# Bundy/Militia Occupies Federal Building Oregon



## Bearfootfarm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...onal-wildlife-refuge_56888a61e4b0b958f65be382



> A Militia Has Taken Over A Federal Building In Oregon
> 
> BURNS, Ore. (AP) â A peaceful protest Saturday in support of an eastern Oregon ranching family facing jail time for arson was followed shortly afterward by an occupation of a building at a national wildlife refuge.
> Ammon Bundy, the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in a standoff with the government over grazing rights, told The Oregonian he and two of his brothers were among a group of dozens of people occupying the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.


----------



## AmericanStand

A classic example of why guns are needed to counter government overreach.


----------



## farmrbrown

In the interest of further clarification, this is the case involving the Hammonds that sparked this protest, pun intended.....
http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/e...convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison


And this is the location of the "federal building" occupied.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/M...93,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x3bad40bd36367dfd

I once relieved my bodily functions on a federal building..........it was a restroom at a national park campground.


----------



## cooper101

AmericanStand said:


> A classic example of why guns are needed to counter government overreach.


Apparently, the Hammonds also need guns to poach deer.


----------



## FarmerKat

farmrbrown said:


> In the interest of further clarification, this is the case involving the Hammonds that sparked this protest, pun intended.....
> http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/e...convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison
> 
> 
> And this is the location of the "federal building" occupied.
> https://www.google.com/maps/place/M...93,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x3bad40bd36367dfd
> 
> I once relieved my bodily functions on a federal building..........it was a restroom at a national park campground.


Thanks for the link. That answered my question after I read the story earlier on the news. I was wondering how someone who was convicted and served their time could be sent back to prison for the second time. This explains it.


----------



## arabian knight

This time the so called militia is not wanted~!
*
What If Your Militia Showdown Isnât Wanted?*


> Whatever your feelings about the 2014 Bundy Ranch standoff, the Bundyâs at least clearly welcomed the support of the armed volunteers who were willing to lay their lives on the line for what they felt was a principled stand against an overreaching federal government.
> 
> Thatâs not the situation in Burns, where the Hammonds are supposed to head back to prison next week, and donât want outsiders interfering with their peaceful surrender. Ammon Bundy, Ryan Payne, Jon Ritzheimer, and the other militiamen that they are calling to converge on Burns are not wanted by the men they want to defend, nor the bulk of the surrounding community.












http://bearingarms.com/militia-showdown-isnt-wanted/


----------



## nchobbyfarm

I see they were convicted of arson. I don't see where they were prosecuted for the poaching. Were they charged with poaching or was there just the allegation?


----------



## farmrbrown

nchobbyfarm said:


> I see they were convicted of arson. I don't see where they were prosecuted for the poaching. Were they charged with poaching or was there just the allegation?


Supposedly........the arson was to erase evidence of the poaching.
I offer no guarantees to the validity of the allegations in the link, I offered it only to further explain who the Hammonds were, since it wasn't told in the OP's article, just their names were mentioned.

The 2nd arson had nothing to do with any poaching and was done to save their land, which it did.
Everyone can decide their own views on the limit of federal power over their own lives.
I know that I already have.


----------



## Amadioranch

Im really surprised by those of you that are buying into the left wing BS on the Bundy/Hammond deal. Read up on whats going on, posting links to the justice dept?? Like the perspective from Washington isnt going to be skewed?? 

Please take some time to see how the Hammonds have been systematically screwed out of their land by a federal government that wanted ranchers out. That whole county went from prosperous to the poorest county in Oregon due to the Feds pushing all the industry out. 

Please take some time to read:
http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/


----------



## 1948CaseVAI

I cannot understand how any of you can defend this government for anything! This regime needs to go!


----------



## farmrbrown

Amadioranch said:


> Im really surprised by those of you that are buying into the left wing BS on the Bundy/Hammond deal. Read up on whats going on, posting links to the justice dept?? Like the perspective from Washington isnt going to be skewed??
> 
> Please take some time to see how the Hammonds have been systematically screwed out of their land by a federal government that wanted ranchers out. That whole county went from prosperous to the poorest county in Oregon due to the Feds pushing all the industry out.
> 
> Please take some time to read:
> http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/


I don't buy into ANY BS, if that was a swipe at me.
If not, then I'll ignore the comment.
I posted a DOJ link because of the very reason that some on here will not even read a story from a "non credible" source.
I would consider a hobo under a bridge to have as much credibility as the DOJ in such matters, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

The OP and I are on opposite sides sometimes when it comes to believing what federal authorities have to say versus alleged criminals, and I didn't want this to be a urinating contest right out of the gate.
Also my first priority of the morning was fixing my log splitter and breakfast, in that order, so pleasing everyone on the internet came in a lot farther down on the list, lol.


----------



## ninny

farmrbrown said:


> I don't buy into ANY BS, if that was a swipe at me.
> If not, then I'll ignore the comment.
> I posted a DOJ link because of the very reason that some on here will not even read a story from a "non credible" source.
> I would consider a hobo under a bridge to have as much credibility as the DOJ in such matters, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
> 
> The OP and I are on opposite sides sometimes when it comes to believing what federal authorities have to say versus alleged criminals, and I didn't want this to be a urinating contest right out of the gate.
> Also my first priority of the morning was fixing my log splitter and breakfast, in that order, so pleasing everyone on the internet came in a lot farther down on the list, lol.


Dang, what do you eat for breakfast that requires a log splitter?:grin::

.


----------



## wiscto

I have absolutely no pity for these guys. I didn't think the grazing fee looked all that expensive the first time the Bundy's made the news, although I believe grazers are basically doing a service to the BLM, and shouldn't be charged, unless they want to reintroduce the buffalo and antelope to their full native range to help restore the land. 

Their rhetoric and their expectations are a little out there, however.


----------



## Nevada

I don't see the arson thing as a good cause to get behind. They don't deny starting the fires, and it carries a mandatory 5 year sentence. The appellate court is only enforcing the mandatory sentencing guideline. Arson is serious. There's no excuse for what they did.

The other issue they're protesting is government overreach through eminent domain to create a wildlife preserve. This occupation will never change that. They're fighting this in the wrong way. They need to take it to court or lobby congress.

I don't see a good cause to rally around this time.


----------



## JJ Grandits

I have more trust in the word of a convicted felon then I do from the government. The Obama administration has turned our representative government into a tool of suppression. It is sad to say that the best course to follow is to doubt anything the government says and assume the worst possible scenario. The odds are with you.


----------



## Nevada

JJ Grandits said:


> I have more trust in the word of a convicted felon then I do from the government.


OK. What do you consider to be a fitting punishment for arson? You think arson is none of the government's business?


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> OK. What do you consider to be a fitting punishment for arson? You think arson is none of the government's business?


That's NOT the first question to be answered nor is to answered out of context.
The CLAIM is that they set the first fire to cover a crime.
In BOTH instances the "arson" according to the accused, was to save their ranches and homes, something that some people will leave to the gov't nannies.
Some of us won't.
It's called burning underbrush and wildfire fuel, something that a few states have discovered a little too late, is absolutely necessary.


----------



## AmericanStand

ninny said:


> Dang, what do you eat for breakfast that requires a log splitter?:grin::
> 
> 
> 
> .



Or on a scary note perhaps it's what he does after breakfast ?


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> That's NOT the first question to be answered nor is to answered out of context.
> The CLAIM is that they set the first fire to cover a crime.
> In BOTH instances the "arson" according to the accused, was to save their ranches and homes, something that some people will leave to the gov't nannies.
> Some of us won't.
> It's called burning underbrush and wildfire fuel, something that a few states have discovered a little too late, is absolutely necessary.


I read that their defense was that they set the fire to destroy invasive plants. But testimony by others who were there when the fire was started said otherwise. They had their day in court and were convicted on the evidence.

I'm not trying to be obtuse here. I just don't see any reason to defend them at this point. They've served 1 year of their 5 year sentence and paid $400K in restitution. I think they should just do the other 4 years and get on with their lives.


----------



## AmericanStand

wiscto said:


> I have absolutely no pity for these guys. I didn't think the grazing fee looked all that expensive the first time the Bundy's made the news, although I believe grazers are basically doing a service to the BLM, and shouldn't be charged, unless they want to reintroduce the buffalo and antelope to their full native range to help restore the land.
> 
> Their rhetoric and their expectations are a little out there, however.




The fee does seem a bit high to graze the land stolen from their ancestors.


----------



## AmericanStand

Does it bother anybody that the second conviction was for setting a backfire to protect private property ?


----------



## Nevada

AmericanStand said:


> The fee does seem a bit high to graze the land stolen from their ancestors.


Maybe, and high fees is something that is a fair topic to discuss. But that wasn't Bundy's issue.

In protest against new grazing rules, Bundy refused to renew his grazing permit, yet still let his cattle graze public land. He refused to pay any fees for 20 years. He (unsuccessfully) made a legal claim that he had inherited free grazing rights.

It wasn't a good cause to rally around.


----------



## Nevada

AmericanStand said:


> Does it bother anybody that the second conviction was for setting a backfire to protect private property ?


Only if you think it's ok to start a backfire next to a fire camp without a permit.


----------



## Lisa in WA

AmericanStand said:


> The fee does seem a bit high to graze the land stolen from their ancestors.


Now that is a slippery slope.


Not to mention the fact that Bundys parents bought the ranch in 1948. Not the public lands. None of it qualifies as ancestral.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> Only if you think it's ok to start a backfire next to a fire camp without a permit.


They weren't giving any permits. It's not ok to set fire next to a fire camp, IF THAT'S THE TRUTH........but back to what brought this all on.
Why didn't the feds who collect money every week out of our payroll checks, doing their jobs to begin with?
The whole reason the wilds fires started and they were even in the fire camp is for Not doing what they were paid to do in the first place.
Then you want to throw people in jail that have enough sense to do what the gov't doesn't have enough sense to do.


Good grief Charlie Brown.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> I read that their defense was that they set the fire to destroy invasive plants. But testimony by others who were there when the fire was started said otherwise. They had their day in court and were convicted on the evidence.
> 
> I'm not trying to be obtuse here. I just don't see any reason to defend them at this point. They've served 1 year of their 5 year sentence and paid $400K in restitution. I think they should just do the other 4 years and get on with their lives.


Ever stop to consider who and where this "testimony" came from?
Ever hear of a set up?
Think these guys aren't at the top of the feds "Let's get 'em" list?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

The Bundy's had nothing to do with the Hammonds until they inserted themselves into a situation in a different state.

They are showboating and being stupid in general


----------



## keenataz

AmericanStand said:


> The fee does seem a bit high to graze the land stolen from their ancestors.


I didn't realize they were native Americans


----------



## AmericanStand

The government stole that land from their own citizens. 
Similar to the situation in Alaska where the land was stolen and now leaves the inhabitants paying inflated prices for scraps and living in servitude.


----------



## AmericanStand

keenataz said:


> I didn't realize they were marine Americans



I'm not sure if they were marines but that might explain their willingness to fight.


----------



## oneraddad

The cattle on BLM land in Nevada and Oregon just destroy and contaminate the springs/streams for humans and wildlife. 30-50 years ago they ran mostly sheep in that area which didn't impact the water the way cattle are now. I think what the pay to use that land is not enough.


----------



## Lisa in WA

oneraddad said:


> The cattle on BLM land in Nevada and Oregon just destroy and contaminate the springs/streams for humans and wildlife. 30-50 years ago they ran mostly sheep in that area which didn't impact the water the way cattle are now. I think what the pay to use that land is not enough.


Totally agree.


----------



## painterswife

oneraddad said:


> The cattle on BLM land in Nevada and Oregon just destroy and contaminate the springs/streams for humans and wildlife. 30-50 years ago they ran mostly sheep in that area which didn't impact the water the way cattle are now. I think what the pay to use that land is not enough.


I agree. I think most people don't understand how delicate that range is.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

AmericanStand said:


> The government stole that land from their own citizens.
> Similar to the situation in Alaska where the land was stolen and now leaves the inhabitants paying inflated prices for scraps and living in servitude.


Many states asked the Federal Govt to take over management of those lands


----------



## Lisa in WA

Bearfootfarm said:


> Many states asked the Federal Govt to take over management of those lands


And you know none of us western states want to have to pay for wildfire fighting.


----------



## coolrunnin

oneraddad said:


> The cattle on BLM land in Nevada and Oregon just destroy and contaminate the springs/streams for humans and wildlife. 30-50 years ago they ran mostly sheep in that area which didn't impact the water the way cattle are now. I think what the pay to use that land is not enough.


I'm curious how you think 5 sheep/goats are any worse on springs/streams than 1 cow/calf pair?

I'm not disagreeing, from what I saw in Utah the whole grazing rights thing was a shambles.


----------



## oneraddad

Idaho and Utah water is also being destroyed by cattle, there's probably more but I've seen it in the 4 states I've mentioned


----------



## JJ Grandits

Nevada said:


> OK. What do you consider to be a fitting punishment for arson? You think arson is none of the government's business?


Give me a break. Arson? You make it sound like he set fire to a daycare center.

They started backfires to protect their land from an already burning wildfire. A common practice for anyone with common sense.

The government is after that family for having embarrassed it before, so don't all of a sudden get law and order on us. It won't fly.


----------



## oneraddad

coolrunnin said:


> I'm curious how you think 5 sheep/goats are any worse on springs/streams than 1 cow/calf pair?



100's of cattle trample the spring/stream leaving a 6" layer of poop everywhere, sheep don't.


----------



## coolrunnin

oneraddad said:


> 100's of cattle trample the spring/stream leaving a 6" layer of poop everywhere, sheep don't.


Ya know you are a more convincing argument when you stick to facts, instead of a 100 cows you have 500 sheep now explain how that's better for the land. Over grazing is over grazing matters not the the animals used.


----------



## oneraddad

All I can tell you is that I've lived and hunted in that area for almost 60 years at the same water the cattle use today and it wasn't always like this. I used to drink the water in the streams with my Dad and Grandpa, you'd never do that today. They still raise sheep alongside the cattle, I just don't see them trampling the waterways the way cattle do. Maybe they just over graze ? I don't know why it's like this, I can only tell you what I see with my own eyes and the cattle are destroying the springs in the desert of the Western states.


----------



## painterswife

coolrunnin said:


> Ya know you are a more convincing argument when you stick to facts, instead of a 100 cows you have 500 sheep now explain how that's better for the land. Over grazing is over grazing matters not the the animals used.


It is pretty simple. Sheep are lighter. Even with more of them crossing the same land, they don't do the same damage to the top couple of inches of soil.

Kind of like snow shoes on snow compared walking across it in boots.


----------



## painterswife

Some light reading.

http://www.agriculture.de/acms1/conf6/ws4lives.htm

Desert soils out west are quite delicate.


