’ primary opponent as a federal government that overreaches in its efforts to enforce order.

“The government should not be doing anything but encouraging the people to claim their rights, encouraging them to use their rights, and then protecting and defending the people as they live freely,” he told CNN.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/oregon-militia-black-lives-matter?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

[boutons_deux]

Ammon Bundy Compares Himself To George Washington, Who Quashed The Whiskey Rebellion

Bundy, the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who made racist remarks (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/gops-bad-bet-right-wing-lionization-cliven-bundy-backfires-wake-racist-statements) during his own standoff with the federal government, also spent time criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement, which he says was responsible for “lots of looting and violence towards businesses and innocent citizens.”

He insisted that he and his allies “are not terrorists” and warned (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/ammon-cliven-bundy-bureau-land-management-oregon-standoff-militia-occupation/) of the prospect of a violent attack on his group by law enforcement:

I do think the government has violence on its mind. That’s why they have taken so long to show up. I believe they are planning something for us to finally get rid of us once and for all. If they use force against us we will fight back to defend ourselves. I hope we don’t have to do that. I hope this all ends peacefully and the government does the right thing for once.

He also compared himself to George Washington, saying that just as Washington challenged British rule, he is leading a fight against the U.S. government:

George Washington is inspiring to me for what he did to help found this country, and all of the founding fathers by how they took a stand against the British. I don’t have any faith in our government anymore. I don’t believe they can help at all and will only make things worse for our country in the years to come.

Bundy may want to hit the books and learn a bit more about what Washington thought of armed insurrections after the U.S. became an independent nation.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ammon-bundy-compares-himself-george-washington-who-quashed-whiskey-rebellion

:lol :lol :lol

[Winehole23]

here's the US Att'y's take:

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

[Winehole23]

They are using guns to take over a federal building for political purposes. Do they have to start shooting for it to be terrorist? Is that your distinction?I don't think they're terrorists, but they're certainly morons.

This scenario so far lacks any violent/deadly conduct that might justify calling the protesters terrorists, IMHO.

[Winehole23]

as soon as they shoot at local LE or Federal officers, the frame changes.