----------



## oneraddad

Would you rather step in one cow patty or in five sheep droppings ?


----------



## coolrunnin

painterswife said:


> It is pretty simple. Sheep are lighter. Even with more of them crossing the same land, they don't do the same damage to the top couple of inches of soil.
> 
> Kind of like snow shoes on snow compared walking across it in boots.


Okay except there feet are smaller and sharper than a cows, not larger to spread the weight.


----------



## painterswife

coolrunnin said:


> Okay except there feet are smaller and sharper than a cows, not larger to spread the weight.


You might think that but I bet you can tell the difference between a cow standing on your foot and a sheep. Get the picture now?


----------



## coolrunnin

oneraddad said:


> All I can tell you is that I've lived and hunted in that area for almost 60 years at the same water the cattle use today and it wasn't always like this. I used to drink the water in the streams with my Dad and Grandpa, you'd never do that today. They still raise sheep alongside the cattle, I just don't see them trampling the waterways the way cattle do. Maybe they just over graze ? I don't know why it's like this, I can only tell you what I see with my own eyes and the cattle are destroying the springs in the desert of the Western states.


If they raise email alongside how are you discerning which is doing the damage?

If I recall your kind raised sheep, right. So maybe you just have a little favoritism going?


----------



## oneraddad

My kind can tell the difference between cow poop and sheep poop.


----------



## coolrunnin

oneraddad said:


> My kind can tell the difference between cow poop and sheep poop.


Interesting, glad to hear it.


----------



## coolrunnin

painterswife said:


> You might think that but I bet you can tell the difference between a cow standing on your foot and a sheep. Get the picture now?


Nope I need drawings.


----------



## painterswife

coolrunnin said:


> Nope I need drawings.


Drawings don't work well. How about you go outside and park a bike on your foot and then get someone to park a car on your other foot. That should give you a good idea.


----------



## oneraddad

I'm sure sitting at your computer in Arkansas you have a much better idea of whats going on in my backyard than I do.


----------



## coolrunnin

oneraddad said:


> I'm sure sitting at your computer in Arkansas you have a much better idea of whats going on in my backyard than I do.


See that's the problem with getting personal when you know nothing about the person. I may not be quite as familiar with Nevada but I am very familiar with Utah/Arizona.


----------



## coolrunnin

painterswife said:


> Drawings don't work well. How about you go outside and park a bike on your foot and then get someone to park a car on your other foot. That should give you a good idea.


I still maintain over grazing is bad regardless of the animal grazing. 

And to say a sheep can't ruin a waterhole or that they somehow don't poop in the water well alrighty then...


----------



## painterswife

coolrunnin said:


> I still maintain over grazing is bad regardless of the animal grazing.
> 
> And to say a sheep can't ruin a waterhole or that they somehow don't poop in the water well alrighty then...


You might want to note that I never said that overgrazing by any stock was a problem. I did however point out the difference in damage that two kinds of stock do just because of their weight.


----------



## coolrunnin

painterswife said:


> You might want to note that I never said that overgrazing by any stock was a problem. I did however point out the difference in damage that two kinds of stock do just because of their weight.


Well okay,I give ya that, just the 5 to 1 ratio thing kinda makes it a moot point


----------



## painterswife

coolrunnin said:


> Well okay,I give ya that, just the 5 to 1 ratio thing kinda makes it a moot point


No not really. Displacement by sheep is much less. In other words they don't do damage as deep to the soil and ground cover. A bit of an important difference.


----------



## coolrunnin

painterswife said:


> No not really. Displacement by sheep is much less. In other words they don't do damage as deep to the soil and ground cover. A bit of an important difference.


At this point guess we will just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Cornhusker

1948CaseVAI said:


> I cannot understand how any of you can defend this government for anything! This regime needs to go!


You said a mouthful brother.


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> I don't see the arson thing as a good cause to get behind. They don't deny starting the fires, and it carries a mandatory 5 year sentence. The appellate court is only enforcing the mandatory sentencing guideline. Arson is serious. There's no excuse for what they did.
> 
> The other issue they're protesting is government overreach through eminent domain to create a wildlife preserve. This occupation will never change that. They're fighting this in the wrong way. They need to take it to court or lobby congress.
> 
> I don't see a good cause to rally around this time.


I don't understand how you stand behind the BLM protests, riots, looting, yet won't stand behind others doing basically the same thing on a smaller scale?
How many were charged in the Ferguson mess for arson?


----------



## Nevada

Cornhusker said:


> I don't understand how you stand behind the BLM protests, riots, looting, yet won't stand behind others doing basically the same thing on a smaller scale?
> How many were charged in the Ferguson mess for arson?


All that were caught.

I don't understand the point of the occupation. What has to happen for them to leave? They don't really expect a federal judge to reverse a conviction because of a protest, and there's no way they're going to give the wildlife preserve back. I'm really having trouble understanding what their demands might be.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> OK. What do you consider to be a fitting punishment for arson? You think arson is none of the government's business?





Nevada said:


> I read that their defense was that they set the fire to destroy invasive plants. But testimony by others who were there when the fire was started said otherwise. They had their day in court and were convicted on the evidence.
> 
> I'm not trying to be obtuse here. I just don't see any reason to defend them at this point. They've served 1 year of their 5 year sentence and paid $400K in restitution. I think they should just do the other 4 years and get on with their lives.





farmrbrown said:


> Ever stop to consider who and where this "testimony" came from?
> Ever hear of a set up?
> Think these guys aren't at the top of the feds "Let's get 'em" list?


Remember when I said this?^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This didn't start with arsonists re-sentenced as domestic terrorists in 2015.
This started back in the 1970's with this family and the federal government.
Now have a look at this, it's long, but it's worth reading and if it isn't true, the documentation to prove it isn't should be public record........

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...uge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> All that were caught.
> 
> I don't understand the point of the occupation. What has to happen for them to leave? They don't really expect a federal judge to reverse a conviction because of a protest, and there's no way they're going to give the wildlife preserve back. I'm really having trouble understanding what their demands might be.


To expose the truth.


----------



## Woolieface

AmericanStand said:


> Does it bother anybody that the second conviction was for setting a backfire to protect private property ?


There's nothing about what the government does that doesn't bother me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> To expose the truth.


Good one!

Bundy said it was because "God told me this was the correct time and place"


----------



## JJ Grandits

oneraddad said:


> My kind can tell the difference between cow poop and sheep poop.


It's the taste, right?


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Good one!
> 
> Bundy said it was because "God told me this was the correct time and place"


Well that's interesting, I guess we'll have to wait and see how this pans out.

But I was talking more earthly circumstances, such as in the last link I posted, the truth about the governments actions leading up to this.
Any comments on that?


----------



## Farmerga

There is nothing, in the Constitution, that allows the Federal Government to own great swaths of unoccupied land. Allow the Criminal Federal government to ignore the Constitution at your own peril.


----------



## MO_cows

AmericanStand said:


> The government stole that land from their own citizens.
> Similar to the situation in Alaska where the land was stolen and now leaves the inhabitants paying inflated prices for scraps and living in servitude.


Most of the Western states, the state gave their unclaimed land to the feds when they became states. It was not a requirement for statehood, they did it willingly.


----------



## DryHeat

If what were involved were the *second* conviction I'd be in a lot of doubt what to think, but that *first* conviction and its outcome is less murky. They got an originally sympathetic judge who reduced sentences despite sentencing guidelines requiring a full active five years minimum and the Supreme Court just refused to hear the ultimate appeal. In that case, even a relative testified they set a series of fires after poaching. Now they know how inner city blacks felt while getting 10 and 20 years for small amounts of crack cocaine and watching affluent whites walk free for nose candy, no?

To have this Bundy idiot organizing an armed building occupation trying to create outrage over likely federal armed intervention is about as sensible as Charlie Manson's idea of how to trigger his planned race war- fueled revolution in the early 70s, that is, insane and paranoid, followed by a bunch of fellow delusionals. There's an interesting article on Zero Hedge this morning ( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-03/oregon-standoff-terrible-plan-we-might-be-stuck ) claiming the occupation's organizers kept their plans to take over an actual building from the knowledge of folks they recruited to participate. The author seems to feel even he will get pulled in to taking actions should this provocation lead to bloodshed but is bitterly resentful of the manipulations by the Bundy kid. Great. Have a bunch of ranchers and homesteaders creating their own little Ruby Ridges in sympathy for these fools? I'd hope not.

There is still a Constitutional remedy, in fact, that of Presidential sentence commutation or pardon (that one sounding unlikely to me). If this building occupation were actually intended to get a sensible sentence for the ranchers, though, THAT would be the path to take, use the publicity to ask all involved to go to Obama (and the following President), including getting local officials like Senators, Reps, governor, judges etc to cooperate.


----------



## AmericanStand

MO_cows said:


> Most of the Western states, the state gave their unclaimed land to the feds when they became states. It was not a requirement for statehood, they did it willingly.



But unless you are the government you can't give what you don't own.


----------



## AmericanStand

A bit of history of the west. 
I might be wrong on some of this I haven't really studied it since the 70s

But way back when most of the west belonged to various Indian tribes. It changed hands through force. 

As white men came along they to claimed it by force. 

Then at some point the government took the land away from these large land owners (ranchers) by proclamation and gave some of it to homesteading farmers. When some of those failed to prove up or otherwise left the government took it back and retained it. 

Alaska is slightly different 
There the government bought the right to govern but acts like it bought the land outright. 
Except for the natives they forced a settlement on them. 

That's the point I have a problem with the government stealing from it's own citizens.


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> All that were caught.
> 
> I don't understand the point of the occupation. What has to happen for them to leave? They don't really expect a federal judge to reverse a conviction because of a protest, and there's no way they're going to give the wildlife preserve back. I'm really having trouble understanding what their demands might be.


Maybe they are just protesting to show we don't all approve of the government's tactics.
White people have the right to protest mistreatment too y'know.


----------



## arabian knight

The ranchers at the center of the anti-government protest that escalated into an armed takeover of a federal wildlife building are expected to report to prison today.


----------



## FarmerKat

Cornhusker said:


> Maybe they are just protesting to show we don't all approve of the government's tactics.
> White people have the right to protest mistreatment too y'know.


That's kind of what I thought of that ... 

I can see the ranchers being charged with arson (assuming it was truly arson) but I wonder why they would be charged with terrorism. That seems kind of odd to me. (At least I thought I read somewhere that the law that carries the minimum sentence was an anti-terrorism law.)


----------



## DryHeat

> (At least I thought I read somewhere that the law that carries the minimum sentence was an anti-terrorism law.)


You may have read that somewhere but from this link posted early on this thread, that's not the case, and the news article seems well-researched to me http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/e...convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison



> By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury&#8217;s verdicts.


Edit add: this is also the sort of situation in which a juror, IF aware of the sentencing law, might have held out during deliberations citing the (not legally accepted, for sure) concept of "jury nullification" stating that long a sentence for a conviction for the given offense would constitute cruel and unusual punishment... but at least one juror (in Texas, I believe) has been prosecuted for contempt of court for doing that and not disclosing his/her acceptance of the idea during jury selection.


----------



## mustangglp

Nevada said:


> All that were caught.
> 
> I don't understand the point of the occupation. What has to happen for them to leave? They don't really expect a federal judge to reverse a conviction because of a protest, and there's no way they're going to give the wildlife preserve back. I'm really having trouble understanding what their demands might be.


The protests are a ruse if they are going to stay for years then they are homesteaders?


----------



## MO_cows

AmericanStand said:


> A bit of history of the west.
> I might be wrong on some of this I haven't really studied it since the 70s
> 
> But way back when most of the west belonged to various Indian tribes. It changed hands through force.
> 
> As white men came along they to claimed it by force.
> 
> Then at some point the government took the land away from these large land owners (ranchers) by proclamation and gave some of it to homesteading farmers. When some of those failed to prove up or otherwise left the government took it back and retained it.
> 
> Alaska is slightly different
> There the government bought the right to govern but acts like it bought the land outright.
> Except for the natives they forced a settlement on them.
> 
> That's the point I have a problem with the government stealing from it's own citizens.


Much of the western lands were non productive, undesirable for the would-be farmers coming west to settle. So they went unclaimed. As the territories became states, they ceded that unclaimed land to the feds. They didn't want those "worthless wastelands". Fast forward to today, we know those lands are not a worthless wasteland, and now people are mad at Uncle Sam for "stealing" them! 

There was no sneaky conspiracy, no grand theft, just circumstances.


----------



## City Bound

If it is true that the blm is gobbling up land for corrupt reasons then what are the reasons? Are they going to sell these lands in the future? Are they conservationist nuts like green peace? 

I am not siding with BLM. Just trying to understand their aim.


----------



## Nevada

City Bound said:


> If it is true that the blm is gobbling up land for corrupt reasons then what are the reasons? Are they going to sell these lands in the future? Are they conservationist nuts like green peace?
> 
> I am not siding with BLM. Just trying to understand their aim.


Me too. I'm trying to understand what they want the BLM to do to end this thing. There doesn't seem to be a specific demand that they can satisfy.


----------



## Farmerga

City Bound said:


> If it is true that the blm is gobbling up land for corrupt reasons then what are the reasons? Are they going to sell these lands in the future? Are they conservationist nuts like green peace?
> 
> I am not siding with BLM. Just trying to understand their aim.


 My guess would be to have control over the major aquifers of the west. Why? The same reason all governments exist, Power.


----------



## Nevada

Farmerga said:


> My guess would be to have control over the major aquifers of the west. Why? The same reason all governments exist, Power.


But having wildlife preserves, national forests and national parks are a good thing. We can't just give those things up because someone wants to use those facilities for commercial purposes, such as ranching.

The federal government makes reasonable concessions to ranchers where they can. After all, those ranchers can still lease grazing rights.


----------



## City Bound

coolrunnin said:


> I still maintain over grazing is bad regardless of the animal grazing.
> 
> And to say a sheep can't ruin a waterhole or that they somehow don't poop in the water well alrighty then...




At the start of the global boom china was shipping in masses of wool sweaters to be sold cheap as to undercut the American high end sweater market. It worked and they made good money from it but there was a price to pay. The Chinese over grazed their prairies and as a result caused massive erosion. Now, dangerous dust storms blow into Beijing crippling the city when they do.


----------



## AmericanStand

The BLM is the governments warehouse division for land. 
Essentially they are simply supposed to be caretakers.


----------



## Farmerga

Nevada said:


> But having wildlife preserves, national forests and national parks are a good thing. We can't just give those things up because someone wants to use those facilities for commercial purposes, such as ranching.
> 
> The federal government makes reasonable concessions to ranchers where they can. After all, those ranchers can still lease grazing rights.


 
The Federal Government is not authorized, by the Constitution to own great swaths of land, for that purpose. Control of that land should be turned back over to the States


----------



## AmericanStand

MO_cows said:


> Much of the western lands were non productive, undesirable for the would-be farmers coming west to settle. So they went unclaimed. As the territories became states, they ceded that unclaimed land to the feds. They didn't want those "worthless wastelands". Fast forward to today, we know those lands are not a worthless wasteland, and now people are mad at Uncle Sam for "stealing" them!
> 
> There was no sneaky conspiracy, no grand theft, just circumstances.




Not from what I've heard. Land that is useless to a farmer can be productive to a rancher. 
There has rarely been much land that was unclaimed. Look at perhaps the least productive land in the USA , the Mojave a Indian tribe claimed and made use of those lands , more recently ranchers used them now the NPS is forcing people out. 

As a country we have historically recognized people's rights to take and use what lands they can find a use for.


----------



## Nevada

Farmerga said:


> The Federal Government is not authorized, by the Constitution to own great swaths of land, for that purpose. Control of that land should be turned back over to the States


States don't want it. It's too expensive to maintain. That was discussed here in NV, where the federal government owns 81% of the land. There's not a lot you can do with that land, particularly after nuclear testing. Of course cousin Eddie doesn't mind.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beWjk_Q6yZ4[/ame]


----------



## Woolieface

Nevada said:


> States don't want it. It's too expensive to maintain. That was discussed here in NV, where the federal government owns 85% of the land.


Do you think PEOPLE don't want it? The fed has no business owning our land


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> The Federal Government is not authorized, by the Constitution to own great swaths of land, for that purpose. Control of that land should be turned back over to the States


Most westerners don't want it to be privatized. Your everyday person would stand to lose their hunting camps, their snowmobiling trails, logging rights, grazing leases, etc. etc. etc. We in the west tend to take our access to public lands for granted until some developer wants to get hold of them. And most know they are better protected that way by the feds than parceled out here and there by state governments in need of funds.

And there is no way the individual states would ever be able to afford fire fighting for the massive western wild fires that happen every year.


----------



## Lisa in WA

coolrunnin said:


> See that's the problem with getting personal when you know nothing about the person. I may not be quite as familiar with Nevada but I am very familiar with Utah/Arizona.


What is your history there?


----------



## painterswife

I agree. BLM land is very important to us out west. You think a few wealthy ranchers are making a stink. You would not know what hit you if all the business owners who rely on those lands for their income started protesting.

Snowmobile companies, hunting guides etc.


----------



## City Bound

Balance is the real problem here. Balance of power, balance of land conservation, and balance of land use.


----------



## Farmerga

Nevada said:


> States don't want it. It's too expensive to maintain. That was discussed here in NV, where the federal government owns 85% of the land. There's not a lot you can do with that land, particularly after nuclear testing. Of course cousin Eddie doesn't mind.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beWjk_Q6yZ4


 Then it should be given away to The People. I fail to see there being a maintenance issue to let it sit there. The Nuclear test sites are a Constitutionally valid reason for the Feds to own land and, should stay under their jurisdiction.


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> Most westerners don't want it to be privatized. Your everyday person would stand to lose their hunting camps, their snowmobiling trails, logging rights, grazing leases, etc. etc. etc. We in the west tend to take our access to public lands for granted until some developer wants to get hold of them. And most know they are better protected that way by the feds than parceled out here and there by state governments in need of funds.
> 
> And there is no way the individual states would ever be able to afford fire fighting for the massive western wild fires that happen every year.


 Who said privatize? Even though that is not a all together a bad idea. All I said was that the Federal Government is not authorized to own such land. The States can. As for wild fires, protect private and public property and otherwise, let the fire take its natural course.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> Who said privatize? Even though that is not a all together a bad idea. All I said was that the Federal Government is not authorized to own such land. The States can. As for wild fires, protect private and public property and otherwise, let the fire take its natural course.


The states don't want it. As far as them being not authorized, whoops...looks like they are.  Im guessing that if it truly wasn't constitutional, the SC would have already acted. 

Just because some yahoos try to reignite a new Sagebrush Rebellion because of their own self-interest, it doens't mean the rest of us agree.


----------



## Nevada

Farmerga said:


> Then it should be given away to The People.


Let me guess. If they carve up BLM land and turn it over to the people, I don't get any.

If I do get some, can I tell these ranchers to stay off my land? What will the ranchers say about that?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Well that's interesting, I guess we'll have to wait and see how this pans out.
> 
> But I was talking more earthly circumstances, such as in the last link I posted, the truth about the governments actions leading up to this.
> Any comments on that?


I don't know why you would think that one-sided version is "the truth".
On another forum there are some posters who actually *know* the Hammonds and they said they got away with far more illegal acts than they were ever charged with, and that they deserved whatever they got.

The Bundy's have no connection other than their desire to be in the spotlight, and it doesn't help anything at all. 

It makes them (and all gun owners) look stupid (which is how the media will spin things)


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Bundy's have no connection other than their desire to be in the spotlight, and it doesn't help anything at all.


More to the point, Bundy and his rancher friends have a commercial interest in this land. I would feel a lot better about it of they didn't want the land to make money.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> More to the point, Bundy and his rancher friends have a commercial interest in this land. I would feel a lot better about it of they didn't want the land to make money.


It's not even in the same state as the Bundy ranch
The Hammonds told them to stay out of it


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> The states don't want it. As far as them being not authorized, whoops...looks like they are.  Im guessing that if it truly wasn't constitutional, the SC would have already acted.
> 
> Just because some yahoos try to reignite a new Sagebrush Rebellion because of their own self-interest, it doens't mean the rest of us agree.


 
No, the Constitution is very explicit as to when the Federal Government is allowed to own land. Most "national forests" and National Parks don't fit that bill. Excuses such as "The states don't want it" don't change the fact that it is not authorized by the Constitution for the Feds to hold it. The SCOTUS is just a corrupt wing of a very corrupt Federal Government and have shown their corruption time and time again.


----------



## Farmerga

Nevada said:


> Let me guess. If they carve up BLM land and turn it over to the people, I don't get any.
> 
> If I do get some, can I tell these ranchers to stay off my land? What will the ranchers say about that?



I would say either sell it to those who want it, or, bring back the Homestead act and give it to those who will use it. The "ranchers" are irrelevant to the question of the illegality of the Federal Government holding so much land.


----------



## City Bound

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Bundy's have no connection other than their desire to be in the spotlight, and it doesn't help anything at all.
> 
> It makes them (and all gun owners) look stupid (which is how the media will spin things)


 Maybe that is the point. 
Maybe they are a false flag, planted by powers trying to destroy the second amendment.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> No, the Constitution is very explicit as to when the Federal Government is allowed to own land. Most "national forests" and National Parks don't fit that bill. Excuses such as "The states don't want it" don't change the fact that it is not authorized by the Constitution for the Feds to hold it. The SCOTUS is just a corrupt wing of a very corrupt Federal Government and have shown their corruption time and time again.


Says you. And yet, there it is...owned by the feds. Must be so trying to you knowing so much more about the constitution than everyone else and just being.....ignored.


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> Says you. And yet, there it is...owned by the feds. Must be so trying to you knowing so much more about the constitution than everyone else and just being.....ignored.


 
So, you are of the mind that just because the government does it, it is legal? I am not the only one who can read the plain English of the Constitution. It is the ignorance of the masses that allows such lawlessness. That is not something to be snarky about, but, rather, it is a shameful state of affairs of our once great Republic.


----------



## Nevada

Farmerga said:


> No, the Constitution is very explicit as to when the Federal Government is allowed to own land. Most "national forests" and National Parks don't fit that bill. Excuses such as "The states don't want it" don't change the fact that it is not authorized by the Constitution for the Feds to hold it. The SCOTUS is just a corrupt wing of a very corrupt Federal Government and have shown their corruption time and time again.


The constitution also authorizes the federal government to promote the general welfare of the country. I think Yellowstone promotes the general welfare of the country, since visitors from all over the country enjoy it.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> So, you are of the mind that just because the government does it, it is legal? I am not the only one who can read the plain English of the Constitution. It is the ignorance of the masses that allows such lawlessness. That is not something to be snarky about, but, rather, it is a shameful state of affairs of our once great Republic.


Your opinion, and also your interpretation of the constitution.


----------



## Farmerga

Nevada said:


> The constitution also authorizes the federal government to *promote the general welfare *of the country. I think Yellowstone promotes the general welfare of the country, since visitors from all over the country enjoy it.


That is, quite obviously, a qualifier for the power to tax, not an enumerated power unto itself. It states that, within the enumerated powers, the Feds cannot pick favorites. For example, they cannot tax the other 49 states to fund an army to defend only California.


----------



## Nevada

Farmerga said:


> That is, quite obviously, a qualifier for the power to tax, not an enumerated power unto itself. It states that, within the enumerated powers, the Feds cannot pick favorites. For example, they cannot tax the other 49 states to fund an army to defend only California.


But as I pointed out, Yellowstone isn't for the exclusive use of residents of Wyoming. People from all over the country enjoy Yellowstone. Likewise, people from Wyoming are welcome to enjoy Smokey Mountains National Park. And people from back east are welcome to enjoy Lake Mead. The government isn't playing favorites, it's just where the features happen to be.


----------



## Shine

Farmerga said:


> It is the ignorance of the masses that allows such lawlessness. That is not something to be snarky about, but, rather, it is a shameful state of affairs of our once great Republic.


Connected to the general ignorance is the apathy. Maybe this is something that we cannot see but if it is a group of people with a grievance against government overreach then they are doing as we[collectively] should have been doing for over 100 years. This is what the forefathers suggested. I would think that anyone that does not have the absolute facts in front of their faces would be tentatively in support of their actions. 

I watched the feed for a good bit of time, the Ranchers that set the fires are going the legal route but there would appear to be some appreciation towards the Bundys actions from them.

So let's ask: If we feel that the government is overstepping its boundaries, we should always sit back and trust the court? Is what is being thrust upon the Hammonds nothing more that a clear cut case of double jeopardy?


----------



## City Bound

courts are the government


----------



## Nevada

Shine said:


> Is what is being thrust upon the Hammonds nothing more that a clear cut case of double jeopardy?


No, they weren't tried for the same crime twice.

What happened was that the trial judge decided 1 year in federal prison was enough for what they did. But the prosecutor appealed because the crime they were convicted of carries a mandatory minimum 5 year sentence. The appellate court determined that the trial judge didn't have the authority to sentence them to anything less than 5 years. They have to serve the other 4 years of their sentence.


----------



## Nevada

Ironic, isn't it?


----------



## Woolieface

Nevada said:


> Let me guess. If they carve up BLM land and turn it over to the people, I don't get any.
> 
> If I do get some, can I tell these ranchers to stay off my land? What will the ranchers say about that?


What's stopping you more than anyone else? It can be divided by lottery, maybe.


----------



## Nevada

Woolieface said:


> What's stopping you more than anyone else? It can be divided by lottery, maybe.


In this particular case, the wildlife preserve was acquired from the ranchers through eminent domain. They want it back for themselves, not "the people" as they suggest.


----------



## Woolieface

Nevada said:


> In this particular case, the wildlife preserve was acquired from the ranchers through eminent domain. They want it back for themselves, not "the people" as they suggest.


They are "the people". They're the ones who have historically used That piece of land. Eminent domain is legalized theft....but, anyway.... my point had more to do with All federally owned land. It should be given to the people and not sold to them, if you ask me, because the fed has no right to collect any money on what they stole...it needs to be Given back free of charge.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Woolieface said:


> They are "the people". They're the ones who have historically used That piece of land. Eminent domain is legalized theft....but, anyway.... my point had more to do with All federally owned land. It should be given to the people and not sold to them, if you ask me, because the fed has no right to collect any money on what they stole...it needs to be Given back free of charge.


Are you prepared to give all land back to the native tribes? Or are white ranchers the only beneficiaries of your imagined largesse?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I watched the feed for a good bit of time, the Ranchers that set the fires are going the legal route but t*here would appear to be some appreciation towards the Bundys actions from them.*


The Hammonds told them repeatedly *not* to get involved and it was none of their business.

Some just can't resist the urge to insert themselves into other people's lives


----------



## Nevada

Woolieface said:


> They are "the people". They're the ones who have historically used That piece of land. Eminent domain is legalized theft....but, anyway.... my point had more to do with All federally owned land. It should be given to the people and not sold to them, if you ask me, because the fed has no right to collect any money on what they stole...it needs to be Given back free of charge.


So, no. I get nothing. In the meantime those ranchers are holed-up in *MY* federal building.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> So, no. I get nothing. In the meantime those ranchers are holed-up in *MY* federal building.


Well.dont just sit there and complain...go take it back if you feel so strongly about it, but you wont. Arm chair complainer......


----------



## haypoint

I doubt any of this will get straightened out. It is a complex issue, spanning decades. 

If you hold 10 leases of government land, the government can stop leasing the land.

If you hold 10 leases of water from government land, the government can stop leasing the water.

That there was record rainfall some years and record drought other years isn't the government's fault.

A jury has tried and found guilty two men for intentionally setting fires on government land. Sad they have families or are old. 

Bundy wants to graze cattle on land that is not his to graze nor is it available for lease. If I ran my cattle in your garden for a few years, what would you do?

So far the only "full details" I have heard come from the rancher's supporters. I'd like to hear the "rest of the story". But I doubt the government will say anything until the courts are finished.


----------



## City Bound

Well, I think we will see more of this in the future because beef is under attack. The raising of beef is being blamed as a significant role in global warming so expect public opinion to start shifting against cattle ranching.


----------



## Woolieface

Nevada said:


> So, no. I get nothing. In the meantime those ranchers are holed-up in *MY* federal building.


You got nothin to begin with. If it's your building, let's see you go take it back.


----------



## Woolieface

basketti said:


> Are you prepared to give all land back to the native tribes? Or are white ranchers the only beneficiaries of your imagined largesse?


Every citizen of this country is "the people". If you don't care that the fed has what's yours, that's fine...give yours away.


----------



## Raeven

We're fighting back:

_"BURNS, OREGON (The Borowitz Report)â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._

_âThis used to be such a nice state,â said Oregon State Senator Carol Foyler, a pro-wall lawmaker. âSince the angry white men came here, parts of it are unrecognizable.â"_

I concur.

(Link contained above.)


----------



## Nevada

Woolieface said:


> You got nothin to begin with. If it's your building, let's see you go take it back.


But if things stay the way they are I have a wildlife refuge to enjoy.


----------



## Woolieface

Nevada said:


> But if things stay the way they are I have a wildlife refuge to enjoy.


Well how about we all go live in apartment buildings, let the government have all the land and then we'll get to enjoy that big, giant nature preserve once in a while? It doesn't make any sense. Take land away from people so they can all go see it sometimes? If none of it belonged to the government I doubt we'd be missing that freedom of nature because it would be Ours. Nah... I want to Live on the land, use the land, take care of the land....not visit it. That's what being free means.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Woolieface said:


> Well how about we all go live in apartment buildings, let the government have all the land and then we'll get to enjoy that big, giant nature preserve once in a while? It doesn't make any sense. Take land away from people so they can all go see it sometimes? If none of it belonged to the government I doubt we'd be missing that freedom of nature because it would be Ours. Nah... I want to Live on the land, use the land, take care of the land....not visit it. That's what being free means.


So go buy some land. I did...why should the rest of us fund yours when we enjoy having spaces preserved for everyone to use. 
Do you want to take over public schools too and demand to squat there? Jeez man, get a job and don't expect everyone else to fund your dreams.


----------



## cfuhrer

oneraddad said:


> The cattle on BLM land in Nevada and Oregon just destroy and contaminate the springs/streams for humans and wildlife. 30-50 years ago they ran mostly sheep in that area which didn't impact the water the way cattle are now. I think what the pay to use that land is not enough.





basketti said:


> Totally agree.





painterswife said:


> I agree. I think most people don't understand how delicate that range is.


The New Ranch Handbook: a Guide To Restoring Western Rangelands.

The cool thing about the book is - you don't even have to read it, just look at the pictures.


----------



## haypoint

Raeven said:


> We're fighting back:
> 
> _"BURNS, OREGON (The Borowitz Report)â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._
> 
> _âThis used to be such a nice state,â said Oregon State Senator Carol Foyler, a pro-wall lawmaker. âSince the angry white men came here, parts of it are unrecognizable.â"_
> 
> I concur.
> 
> (Link contained above.)


Now that is some funny stuff. Andy Borowitz puts out some great spoofs for New Yorker. Hope some rubes don't believe it is real.


----------



## po boy

haypoint said:


> Now that is some funny stuff. Andy Borowitz puts out some great spoofs for New Yorker. Hope some rubes don't believe it is real.


 That! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Raeven

haypoint said:


> Now that is some funny stuff. Andy Borowitz puts out some great spoofs for New Yorker. Hope some rubes don't believe it is real.


You ruined all my fun.


----------



## Woolieface

basketti said:


> So go buy some land. I did...why should the rest of us fund yours when we enjoy having spaces preserved for everyone to use.
> Do you want to take over public schools too and demand to squat there? Jeez man, get a job and don't expect everyone else to fund your dreams.


What the crap are you talking about? lol....


----------



## Farmerga

Nevada said:


> But as I pointed out, Yellowstone isn't for the exclusive use of residents of Wyoming. People from all over the country enjoy Yellowstone. Likewise, people from Wyoming are welcome to enjoy Smokey Mountains National Park. And people from back east are welcome to enjoy Lake Mead. The government isn't playing favorites, it's just where the features happen to be.


 You have forgotten the other requirement, an enumerated power. There is no enumerated power to hold great swaths of land. The states can hold and preserve those lands. They can charge user fees to fund their upkeep.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

This is a pretty big news story.

Unfortunately, my local TV new stations are more preoccupied with the fact we are keeping our losing football teams head coach, when everyone anticipated his firing.
OH and we have new meerkat pups, named Cato and Cashmere!

Where do I find this pretty important news story on TV?


----------



## DryHeat

What he is talking about, I think, in part at least, is the immediate conflict that arises if a society of laws plus public land ownership, in a fit of dysfunctional idiocy, tried to give you your way within:


> I want to Live on the land, use the land, take care of the land....not visit it.


 The key problem there being that word "use." What happens when some yokel who can't accept results of pointy-headed scientists' observations of sustainable range management and grazing densities, etc, figures HIS "usage" should consist of putting ten steers on a couple of acres, or a batch of swine with access to wallow in a trout stream also upstream of somebody else's fish pond, or burning off "his" twenty acres with no regard for high wind and drought conditions leading to torching the adjacent hundred thousand in a crown fire through ponderosas?

What HAPPENS is exactly what we have now, a civil society enforces laws and regulations and partially decides a whole batch of acres will NOT be allowed to be privately owned and therefore subject quite as readily to abuse by psychopaths and fools. There's plenty of land out there still under private ownership but people do have to get either very lucky or work very hard after getting a lot of education to have the money to buy it. If you can't afford to buy it, well, make do with public access to public lands and abide by the rules your hated gummint has set for doing so, or work to get those rules changed.


----------



## mmoetc

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...nd-are-already-getting-a-93-percent-discount/

It seems those federal leases are a pretty good deal. Might be better than actually owning the land or renting it from private owners.


----------



## Farmerga

DryHeat said:


> What he is talking about, I think, in part at least, is the immediate conflict that arises if a society of laws plus public land ownership, in a fit of dysfunctional idiocy, tried to give you your way within: The key problem there being that word "use." What happens when some yokel who can't accept results of pointy-headed scientists' observations of sustainable range management and grazing densities, etc, figures HIS "usage" should consist of putting ten steers on a couple of acres, or a batch of swine with access to wallow in a trout stream also upstream of somebody else's fish pond, or burning off "his" twenty acres with no regard for high wind and drought conditions leading to torching the adjacent hundred thousand in a crown fire through ponderosas?
> 
> *What HAPPENS is exactly what we have now, a civil society enforces laws and regulations and partially decides a whole batch of acres will NOT be allowed to be privately owned and therefore subject to abuse by psychopaths and idiots.* There's plenty of land out there still under private ownership but people do have to get either very lucky or work very hard after getting a lot of education to have the money to buy it. If you can't afford to buy it, well, make do with public access to public lands and abide by the rules your hated gummint has set for doing so, or work to get those rules changed.


 But, that government is breaking its own laws and regulations in order to hold this land. This land is being held, illegally, by a criminal enterprise.


----------



## DryHeat

> But, that government is breaking its own laws and regulations in order to hold this land. This land is being held, illegally, by a criminal enterprise.


So make enough money to sue them, get educated enough that your carefully documented conclusions to that effect carry some weight and help get better lawmakers elected, and, as the last resort, manifest some act of civil disobedience in your outrage. I'm a child of the late 60s, I know about all that and have resolved to take those risks for principles myself, too. What that quote sounds like at this point though, is more an incoherent repeating of tea party/ militia rhetoric with not much of legal, or even moral, value to support it. However, I personally recommend Gandhi's dedication and values rather than Mao's or Lenin's. Challenge things here waving guns around and you better realize you can wind up dead and with very little sympathy or attention to even valid arguments from folks like me.


----------



## Farmerga

DryHeat said:


> So make enough money to sue them, get educated enough that your carefully documented conclusions to that effect carry some weight and help get better lawmakers elected, and, as the last resort, manifest some act of civil disobedience in your outrage. I'm a child of the late 60s, I know about all that and have resolved to take those risks for principles myself, too. What that quote sounds like at this point though, is more an incoherent repeating of tea party/ militia rhetoric with not much of legal, or even moral, value to support it. However, I personally recommend Gandhi's dedication and values rather than Mao's or Lenin's. Challenge things here waving guns around and you better realize you can wind up dead and with very little sympathy or attention to even valid arguments from folks like me.


 Sounds good in theory, but, think about what you are suggesting. You suggest going to what amounts to the legal team of a corporation and convince them that the corporation is breaking the law. Now that may work with a corporation that has to answer to some higher authority, but, what if they were basically the end all and their belief held force of law? What would be their motivation to admit to their lawlessness? 

It would be one thing if they were doing something unlawful that was also unpopular, but, as we see here, National Forests and parks are popular and most don't know, or, don't care that what they are doing is not authorized by the Constitution. 

I see the danger in letting the Government thwart the law, most others do not.


----------



## AmericanStand

basketti said:


> Most westerners don't want it to be privatized. Your everyday person would stand to lose their hunting camps, their snowmobiling trails, logging rights, grazing leases, etc. etc. etc. We in the west tend to take our access to public lands for granted until some developer wants to get hold of them. And most know they are better protected that way by the feds than parceled out here and there by state governments in need of funds.
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no way the individual states would ever be able to afford fire fighting for the massive western wild fires that happen every year.



So what ? 
Are we a country that steals based on majority vote. 
Well yes we are but that doesn't make it right. 
Remember these lands were stolen they need to be given back to the rightful owners not distributed. 

It's funny that you feel some right to use thousands of acres in the west but not the Midwest ?


----------



## AmericanStand

basketti said:


> Are you prepared to give all land back to the native tribes? Or are white ranchers the only beneficiaries of your imagined largesse?



No the Indians have no rights to that land.


----------



## ninny

Cornhusker said:


> I don't understand how you stand behind the BLM protests, riots, looting, yet won't stand behind others doing basically the same thing on a smaller scale?
> How many were charged in the Ferguson mess for arson?


I don't remember anyone getting in trouble for the multimillion gallon toxic spill from the goldmine screwup either. I think that was considerably worse than a 139 acre fire that didn't really hurt anyone. Seems that was the EPA's " little " screw up, but that's okay, it was the govt that did that, no one went to prison, was fined or even fired if I remember correctly. A heck of a lot more people were and still are being affected by that little incident than the Hammond's fire.

.


----------



## painterswife

AmericanStand said:


> So what ?
> Are we a country that steals based on majority vote.
> Well yes we are but that doesn't make it right.
> Remember these lands were stolen they need to be given back to the rightful owners not distributed.
> 
> It's funny that you feel some right to use thousands of acres in the west but not the Midwest ?


How were they stolen? There were owned by the previous government and transferred to the federal government when they became states.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> How were they stolen? There were owned by the previous government and transferred to the federal government when they became states.


 Because the States had no right to transfer that land to the Feds and the Feds had no right to accept it. It belongs to The People, directly. If the States don't want to hold it, it should revert back to The People.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Because the States had no right to transfer that land to the Feds and the Feds had no right to accept it. It belongs to The People, directly. If the States don't want to hold it, it should revert back to The People.


The government manages it for the people. The people do own it. How do I know that? Because I get to use it every day.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> The government manages it for the people. The people do own it. How do I know that? Because I get to use it every day.


 Build a house on it. Fence a portion off and put some horses on it. Plow up a spot and grow crops. If you own it, you should be able to do these things with impunity. Again, the Federal government owns this land illegally.


----------



## MO_cows

Farmerga said:


> Because the States had no right to transfer that land to the Feds and the Feds had no right to accept it. It belongs to The People, directly. If the States don't want to hold it, it should revert back to The People.


It wasn't states, but Territories who owned the land not claimed by individuals. When the Territories voted to become States, it was "the people" who decided to do that. And it seems all of the western states with so much unclaimed land, ceded it to the federal government, per the wishes of "the people" when their decision to seek statehood was voted on. So, the will of "the people" who were living at that time, was done.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Build a house on it. Fence a portion off and put some horses on it. Plow up a spot and grow crops. If you own it, you should be able to do these things with impunity. Again, the Federal government owns this land illegally.


Well you go ahead and try to do something about it. When you do I will do the something to fight you. Maybe a new constitutional amendment. That way we can waste a bunch of money getting to where we are right now.


----------



## AmericanStand

painterswife said:


> How were they stolen? There were owned by the previous government and transferred to the federal government when they became states.



It's very simple it wasn't owned by the previous government. 
Lol actually there wasn't a previous government. 
What you are talking about is the government changing it from one hand to another. 
But all that is after it was stolen from those originally there.


----------



## painterswife

AmericanStand said:


> It's very simple it wasn't owned by the previous government.
> Lol actually there wasn't a previous government.
> What you are talking about is the government changing it from one hand to another.
> But all that is after it was stolen from those originally there.


My state was a Territory and there was a government so I don't know how you can make that statement and believe it is true.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> Build a house on it. Fence a portion off and put some horses on it. Plow up a spot and grow crops. If you own it, you should be able to do these things with impunity. Again, the Federal government owns this land illegally.


A lot of it is virtually unusable. There IS the whole water situation in the west, you know.


----------



## cfuhrer

basketti said:


> A lot of it is virtually unusable. There IS the whole water situation in the west, you know.


Unless it's strip mined for the yellow cake uranium that's underneath it. 

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2012/01/malheur_county_targeted_for_go.html

The article is old but the issues still stand.

Key phrase: "but substantial portions of both sites are on federal land administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management."


----------



## painterswife

Here is a good article.

http://www.wyofile.com/column/land-land-lets-keep-public-public-lands/


----------



## cfuhrer

painterswife said:


> Here is a good article.
> 
> http://www.wyofile.com/column/land-land-lets-keep-public-public-lands/


Except that it's an opinion piece


----------



## Farmerga

MO_cows said:


> It wasn't states, but Territories who owned the land not claimed by individuals. When the Territories voted to become States, it was "the people" who decided to do that. And it seems all of the western states with so much unclaimed land, ceded it to the federal government, per the wishes of "the people" when their decision to seek statehood was voted on. So, the will of "the people" who were living at that time, was done.


 Let me try and explain the situation in another way. Say there was a vote on creating a Church Of America. Say a majority of the people of the United States voted for its creation. That wouldn't be legal because of the Constitution, no matter if a majority wants it, or, not. The Federal Government, which is (supposed to be) bound by the Constitution, hasn't the right to own great swaths of land.

It is a matter of the difference between a Democracy and a Republic. Our government was set up as a Republic to guard against "tyranny of the majority".


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Well you go ahead and try to do something about it. When you do I will do the something to fight you. *Maybe a new constitutional amendment*. That way we can waste a bunch of money getting to where we are right now.


 That is what should happen if we wish for the Federal government to own great swaths of land. We shouldn't allow the government to ignore the law because we think the results are "good". If we do, they will ignore the law even if we think the results are "bad".


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> A lot of it is virtually unusable. There IS the whole water situation in the west, you know.


 
Irrelevant to the matter at hand.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> That is what should happen if we wish for the Federal government to own great swaths of land. We shouldn't allow the government to ignore the law because we think the results are "good". If we do, they will ignore the law even if we think the results are "bad".


Well some of us don't agree with your take on the constitution. So you prove your take first.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Well some of us don't agree with your take on the constitution. So you prove your take first.


There is no proving my take. There are the words, written in plain English, in the Constitution. There is only acceptance of that fact or denial of that fact. 

It is like denying this statement: "This smiley face is yellow :heh:"

Now, one can say it is blue until they are blue, but, it doesn't change the facts of the situation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Let me try and explain the situation in another way. Say there was a vote on creating a Church Of America. Say a majority of the people of the United States voted for its creation. That wouldn't be legal because of the Constitution, no matter if a majority wants it, or, not. The Federal Government, which is (supposed to be) bound by the Constitution, hasn't the right to own great swaths of land.
> 
> It is a matter of the difference between a Democracy and a Republic. Our government was set up as a Republic to guard against "tyranny of the majority".


*Fantasy* scenarios are meaningless.
The states want the Feds to oversee most of that land, whether you think it's "legal" or not


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Fantasy* scenarios are meaningless.
> The states want the Feds to oversee most of that land, whether you think it's "legal" or not


 
It is irrelevant if the States wanted it, or, not, it is still illegal because it is not authorized by the Constitution for the Federal government to own great swaths of land. It wouldn't matter if 99.999% of the population thought it was the greatest idea since toilet paper, as long as the Constitution doesn't authorize it, it is illegal. Until there is an amendment to the Constitution that states that it is permissible for the Federal Government to own that land, it is not legal.


----------



## AmericanStand

painterswife said:


> My state was a Territory and there was a government so I don't know how you can make that statement and believe it is true.



A territory is simply land administered by the United States. It's not a separate government from the USA just a division of it.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> There is no proving my take. There are the words, written in plain English, in the Constitution. There is only acceptance of that fact or denial of that fact.
> 
> It is like denying this statement: "This smiley face is yellow :heh:"
> 
> Now, one can say it is blue until they are blue, but, it doesn't change the facts of the situation.


That would be your opinion. Not everyone's. Maybe you are color blind.


----------



## MO_cows

Farmerga said:


> Let me try and explain the situation in another way. Say there was a vote on creating a Church Of America. Say a majority of the people of the United States voted for its creation. That wouldn't be legal because of the Constitution, no matter if a majority wants it, or, not. The Federal Government, which is (supposed to be) bound by the Constitution, hasn't the right to own great swaths of land.
> 
> It is a matter of the difference between a Democracy and a Republic. Our government was set up as a Republic to guard against "tyranny of the majority".


A graduate of the Watcher School of Bad Analogies????

Thomas Jefferson, one of the key authors of the Constitution, made the Louisiana Purchase which put the whole "territory to state to federal land" chain of events in motion in the first place.

So you know more about the Constitution and its intentions than one of the authors????


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> That would be your opinion. Not everyone's. Maybe you are color blind.


Ah, now I see the problem.

Ah, now I see the problem. 


(are the above two statements identical, or, am I seeing double?)


----------



## Farmerga

MO_cows said:


> A graduate of the Watcher School of Bad Analogies????
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, one of the key authors of the Constitution, made the Louisiana Purchase which put the whole "territory to state to federal land" chain of events in motion in the first place. So you know more about the Constitution and its intentions than one of the authors????


And much of that land was distributed to citizens. Of course our nation is allowed to expand, but, the FEDERAL government is not allowed to OWN great swaths of land. People went and they settled much of that vacant land. When the Territories became states and those states allowed the Feds to own much of their land, that is when the law breaking began. Jefferson never wanted the Federal government to own and control great swaths of land. He wanted that land settled by citizens, or, controlled by states.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> It is irrelevant if the States wanted it, or, not, *it is still illegal* because it is not authorized by the Constitution for the Federal government to own great swaths of land. It wouldn't matter if 99.999% of the population thought it was the greatest idea since toilet paper, as long as the Constitution doesn't authorize it, *it is illegal*. Until there is an amendment to the Constitution that states that it is permissible for the Federal Government to own that land, *it is not legal*.


You just keep repeating yourself, but can't prove anything at all.
It's all just the usual anti-Govt rhetoric.
I'm surprised you haven't mentioned slavery yet


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> You just keep repeating yourself, but can't prove anything at all.
> It's all just the usual anti-Govt rhetoric.
> I'm surprised you haven't mentioned slavery yet


What is there to prove? Nothing in the Constitution states that the Federal government is allowed to own great swaths of land, therefore, the Federal government is not allowed to own great swaths of land. 

That is how the Constitution is supposed to work. Powers, of the Federal government, are explicitly listed. If something is not listed, the Federal government is not supposed to do it.

Is it more anti-Govt. to want to keep it inside the confines of the Constitution, or, allow it to be lawless with impunity?

Since you mentioned it, because the regulation of slavery wasn't a power given to the Federal Government, it took a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment to make it illegal.


----------



## Nevada

Farmerga said:


> the FEDERAL government is not allowed to OWN great swaths of land.


That claim was made by Fox News' Napolitano, but politifact asked a number of legal scholars and rated his claim as not only false, but Pants on Fire.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...tano-washington-lacks-constitutional-right-o/


----------



## arabian knight

Farmerga said:


> *And much of that land was distributed to citizens*. Of course our nation is allowed to expand, but, the FEDERAL government is not allowed to OWN great swaths of land. People went and they settled much of that vacant land. When the Territories became states and those states allowed the Feds to own much of their land, that is when the law breaking began. Jefferson never wanted the Federal government to own and control great swaths of land. He wanted that land settled by citizens, or, controlled by states.


Then land in question the PEOPLE DID NOT WANT IT~! Plain and simple so the government took it back how simple is that to understand.
They did not want it cause it is a useless peace of land to raise anything of importance on it.


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> Then land in question the PEOPLE DID NOT WANT IT~! Plain and simple so the government took it back how simple is that to understand.
> They did not want it cause it is a useless peace of land to raise anything of importance on it.


Sometimes the land is worse than useless. Here's some land where "useless" would be an improvement.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTGwA3OwC_c[/ame]


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Farmerga View Post
> the FEDERAL government is not allowed to OWN great swaths of land.


You've said that in every post.
Running in circles is boring

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...tano-washington-lacks-constitutional-right-o/


> The short answer is that the Constitution, through the Property Clause, specifically gives the government the power to own land. Over time, the Supreme Court has ruled that *not only does the government own the land, but it enjoys broad rights in deciding what happens on that land.*
> 
> In 2007, the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm that works on behalf of Democrats and Republicans, explored the legal roots of federal land ownership. Its finding was unambiguous.
> 
> "The Property Clause gives Congress authority over federal property generally, and the Supreme Court has described Congress&#8217; power to legislate under this Clause as &#8216;without limitation,&#8217; " the researcher wrote.


----------



## Farmerga

I am fully aware that the Government claims the right to own land. I am sure that the local street thug would claim the right to own your TV as well, and I am sure that his buddies would back him up in that assertion. They both have about the same amount of real standing.


----------



## MO_cows

Farmerga said:


> And much of that land was distributed to citizens. Of course our nation is allowed to expand, but, the FEDERAL government is not allowed to OWN great swaths of land. People went and they settled much of that vacant land. When the Territories became states and those states allowed the Feds to own much of their land, that is when the law breaking began. Jefferson never wanted the Federal government to own and control great swaths of land. He wanted that land settled by citizens, or, controlled by states.


So by your interpretation, the Louisiana Purchase was illegal and so was the entry of most of the states to the union.


----------



## Farmerga

arabian knight said:


> Then land in question the PEOPLE DID NOT WANT IT~! Plain and simple so the government took it back how simple is that to understand.
> They did not want it cause it is a useless peace of land to raise anything of importance on it.


 Of course, that is all irrelevant to the point I was making.


Read the Constitution.  I know, I know, the SCOTUS has said that it says something that it doesn't, but, they are becoming known for that. Just like calling a penalty, that the writers of the law said, most certainly was NOT a tax, a tax. Or, that the words "shall not be infringed" actually means that they can be infringed.


----------



## Farmerga

MO_cows said:


> So by your interpretation, the Louisiana Purchase was illegal and so was the entry of most of the states to the union.


 No, not even close. The Fed's responsibility, in the Louisiana purchase, was to defend the expanded boarders, split governance of the new territories, (eventually states) and distribute the land among those territories/states/people. The Federal government was to act as a facilitator and protector of the new territories.


----------



## MO_cows

Farmerga said:


> No, not even close. The Fed's responsibility, in the Louisiana purchase, was to defend the expanded boarders, split governance of the new territories, (eventually states) and distribute the land among those territories/states/people. The Federal government was to act as a facilitator and protector of the new territories.


But if the federal govt is not permitted to own land, the very purchase was illegal in the first place. 

Likewise the territories becoming states and entering the union, at that time ceding their unclaimed land to the feds, was illegal according to you. Which would mean most of our states were not "legally" admitted to the union.


----------



## Farmerga

MO_cows said:


> But if the federal govt is not permitted to own land, the very purchase was illegal in the first place.
> 
> Likewise the territories becoming states and entering the union, at that time ceding their unclaimed land to the feds, was illegal according to you. Which would mean most of our states were not "legally" admitted to the union.


 
The Feds are permitted to own some land. Forts, D.C., land on which to place needed buildings etc.. The LP was an expansion of our boarders, the land was "owned" by the territorial governments. When they became states, and ceded their unclaimed land, THAT was an illegal act. The act of ceding the land, not becoming a state.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You just keep repeating yourself, but can't prove anything at all.
> It's all just the usual anti-Govt rhetoric.
> I'm surprised you haven't mentioned slavery yet


Her proof is in the constitution unless you can prove otherwise. You say that it is "anti-government" in intention yet if one would stand back, it is actually "pro-government" in that it says that the government SHOULD do what it was initially authorized to do. Because you say these things without reasoning to back up your stance, it all seems AS IF you want others to believe what is not true. Is that it?

"To date, Congress has not attempted to exploit the new "enumerated power" conferred by the Court in _Kleppe v. New Mexico_. Although one can imagine how _Kleppe v. New Mexico_ could be elaborated in new ways, any effort to use the Property Clause to sustain legislation that goes beyond protecting federal proprietary interests would seemingly be inconsistent with the original design of the Constitution."

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

Also see:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...inds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans


----------



## MO_cows

Farmerga said:


> The Feds are permitted to own some land. Forts, D.C., land on which to place needed buildings etc.. The LP was an expansion of our boarders, the land was "owned" by the territorial governments. When they became states, and ceded their unclaimed land, THAT was an illegal act. The act of ceding the land, not becoming a state.


But if ceding the land was part of the act which made them a state, it's part and parcel and therefore most of our states are not legal entities under your view.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> I am fully aware that the Government claims the right to own land. I am sure that *the local street thug* would claim the right to own your TV as well, and I am sure that his buddies would back him up in that assertion. They both have about the same amount of real standing.


Once again you merely repeat yourself when documentation has shown you're incorrect.
You're back to fantasy analogies, which have no "standing" at all


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> *Her proof* is in the constitution unless you can prove otherwise. You say that it is "anti-government" in intention yet if one would stand back, it is actually "pro-government" in that it says that the government SHOULD do what it was initially authorized to do. Because you say these things without reasoning to back up your stance, it all seems AS IF you want others to believe what is not true. Is that it?
> 
> "To date, Congress has not attempted to exploit the new "enumerated power" conferred by the Court in _Kleppe v. New Mexico_. Although one can imagine how _Kleppe v. New Mexico_ could be elaborated in new ways, any effort to use the Property Clause to sustain legislation that goes beyond protecting federal proprietary interests would seemingly be inconsistent with the original design of the Constitution."
> 
> http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause
> 
> Also see:
> http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...inds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans


She's offered no proof, and you are showing opinions from more anti-govt sites that disagree with court rulings and precedent



> Because you say these things without reasoning to back up your stance, it all seems AS IF *you want others to believe* what is not true. Is that it?


I don't care what you "believe".
Some believe in fairy tales

What is "true" is the US Govt owns property, and you can't *prove* it's illegal, no matter how many times you say it is. You're just parroting too


----------



## greg273

Farmerga said:


> The Feds are permitted to own some land.


 So in addition to talking in circles, repeating your false claim ad nasueum, now you are contradicting your whole argument. 
Give it up farmerga, your OPINION of the federal government is just that, an OPINION, unsupported by fact and history.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> She's offered no proof, and you are showing opinions from more anti-govt sites that disagree with court rulings and precedent


So, using something from politifact is OK but not the Heritage site? wow... -- oops I meant lol


----------



## Nevada

Farmerga said:


> The Feds are permitted to own some land. Forts, D.C., land on which to place needed buildings etc.. The LP was an expansion of our boarders, the land was "owned" by the territorial governments. When they became states, and ceded their unclaimed land, THAT was an illegal act. The act of ceding the land, not becoming a state.


How do you intend to enforce your interpretation of the constitution when the entire court system disagrees with your interpretation?


----------



## AmericanStand

arabian knight said:


> Then land in question the PEOPLE DID NOT WANT IT~! Plain and simple so the government took it back how simple is that to understand.
> 
> They did not want it cause it is a useless peace of land to raise anything of importance on it.



Could you point to any significant parcel that no one wanted ? 
My research has failed to discover any such place.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> So, using something from politifact is OK but not the Heritage site? wow... -- oops I meant lol


The Heritage site wouldn't open, and the other link was some drivel about fact-checkers dissing Republicans, which is irrelevant

Let's go with this one:



> Originally Posted by Farmerga View Post
> The Feds *are *permitted to own some land.


I also suspect you didn't really read much of the Heritage site, since it not only agrees with what was stated in Nevada's link (which obviously you didn't read either) but was also quoted *there* too:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...tano-washington-lacks-constitutional-right-o/


> In 2007, the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm that works on behalf of Democrats and Republicans, explored the legal roots of federal land ownership. Its finding was unambiguous.
> 
> "The Property Clause gives Congress authority over federal property generally, and the Supreme Court has described Congress&#8217; power to legislate under this Clause as &#8216;without limitation,&#8217; " the researcher wrote.
> 
> *The Heritage Foundation*, a conservative think-tank and activist organization in Washington, D.C., *says much the same thing *on its online guide to the Constitution.
> 
> It provides the key text from *Article IV of the Constitution*.
> 
> "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property *belonging to* the United States."


There's the Constitutional reference you asked for which was there all along.
You just have to read the posts


----------



## AmericanStand

Could someone tell me for sure what the wording of LP was ?
In the Alaska purchase the USA purchased the right to govern and promised that the owners of the property would be secure in their ownership. 
Was the LP similar ?


----------



## AmericanStand

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Heritage site wouldn't open, and the other link was some drivel about fact-checkers dissing Republicans, which is irrelevant
> 
> Let's go with this one:
> 
> 
> 
> I also suspect you didn't really read much of the Heritage site, since it not only agrees with what was stated in Nevada's link (which obviously you didn't read either) but was also quoted *there* too:
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...tano-washington-lacks-constitutional-right-o/
> 
> 
> There's the Constitutional reference you asked for which was there all along.
> You just have to read the posts



Wait a second that says "rules and regulations"
The obvious exclusion of the word ownership would seem to point to the lack of a vision of federal ownership of the territories. The states belong to the United States of Americs but the. USA does not own them.


----------



## farmrbrown

Unfortunately, I have to side with the Constitution on this. Not only Article IV, but Article I section 8, at the end.


*To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
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;&#8212;And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.*


----------



## Shine

greg273 said:


> So in addition to talking in circles, repeating your false claim ad nasueum, now you are contradicting your whole argument.
> Give it up farmerga, your OPINION of the federal government is just that, an OPINION, unsupported by fact and history.


She speaks correctly for those that have read the constitution understand her points.

Considered from the vantage point of original meaning, both the conservative and liberal interpretations of the "other Property" portion of the Property Clause are partly correct. The liberals are correct in that the Constitution-not just arguably, but clearly--authorizes permanent property ownership outside the Enclave Clause. The clarity of this result flows both from the text of the document and from comments made during ratification. Moreover, the liberals are correct in suggesting that those lands are subject to a public trust and cannot be ceded to the respective states without compensation. Federal land disposal, like federal land management, must serve the interest of the entire country.
[FONT=&quot]On the other hand, the conservatives are correct about another aspect of original meaning. As understood at the time of ratification, the Constitution did not permit the federal government to retain and manage land indefinitely for unenumerated purposes. Massive, permanent federal land ownership would have been seen as subversive of the constitutional scheme. The federal government's authority to dispose was unlimited (except for trust standards), but its authority to acquire, retain, and manage was not: all the latter functions could be exercised only to serve enumerated powers. To be sure, Congress would have consider-able discretion as to how to effectuate enumerated powers, and reason-able exercises of discretion were not to be questioned. At the end of the day, however, all federal land not "necessary and proper" to execute an enumerated power was to be disposed of impartially and for the public good. 
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
From the conclusion: 

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=robert_natelson


----------



## Bearfootfarm

AmericanStand said:


> Wait a second that says "rules and regulations"
> The obvious exclusion of the word ownership would seem to point to the lack of a vision of federal ownership of the territories. The states belong to the United States of Americs but the. USA does not own them.


Keep thinking that if you like to pretend "belong to" doesn't have different meanings based on context:



> [bi&#712;lÃ´NG]
> VERB
> (of a thing) be rightly placed in a specified position:
> "learning to place the blame where it belongs"
> (of a person) fit in a specified place or environment:
> "she is a stranger, and doesn't belong here" Â· [more]
> synonyms: fit in Â· be suited to Â· have a rightful place Â· have a home Â· [more]
> (belong to)
> *be the property of:*
> "the vehicle did not belong to him"
> synonyms: be owned by Â· be the property of Â· be the possession of Â· [more]


----------



## AmericanStand

Bearfootfarm said:


> Keep thinking that if you like to pretend "belong to" doesn't have different meanings based on context:



Totally agree that context can count that's why I don't think the founders envisioned states that were 99% owned by the federal government.


----------



## Shine

....an interesting "left turn" - who's the terrorist?

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zvrrQbjepc[/ame]


----------



## Bearfootfarm

AmericanStand said:


> Totally agree that context can count that's why I don't think the founders envisioned states that were 99% owned by the federal government.


No one besides you ever said that in the first place.
It has nothing to do with *this* context
Let's not play silly word games


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one besides you ever said that in the first place.
> It has nothing to do with *this* context
> Let's not play silly word games


Let's not.
If Articles I and IV are to be cited in this thread as reasons, both for and against the government's actions, then his statement has everything to do with "this context".
The founders' wisdom should be appreciated.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Let's not.
> If Articles I and IV are to be cited in this thread as reasons, both for and against the government's actions, then his statement has everything to do with "this context".
> *The founders' wisdom should be appreciated*.


I agree
They were obviously wise enough to understand what "belongs to" means in that sentence.

If they couldn't "own" property, they surely wouldn't "purchase" any:



> ...and to exercise like Authority over all Places *purchased* by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> *I agree*
> They were obviously wise enough to understand what "belongs to" means in that sentence.
> 
> If they couldn't "own" property, they surely wouldn't "purchase" any:


Further proof of miracles, lol.


----------



## Farmerga

greg273 said:


> So in addition to talking in circles, repeating your false claim ad nasueum, now you are contradicting your whole argument.
> Give it up farmerga, your OPINION of the federal government is just that, an OPINION, unsupported by fact and history.


 Perhaps you need a lesson on reading comprehension. I NEVER claimed that the Federal government can't own land. I stated, several times, that the Federal Government is not allowed to own GREAT SWATHS of land. They are allowed to own land for needed buildings, forts, magazines, etc.. The language, in the Constitution, is very plain. 

I have also said that the SCOTUS can be and has often been wrong. They are in this case. Well, not wrong as in mistaken, but, rather, corrupt. 

How gullible does one have to be to believe that any branch of the Federal government is above corruption and lawlessness?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nevada said:


> How do you intend to enforce your interpretation of the constitution when the entire court system disagrees with your interpretation?


I've often wondered how he would accomplish this as well...


----------



## Farmerga

Nevada said:


> How do you intend to enforce your interpretation of the constitution when the entire court system disagrees with your interpretation?


 Because generally it is not the "entire" court system, but, rather, a majority (could be one person). How many times have culture changing decisions come down to one person in a black robe?


----------



## Forerunner

Just like Bundy Ranch, the Hammondsâ Ranch is Valuable to the BLM â Hereâs just how Valuable

Written by: Tim Brown
Published on: January 5, 2016 

During the Bundy Ranch Siege of 2014, it was discovered the various connections of the Bureau of Land Management to Agenda 21. It was also uncovered that US Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) was also connected in that siege to a Chinese energy deal. In the process, Reid called patriots who stood against federal overreach âdomestic terroristsâ and added that if those people were patriots, âweâre in big trouble.â Indeed, Reid and company are in big trouble because with independent media surpassing even the media outlets that are supposed to be alternative and against the mainstream, they are being exposed for the corrupt, hypocritical lawless thugs they are. This is now the case concerning the Hammondâs ranch in Oregon, which sits on precious metals, minerals, uranium and other deposits that the criminal BLM desperately wants. 

Kurt Nimmo reports the following:
A US Geological Survey Bulletin (1740-B) indicates there is a high potential for silver, gold, copper, mercury, uranium and molybdenum (a refractory metallic element used principally as an alloying agent in steel) and other resources in the area. There is also a moderate estimate for natural gas and oil.

The feds want to drive ranchers and private property owners off the land because on patented land (an exclusive private property land grant), which has passed into private ownership, a mining interest does not need to lease land or file a plan or notice with the federal government.

Subscibe to The Sons of Liberty Media Newsletter to Keep Up to Date on the News You won't get from the State-run Media
In regard to oil, the BLM âdoes not tell you that its share of total oil production has dropped dramatically due to substantial increases in oil production on private and state lands that are not subject to the onerous regulations and permitting delays of the federal government,â notes theInstitute for Energy Research.

The Hammonds and other private property owners stand in the way of total federal monopolization of natural resources and that is why in part we are witnessing an unprecedented land grab in the West.
Intellihub adds the following videos regarding these resources: 

[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rpkm6iSd--c[/ame]


According to the Property Rights Alliance, âMuch of the land targeted for government takeover holds great oil and natural gas resources which could provide jobs in the energy industry and a flow of resources from our own American supply. Once those lands become âmonumentsâ, access to those natural resources is limited and in the hands of the federal government.â 

âThe government offers little explanation for the land-grab frenzy, but there are plenty of reasons to oppose it,â the PRA added. âFirst and foremost, it is unconstitutional for the government to simply take land from states without compensation. Second, government-controlled land takes away opportunities for development, particularly when it comes to accessing much needed resources. The land designated as âmonumentâ space could have created dozens of employment opportunitiesâopportunities which will go wasted under the thumb of the federal government.â 

Just like the value of the land of the Bundy Ranch, the Hammonds, along with other ranchers across several states is valuable to the very people who are attempting to get their hands on that land. 

Ammon Bundy was exactly right when he pointed out the federal overreach and the crooked schemes of federal agencies and judges in their attempt to grab land that is constitutionally not theirs.

http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2016/0...-how-valuable/


----------



## painterswife

Forerunner.

If the land is more valuable to the "people" with commodities than ranching then maybe the government would be doing the right thing for the people by changing directions and making us more money.


----------



## Forerunner

That sentiment, alone, explains everything I might ever have wanted to know about where you stand on the matter of individual rights.

Thank you.


----------



## Forerunner

The ends justify the means, right, Painterswife ?


[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Aeeclad8G3E&feature=youtu.be[/ame]


----------



## painterswife

Forerunner said:


> The ends justify the means, right, Painterswife ?
> 
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Aeeclad8G3E&feature=youtu.be


It is obvious you don't live out west.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Heritage site wouldn't open, and the other link was some drivel about fact-checkers dissing Republicans, which is irrelevant
> One man's drivel is another man's truth. I profess the same regarding PolitiFact, there are a number of PROVEN incidents where PolitiFact has purposefully and deceitfully skewed the facts. So no, I did not waste too much time on that "drivel".
> 
> I also suspect you didn't really read much of the Heritage site, since it not only agrees with what was stated in Nevada's link (which obviously you didn't read either) but was also quoted *there* too:
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...tano-washington-lacks-constitutional-right-o/
> 
> No thanks, more politifact. IF you are not too dense, it is indeed legal for the government to own land, for pursuit of it's legitimate causes. If if it not in pursuit of it's authorized capabilities then it must be disposed of. How can you not see that? - Black and White you know...
> 
> There's the Constitutional reference you asked for which was there all along.
> You just have to read the posts


You see, the constitution sets the limits of operation. If it is not specifically spelled out in that document, then the duties fall to the States or to the people. 10th Amendment.


----------



## Forerunner

painterswife said:


> It is obvious you don't live out west.


I live in America.......and that last video was brought to my attention by an individual who does live, out west.

Idaho, to be specific.


----------



## wiscto

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-that-led-to-the-bundy-clans-oregon-standoff/
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2012/06/eastern_oregon_father-son_ranc.html


----------



## Sourdough

http://www.maxvelocitytactical.com/2016/01/its-a-trap-or-comment-on-the-malheur-protest/


----------



## JoePa

I read all the posts and some of the referenced sites - now I'm dizzy and I think crossed-eyed - meanwhile - back at the head of the bay


----------



## JeffreyD

painterswife said:


> It is obvious you don't live out west.


I do, he's right.


----------



## painterswife

JeffreyD said:


> I do, he's right.


So you agree with him that the ends justify the means.


----------



## AmericanStand

I don't think living out west automatically makes you in favor of theft.


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> So you agree with him that the ends justify the means.


I think that you missed the "?"

Quote: "The ends justify the means, right, Painterswife ?"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> You see, the constitution sets the limits of operation. If it is not specifically spelled out in that document, then the duties fall to the States or to the people. 10th Amendment.


It says they *can* own land, confirmed by *your* own source as well as other's.
All the spin in the world isn't going to change that fact

Here it is again if you missed it before:



> The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other *Property belonging to* the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.


----------



## wiscto

JoePa said:


> I read all the posts and some of the referenced sites - now I'm dizzy and I think crossed-eyed - meanwhile - back at the head of the bay


Yea I don't believe any of them, to be honest. The ranchers and the government have been blowing each others' behavior out of proportion for a long time. But it isn't like the government has never used shady means to push people off their land. And it isn't like they've never done so in cahoots with some rich capital A.


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> I think that you missed the "?"
> 
> Quote: "The ends justify the means, right, Painterswife ?"


I did not miss it. I just think someone who already supports the armed occupation already believes that the ends justifies the means in this situation. Why would he need my support or disagreement?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It says they *can* own land, confirmed by *your* own source as well as other's.
> All the spin in the world isn't going to change that fact
> 
> Here it is again if you missed it before:


No one said, as you seem to imply, that the government cannot "buy" or "own" land, what people have been telling you that if it cannot use that land within it's enumerated activities then it must dispose of it. It is right there in black and white, it is also explained for the layman in the citation that I provided. 

Here's a little test, what kinds of "Properties" does the Constitution say that the Government can own, see what you can find....


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> I did not miss it. I just think someone who already supports the armed occupation already believes that the ends justifies the means in this situation. Why would he need my support or disagreement?


So, you get to decide what he believes without indulging him in a deep conversation? Interesting, he was asking you if you're understanding was that the "ends do justify the means" - it is obvious that you must have misunderstood because you turned it around to imply that he suggested the ends justify the means. Seemed to be as plain as day...

To get a little understanding of why the siege, reread the declaration of independence and see how many similarities that you can highlight.


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> So, you get to decide what he believes without indulging him in a deep conversation? Interesting, he was asking you if you're understanding was that the "ends do justify the means" - it is obvious that you must have misunderstood because you turned it around to imply that he suggested the ends justify the means. Seemed to be as plain as day...
> 
> To get a little understanding of why the siege, reread the declaration of independence and see how many similarities that you can highlight.


I get you think I misunderstood. Not really important to me or factual. I have been reading his thoughts for many years.


----------



## Forerunner

My thought was, according to Painterswife (lest I am mistaken), the _end_ of government controlling the land and resources, absolutely, by the _means_ of violently and destructively forcing established ranchers from their long and lawfully held claims, _and_ _homes_, is justified, under the naive guise that, somehow, the average American will benefit by the subsequent federal harvest of the mineral wealth in question.

I was addressing the long term tendency, not the current occupation of a federal building.


----------



## painterswife

Forerunner said:


> My thought was, according to Painterswife (lest I am mistaken), the _end_ of government controlling the land and resources, absolutely, by the _means_ of violently and destructively forcing established ranchers from their long and lawfully held claims, _and_ _homes_, is justified, under the naive guise that, somehow, the average American will benefit by the subsequent federal harvest of the mineral wealth in question.
> 
> I was addressing the long term tendency, not the current occupation of a federal building.


Where have I ever said or implied that? PS that video is not reality.


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> Where have I ever said or implied that? PS that video is not reality.


Your rebuttal would be interesting to hear...


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> I get you think I misunderstood. Not really important to me or factual. I have been reading his thoughts for many years.


It would appear that you are mistaken in light of his actual thoughts being that which you have apparently had a distasteful reaction to as noted above...


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> It would appear that you are mistaken in light of his actual thoughts being that which you have apparently had a distasteful reaction to as noted above...


Really.


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> Your rebuttal would be interesting to hear...


No need to rebutt anything. I stated my opinion just as he did.


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> Forerunner.
> 
> If the land is more valuable to the "people" with commodities than ranching then maybe the government would be doing the right thing for the people by changing directions and making us more money.





Forerunner said:


> My thought was, according to Painterswife (lest I am mistaken), the _end_ of government controlling the land and resources, absolutely, by the _means_ of violently and destructively forcing established ranchers from their long and lawfully held claims, _and_ _homes_, is justified, under the naive guise that, somehow, the average American will benefit by the subsequent federal harvest of the mineral wealth in question.
> 
> I was addressing the long term tendency, not the current occupation of a federal building.





painterswife said:


> Where have I ever said or implied that? PS that video is not reality.





Seems pretty easy to follow to me.:shrug:

There has been a sentiment taking over this land for a long time that whenever enough of a majority, or even a minority with the right political connections decides it wants to take something away from others, they just go ahead and do it.
They pass their laws, they show you their fancy little court rulings and official documents, and if you aren't intimidated by threats of lawsuits or jail, they always have tear gas and bullets to back them up.
There's gonna come a day in the not too distant future when the high and mighty in this country ---- off the wrong farmer or other men of self sufficient means.
Actually they already have, just not enough yet.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Must be a BLM problem out west....here the national forest service has 331,000 acres two miles from me that I can access...I have drove nf roads for the last 3 days on the way to a jobsite...a low water crossing had 12 foot of water due to 15" of rain recently..graded out perfect as all nf roads are...river is stocked with rainbow trout..plenty of smallmouth there too...complete recreation paradise...hiking..canoeing..hunting..fishing...I lock my hubs and head out all day...rarely see another person much less another vehicle...all for the feds owning property...


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> No need to rebutt anything. I stated my opinion just as he did.


Quote: "PS that video is not reality." Show your supporting citations.

Here, have a little CSpan with additional commentary:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR3qam5UIv4[/ame]

For those with bandwidth restrictions, this is a video where the representative of this area speaks of the laws that were legislated in the late '90s and early '00s regarding the "cooperative" that was established with the Federal Government where the people and the government were in cooperation to maintain the land in question. He cites numerous instances where the agencies decided that they had no need to follow the law, they were as if a law unto themselves. As a simple comparison to the Hammonds egregious crimes, he compared when the "agencies" conducted many "burns" that did, in fact, get out of control and cause thousands and tens of thousands of acres worth of damage and no one was either prosecuted nor sanctioned in any fashion. The Hammonds inadvertent over-burn resulted in less than 200 Acres of loss. He also cited numerous incidents where the BLM burns damaged private property and in turn, no one was held accountable.


----------



## Forerunner

Here is another POV, laid out, largely, in a point by point format.
Ought to be easily debunked by any "living out west", who by that single criteria insinuate that they are intimately and authoritatively familiar with every BLM/rancher relationship, and all relevant history leading up to the same.
The highlights are referenced alphabetically, so please refer to each point by letter as you bring forth any and all disproving evidences.


http://theconservativetreehouse.com...st-to-hammond-family-persecution/#more-110497


----------



## Shine

There is also something else. If we are to hold our government to the agreement that they made with the states then we must be aware of the Equal Footing Doctrine which is found in Section 3 Clause 1

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-4/22-doctrine-of-equality-of-states.html


----------



## Shine

Excellent Link ForeRunner. A much better understanding and it supports much of what I have offered.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Y'all are funny, offering the word of a *Congressman *to prove the Govt lies


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Deleted double post


----------



## Irish Pixie

Are the memes and posts on social media true? Did Ammon Bundy really say, they would occupy the building for "years, absolutely" and then ask for snacks and socks?


----------



## greg273

Irish Pixie said:


> Are the memes and posts on social media true? Did Ammon Bundy really say, they would occupy the building for "years, absolutely" and then ask for snacks and socks?


 So they despise the government, yet want to rely on the United States Postal service to bring them some snacks. What a bunch of morons. Sounds like a bunch of wimpering man-children play acting at revolution.


----------



## Farmerga

greg273 said:


> So they despise the government, yet want to rely on the United States Postal service to bring them some snacks. What a bunch of morons. Sounds like a bunch of wimpering man-children play acting at revolution.


 I don't know these men, but, perhaps it is not the government they despise, but rather, government overreach. As the postal service is one of the few agencies explicitly authorized by the Constitution, it would be logical for them not to have a problem with it.


----------



## Forerunner

greg273 said:


> So they despise the government, yet want to rely on the United States Postal service to bring them some snacks. What a bunch of morons. Sounds like a bunch of wimpering man-children play acting at revolution.


Not that the two groups are on equal footing in their cause, yet (though perhaps closer than many care to admit, over all) but undoubtedly the snot-nosed "elite" of the day had the same opinion of the men of the Boston Tea Party.

So yeah.......whatever.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I don't know these men, but, perhaps it is not the government they despise, but rather, government overreach. As the postal service is one of the few agencies explicitly authorized by the Constitution, it would be logical for them not to have a problem with it.


It seems that objection to government overreach ends when he directly benefits by taking advantage of government subsidized loans. http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/ammon-bundy-530g-federal-loan-article-1.2486508

I pointed out earlier that many of of those grazing leases were severely undervalued if compared to free market rates. No complaints as long as they were getting government subsidized forage for their cattle. Any business based in using another's resources is subject to the whims of the holder of the resources. Many a succesful business has closed because the landlord raised the rent.

Mr Bundy seems to have chosen the wrong battlefield. I'm guessing the locals don't support him because they see the benefit of the wildlife refuge. Who do you think pumps more money into the local economy? The thousands of birders who visit or the rancher? Who provides stable, decent paying jobs with good benefits? The government agency running the refuge or the local rancher. It's hard to get people to rise up and act against their own self interest.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> It seems that objection to government overreach ends when he directly benefits by taking advantage of government subsidized loans. http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/ammon-bundy-530g-federal-loan-article-1.2486508
> 
> I pointed out earlier that many of of those grazing leases were severely undervalued if compared to free market rates. No complaints as long as they were getting government subsidized forage for their cattle. Any business based in using another's resources is subject to the whims of the holder of the resources. Many a succesful business has closed because the landlord raised the rent.
> 
> Mr Bundy seems to have chosen the wrong battlefield. I'm guessing the locals don't support him because they see the benefit of the wildlife refuge. Who do you think pumps more money into the local economy? The thousands of birders who visit or the rancher? Who provides stable, decent paying jobs with good benefits? The government agency running the refuge or the local rancher. *It's hard to get people to rise up and act against their own self interest.*


Like I said, I don't know these men. But food for though: Even slaves who live in the "big house" are still slaves.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Y'all are funny, offering the word of a *Congressman *to prove the Govt lies


...I guess that is all that you have???


----------



## MO_cows

mmoetc said:


> It seems that objection to government overreach ends when he directly benefits by taking advantage of government subsidized loans. http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/ammon-bundy-530g-federal-loan-article-1.2486508
> 
> *I pointed out earlier that many of of those grazing leases were severely undervalued if compared to free market rates. *No complaints as long as they were getting government subsidized forage for their cattle. Any business based in using another's resources is subject to the whims of the holder of the resources. Many a succesful business has closed because the landlord raised the rent.
> 
> Mr Bundy seems to have chosen the wrong battlefield. I'm guessing the locals don't support him because they see the benefit of the wildlife refuge. Who do you think pumps more money into the local economy? The thousands of birders who visit or the rancher? Who provides stable, decent paying jobs with good benefits? The government agency running the refuge or the local rancher. It's hard to get people to rise up and act against their own self interest.


I don't think you are making an apples-to-apples comparison. Rates for privately owned land tends to represent land that is more productive and has a much higher carrying rate than the BLM and forest service leases. And it isn't like you can pick up land and move it! Ranchers need land within a reasonable proximity of their home base. If you live in Nevada, it doesn't do you any good to rent pasture in Kansas now does it. So if the only grazing land within a reasonable proximity is public land, you have to get in bed with the government whether you really want to or not. 

It doesn't have to be an "either-or" choice between bird watchers and ranchers, either. Wildlife tends to benefit from water, salt, minerals and predator control right along with cattle. It's a matter of management and BLM has made plenty of blunders. 

Bundy is a poor example for the rancher's side, don't paint them all with the same broad brush based on his case.


----------



## AmericanStand

Bearfootfarm said:


> It says they *can* own land, confirmed by *your* own source as well as other's.
> All the spin in the world isn't going to change that fact
> 
> Here it is again if you missed it before:



But doesn't it say something about they have to buy it Fromm the states. ?


----------



## mmoetc

MO_cows said:


> I don't think you are making an apples-to-apples comparison. Rates for privately owned land tends to represent land that is more productive and has a much higher carrying rate than the BLM and forest service leases. And it isn't like you can pick up land and move it! Ranchers need land within a reasonable proximity of their home base. If you live in Nevada, it doesn't do you any good to rent pasture in Kansas now does it. So if the only grazing land within a reasonable proximity is public land, you have to get in bed with the government whether you really want to or not.
> 
> It doesn't have to be an "either-or" choice between bird watchers and ranchers, either. Wildlife tends to benefit from water, salt, minerals and predator control right along with cattle. It's a matter of management and BLM has made plenty of blunders.
> 
> Bundy is a poor example for the rancher's side, don't paint them all with the same broad brush based on his case.


Not my comparison. Here's another link to it. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...nd-are-already-getting-a-93-percent-discount/ It was done in the states in question. It compared leases across a broad range. 93% is more than statistical error. The fact that the government only recovers 15% of the cost of maintaining these lands does point to long term mismanagement. As I said, most don't complain as long as they're on the good side of these deals. You're right about not being able to easily move such an operation. But the operation if an endeavor relying on another's resources is always subject to the resource holder changing the terms. That's life.


----------



## MO_cows

mmoetc said:


> Not my comparison. Here's another link to it. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...nd-are-already-getting-a-93-percent-discount/ It was done in the states in question. It compared leases across a broad range. 93% is more than statistical error. The fact that the government only recovers 15% of the cost of maintaining these lands does point to long term mismanagement. As I said, most don't complain as long as they're on the good side of these deals. You're right about not being able to easily move such an operation. But the operation if an endeavor relying on another's resources is always subject to the resource holder changing the terms. That's life.


I guess it depends who you ask. http://rangenet.org/directory/stern/thesis/chapter3.html

_"__It is, however, also generally agreed that the costs to the rancher of running cattle on federal lands are somewhat more than those of private lands because of the extra services provided in those leases, and the extra costs associated with federal allotments. These services vary with different contracts, but often include fence maintenance, salt and watering, and may include transportation and herding. The extra expenses of federal land may include increased animal loss, riding and herding, maintaining improvements, paperwork, and dealing with federal bureaucrats."_

I have always found the theory of "rancher welfare" is highly exaggerated when you talk to people who are actually involved. Environmentalists are better at PR after all.

When a dry cleaner goes out of business, that's life. You have to give more consideration to an enterprise that is feeding people, and also there is cultural value.


----------



## cfuhrer

mmoetc said:


> I pointed out earlier that many of of those grazing leases were severely undervalued if compared to free market rates.


The grazing rights are reduced cost to off set the fire control and other benefits the land receives from being grazed.


----------



## painterswife

cfuhrer said:


> The grazing rights are reduced cost to off set the fire control and other benefits the land receives from being grazed.


Where is that info from? My property borders a grazing lease and they never graze in any consistent pattern if they have the right amount of stock on it. Therefore there is no real fire suppression.


----------



## Lisa in WA

The idea that grazed land is less likely to burn isn't acutally true. Overgrazed land promotes the growth of cheatgrass which cattle won't eat and it burns like a sonofagun. Ranchers don't necessarily like to talk about that.

Cheatgrass is awful stuff.


----------



## painterswife

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html

"Federal Grazing Fee

The Federal grazing fee, which applies to Federal lands in 16 Western states on public lands managed by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, is adjusted annually and is calculated by using a formula originally set by Congress in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. Under this formula, as modified and extended by a presidential Executive Order issued in 1986, the grazing fee cannot fall below $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM); also, any fee increase or decrease cannot exceed 25 percent of the previous yearâs level. (An AUM is the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month.) The grazing fee for 2015 is $1.69 per AUM, as compared to the 2014 fee of $1.35.

The Federal grazing fee is computed by using a 1966 base value of $1.23 per AUM for livestock grazing on public lands in Western states. The figure is then adjusted each year according to three factors â current private grazing land lease rates, beef cattle prices, and the cost of livestock production. In effect, the fee rises, falls, or stays the same based on market conditions, with livestock operators paying more when conditions are better and less when conditions have declined. T*hus, the grazing fee is not a cost-recovery fee, but a market-driven fee."*


----------



## cfuhrer

painterswife said:


> Where is that info from? My property borders a grazing lease and they never graze in any consistent pattern if they have the right amount of stock on it. Therefore there is no real fire suppression.


I study grazing. Just because you don't see the pattern doesn't mean it isn't there. The interweave of graze duration, intensity, re-growth rate, biomass, litter, and water is extremely complex.


----------



## painterswife

cfuhrer said:


> I study grazing. Just because you don't see the pattern doesn't mean it isn't there. The interweave of graze duration, intensity, re-growth rate, biomass, litter, and water is extremely complex.


And yet I know from experience grazing does not prevent wildfire. Cattle don't eat everything.


----------



## cfuhrer

painterswife said:


> http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html
> 
> "Federal Grazing Fee
> 
> The Federal grazing fee, which applies to Federal lands in 16 Western states on public lands managed by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, is adjusted annually and is calculated by using a formula originally set by Congress in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. Under this formula, as modified and extended by a presidential Executive Order issued in 1986, the grazing fee cannot fall below $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM); also, any fee increase or decrease cannot exceed 25 percent of the previous yearâs level. (An AUM is the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month.) The grazing fee for 2015 is $1.69 per AUM, as compared to the 2014 fee of $1.35.
> 
> The Federal grazing fee is computed by using a 1966 base value of $1.23 per AUM for livestock grazing on public lands in Western states. The figure is then adjusted each year according to three factors â current private grazing land lease rates, beef cattle prices, and the cost of livestock production. In effect, the fee rises, falls, or stays the same based on market conditions, with livestock operators paying more when conditions are better and less when conditions have declined. T*hus, the grazing fee is not a cost-recovery fee, but a market-driven fee."*


And what considerations were used in establishing the base fee in 1966?


----------



## painterswife

https://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/nr/2007/fs0721.pdf

Targeted grazing an work but, range on stock is not "targeted"


----------



## painterswife

cfuhrer said:


> And what considerations were used in establishing the base fee in 1966?


Are you suggesting that they now use wildfire suppression in any way to adjust what they charge?


----------



## cfuhrer

painterswife said:


> Are you suggesting that they now use wildfire suppression in any way to adjust what they charge?


I'm not asking about adjusting, I'm asking about the establishment of the fee. What considerations led to the determination of the very first fee.


----------



## painterswife

cfuhrer said:


> I'm not asking about adjusting, I'm asking about the establishment of the fee. What considerations led to the determination of the very first fee.


So you have documentation to that effect?


----------



## painterswife

Wildfire on range land due to stock is exacerbated.



http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...grazing/pdfs/CostsAndConsequences_01-2015.pdf

"Table A2: USFS Budget Items Potentially Containing Indirect Costs of Grazing Program"

"Wildland Fire
Management
Grazing is the principle cause of the growth of highly flammable
thickets in western ponderosa pine forests, and for invasion of
rangelands by pinion, juniper and other woody shrubs. Wildland fire
management includes thinning of thickest and prescribed fires to reduce
fuel loads. (Belsky and Blumenthal 1995)"

"States and Communities States and communities are impacted by increased
grazing-related fire risks. (Belsky and Blumenthal 1995;
Swetnam and Baisan 1994)"

"3. The federal grazing subsidy is even larger when all costs to the taxpayer are accounted
for. Indirect costs for livestock grazing include portions of different federal agencies budgets,
such as the USDA Wildlife Services, which expends money to kill thousands of native carnivores
each year that may threaten livestock; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which expends part of its
budget for listing species as threatened or endangered resulting from harm by livestock grazing;
and other federal land management agencies that expend money on wildfire suppression caused by
invasive cheat grass that is facilitated by livestock grazing. The full cost of the federal grazing program
is long overdue for a complete analysis"


----------



## greg273

Forerunner said:


> Not that the two groups are on equal footing in their cause, yet (though perhaps closer than many care to admit, over all) but undoubtedly the snot-nosed "elite" of the day had the same opinion of the men of the Boston Tea Party.
> 
> So yeah.......whatever.


 Yeah, somehow I figured that would be your position. Eloquent and elitist in your own way. 

We don't live in a monarchy, those in Oregon chose the ammo box over the ballot box, a bit prematurely, I'd say. 
They have the attitude of children... they want what they want, but aren't willing to wait their turn in the legislative arena, a process which has NOT been exhausted. Killing some bureaucrats and LEO's isn't going to help their cause.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> ...I guess that is all that you have???


It's better than the nothing you have :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

AmericanStand said:


> But doesn't it say something about they *have to *buy it Fromm the states. ?


No, it doesn't


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Like I said, I don't know these men. But food for though: Even slaves who live in the "big house" are still slaves.


I *said* you'd eventually work slavery into your arguments 

You're predictable


----------



## Elevenpoint

painterswife said:


> http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html
> 
> "Federal Grazing Fee
> 
> The Federal grazing fee, which applies to Federal lands in 16 Western states on public lands managed by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, is adjusted annually and is calculated by using a formula originally set by Congress in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. Under this formula, as modified and extended by a presidential Executive Order issued in 1986, the grazing fee cannot fall below $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM); also, any fee increase or decrease cannot exceed 25 percent of the previous yearâs level. (An AUM is the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month.) The grazing fee for 2015 is $1.69 per AUM, as compared to the 2014 fee of $1.35.
> 
> The Federal grazing fee is computed by using a 1966 base value of $1.23 per AUM for livestock grazing on public lands in Western states. The figure is then adjusted each year according to three factors â current private grazing land lease rates, beef cattle prices, and the cost of livestock production. In effect, the fee rises, falls, or stays the same based on market conditions, with livestock operators paying more when conditions are better and less when conditions have declined. T*hus, the grazing fee is not a cost-recovery fee, but a market-driven fee."*


Here in Missouri...it is driven by timber sales...nf has 1.5 million and mo dept of conservation has about a million million acres...they offer timber sales based upon board feet per sale...you either bid and like it or you don't...nobody forcing you to bid...you don't like grazing fees..don't go there.


----------



## Forerunner

greg273 said:


> Yeah, somehow I figured that would be your position.


A prophet, you are.

:grin:


----------



## Shine

AmericanStand said:


> But doesn't it say something about they have to buy it Fromm the states. ?


_âSection__ 8. The Congress shall have Power . . . 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;â

_
The full extent of the _âTerritory or other Property belonging to the United Statesâ_ (_id_. at 4 Â§ 3(2)) today is the collective of: 

the District of Columbia;
 

Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Midway Atoll, North Island â JACADS, Sand Island, Kingman Reef, and Navassa Island[2]; and
 any other _âPlaces purchased . . . for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildingsâ

https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/
_


----------



## mmoetc

MO_cows said:


> I guess it depends who you ask. http://rangenet.org/directory/stern/thesis/chapter3.html
> 
> _"__It is, however, also generally agreed that the costs to the rancher of running cattle on federal lands are somewhat more than those of private lands because of the extra services provided in those leases, and the extra costs associated with federal allotments. These services vary with different contracts, but often include fence maintenance, salt and watering, and may include transportation and herding. The extra expenses of federal land may include increased animal loss, riding and herding, maintaining improvements, paperwork, and dealing with federal bureaucrats."_
> 
> I have always found the theory of "rancher welfare" is highly exaggerated when you talk to people who are actually involved. Environmentalists are better at PR after all.
> 
> When a dry cleaner goes out of business, that's life. You have to give more consideration to an enterprise that is feeding people, and also there is cultural value.


Maybe you should have kept reading. The next two paragraphs dispute that conclusion and go as far as to point to other studies that show government leases are less expensive than private ones.

Why is the rancher more important than the dry cleaner? Why is he worthy of government subsidy and the dry cleaner not? They both operate businesses. They should both be able to compete on their own merits? Isn't that whAt free markets are all about? I live in the middle of dairy land. I'm well aware of the impacts, both good and bad, of subsidized farming.


----------



## greg273

Forerunner said:


> A prophet, you are.
> 
> :grin:


 Just noticed you generally have an 'us vs. them' mentality when it comes to 'the government', not acknowledging that YOU are just as much a part of the government, and the government process, as anyone else. 
Resorting to the ammo box to get your way, when the ballot box option has NOT been exhausted, strikes me as ignorant, and at the very least, criminal at this point.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> _&#8220;Section__ 8. The Congress shall have Power . . . 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;&#8221;
> 
> _
> The full extent of the _&#8220;Territory or other Property belonging to the United States&#8221;_ (_id_. at 4 Â§ 3(2)) today is the collective of:
> 
> the District of Columbia;
> 
> 
> Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Midway Atoll, North Island &#8211; JACADS, Sand Island, Kingman Reef, and Navassa Island[2]; and
> any other _&#8220;Places purchased . . . for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings&#8221;
> 
> https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/
> _


Your link is to a lawsuit, not any real court decision
It amounts to a lot of disjointed anti govt rambling


----------



## Forerunner

greg273 said:


> Just noticed you generally have an 'us vs. them' mentality when it comes to 'the government', not acknowledging that YOU are just as much a part of the government, and the government process, as anyone else.
> Resorting to the ammo box to get your way, when the ballot box option has NOT been exhausted, strikes me as ignorant, and at the very least, criminal at this point.


The ballot box _has_ been exhausted.

That said, there are other means......nonviolent and within the confines of established American law, by which "man vs government" disputes, especially pertaining to land and property rights, should certainly be addressed......before considering ultimatums.

As an aside, if _you_ were being forced from your own land and livelihood, by "government", to the end that your resources were destroyed and portions of your family imprisoned, would the ballot box be your immediate and highest priority ?


----------



## MO_cows

mmoetc said:


> Maybe you should have kept reading. The next two paragraphs dispute that conclusion and go as far as to point to other studies that show government leases are less expensive than private ones.
> 
> Why is the rancher more important than the dry cleaner? Why is he worthy of government subsidy and the dry cleaner not? They both operate businesses. They should both be able to compete on their own merits? Isn't that whAt free markets are all about? I live in the middle of dairy land. I'm well aware of the impacts, both good and bad, of subsidized farming.


That's why I said, depends who you ask. Some ranchers end up with higher cost for their lease from Uncle Sam than private sector, some don't. 

Yes the rancher is more important overall than the dry cleaner. But he/she isn't worthy of subsidies. And doesn't ask for them, the feds set the rates after all. Just consideration of what is often a multi-generational enterprise, a "heritage" occupation that feeds us by turning otherwise unproductive land into protein. Again, Bundy is a poor poster boy, but do you really think a study that IIRC was mostly conducted by volunteers from an environmental activist type organization, was compelling evidence for kicking him off the grazing lease in favor of a tortoise?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your link is to a lawsuit, not any real court decision
> It amounts to a lot of disjointed anti govt rambling



Only because that is where I found that citation of the Constitution. Are you saying that this is not a credible reproduction of this Section/Clause or are you attacking only that which is attackable?

And, just curious, what if this person is not rambling but actually forcing the government to follow down the path that is should be following, would not that be interesting to you?


----------



## greg273

Forerunner said:


> The ballot box _has_ been exhausted.


 I disagree 100% with that. Like the Stones said, 'you can't always get what you want'.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Only because that is where I found that citation of the Constitution. Are you saying that this is not a credible reproduction of this Section/Clause or are you attacking only that which is attackable?
> 
> And, just curious, *what if this person is not rambling* but actually forcing the government to follow down the path that is should be following, would not that be interesting to you?


You could have just searched for the Constitution if that's what you wanted to show.

It's your *interpretation* of the clause that's incorrect, since the Govt does in fact own property and the courts have upheld it as Constitutional

They were rambling, much the same as you.


----------



## mmoetc

MO_cows said:


> That's why I said, depends who you ask. Some ranchers end up with higher cost for their lease from Uncle Sam than private sector, some don't.
> 
> Yes the rancher is more important overall than the dry cleaner. But he/she isn't worthy of subsidies. And doesn't ask for them, the feds set the rates after all. Just consideration of what is often a multi-generational enterprise, a "heritage" occupation that feeds us by turning otherwise unproductive land into protein. Again, Bundy is a poor poster boy, but do you really think a study that IIRC was mostly conducted by volunteers from an environmental activist type organization, was compelling evidence for kicking him off the grazing lease in favor of a tortoise?


And the study I linked to showed an average 93% discrepancy. A finding like that takes into account the occasional government lease which costs more than market rate. If they were common the numbers would more closely align. The logical conclusion is that most leases are below market value and thus subsidized by the government. And they do ask for those rates. Western cattlemen exert their rightful voice through lobbying and political support of favored candidates just like any other industry. As I said before, I live among dairy farmers and I'm well aware of who they vote for and why and the effects those votes have on government farm policy.

As for unproductive land feeding us all. We pay some farmers not to grow things and subsidize others to grow things we don't use. I postulated earlier that the reason the locals aren't supporting the Bundy revolution is that they profit more from the wildlife refuge than from ranchers. Birders and outdoor enthusiasts often have deep pockets and spread that wealth around. Many of the businesses around our nearby wildlife refuge or in and around the national forest land to the north and the national seashore wouldn't exist if they had to rely on farmers and fisherman. Best use is an ambiguous thing.

The bundy's initial problems were about more than desert tortoises. He also failed to pay the fees for 10 years or so on those leases he could legally run cattle on.


----------



## Forerunner

greg273 said:


> I disagree 100% with that.


You never fail to disappoint.

Yes, the ballot box has been 100% exhausted......to the conscientious, landed, working American.
That "unfortunate" reality was set in motion the day that "they" allowed the unconsciounable, the habitually non-productive, and the unlanded rabble, a "vote" into the resources and livelihoods of the former.

No principled individual, sentient and still drawing breath, of the former group could claim, with straight face, that the ballot box is alive and well.

Nice sidestep on my concluding inquiry, btw.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> No principled individual, sentient and still drawing breath, of the former group could claim, with straight face, that the ballot box is alive and well.


I was thinking you once said you didn't have any sort of Govt connections like SS cards or driver's license. 

Doesn't that also mean you don't vote, or do I have you confused with someone else?


----------



## AmericanStand

Shine said:


> _âSection__ 8. The Congress shall have Power . . . 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;â
> 
> _
> The full extent of the _âTerritory or other Property belonging to the United Statesâ_ (_id_. at 4 Â§ 3(2)) today is the collective of:
> 
> the District of Columbia;
> 
> 
> Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Midway Atoll, North Island â JACADS, Sand Island, Kingman Reef, and Navassa Island[2]; and
> any other _âPlaces purchased . . . for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildingsâ
> 
> https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/
> _



Ahh I see. 
Seems quite clear that the federal government needs the concent of the legislature of the state the lands are located in. 

Why the quote about the territory ?


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> I *said* you'd eventually work slavery into your arguments
> 
> You're predictable


When speaking of government tyranny, the slavery analogy works. I can't help that.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bunch of idiots get together. Decide to hold government building, the name of producing change and bringing justice to the Hammonds, who are also idiots, and getting the government out of things - still a bunch of idiots.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> It seems that objection to government overreach ends when he directly benefits by taking advantage of government subsidized loans. http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/ammon-bundy-530g-federal-loan-article-1.2486508
> 
> I pointed out earlier that many of of those grazing leases were severely undervalued if compared to free market rates. No complaints as long as they were getting government subsidized forage for their cattle. Any business based in using another's resources is subject to the whims of the holder of the resources. Many a succesful business has closed because the landlord raised the rent.
> 
> Mr Bundy seems to have chosen the wrong battlefield. I'm guessing the locals don't support him because they see the benefit of the wildlife refuge. Who do you think pumps more money into the local economy? The thousands of birders who visit or the rancher? Who provides stable, decent paying jobs with good benefits? The government agency running the refuge or the local rancher. It's hard to get people to rise up and act against their own self interest.


I've been acting against my own self interest for years. I want the government to increase regulations on business for environmental reasons; this means I'll have a harder time of it. I want the EPA to have more authority; this may mean I come under undue scrutiny at some point.


----------



## mmoetc

Heritagefarm said:


> I've been acting against my own self interest for years. I want the government to increase regulations on business for environmental reasons; this means I'll have a harder time of it. I want the EPA to have more authority; this may mean I come under undue scrutiny at some point.


Actually, you see those actions as being in your own, and your decendants, best interest. You seem willing to understand that sometimes personal sacrifice is the price we pay for what we believe in. Mr Bundy may be similar. I think his reasons wrong and his method flawed but at least he, unlike others who stand on the sideline cheering him but won't join him, is willing to endure some sacrifice. He's more than a keyboard warrior spouting catch phrases.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You could have just searched for the Constitution if that's what you wanted to show.
> 
> It's your *interpretation* of the clause that's incorrect, since the Govt does in fact own property and the courts have upheld it as Constitutional
> 
> They were rambling, much the same as you.


Nope, not rambling, seeking a way to shine the light on the truth. I have already asked What property is the government CONSTITUTIONALLY authorized to own. You nor anyone else had had the stones to answer.


----------



## Shine

AmericanStand said:


> Ahh I see.
> Seems quite clear that the federal government needs the concent of the legislature of the state the lands are located in.
> 
> Why the quote about the territory ?


To substantiate the fact that the government does indeed own land. That is the crux of the argument. The Constitution allows for the government to own land, it says so and then it delineates what land it is, Territories, District of Columbia, land purchased for military and commerce related activities. That is pretty much the extent of what the government has the authority to own, it will come to a head soon, I believe, the government has overstepped its boundaries.

The apathy and ignorance of the people [collectively] has allowed this and many other usurpations to happen.


----------



## Farmerga

Shine said:


> Nope, not rambling, seeking a way to shine the light on the truth. I have already asked What property is the government CONSTITUTIONALLY authorized to own. You nor anyone else had had the stones to answer.


 The Feds are given governing control over D.C. and are allowed to own property on which to erect forts, magazines, and other needful buildings. I simply don't see where they are authorized to own the majority of the land area in a state.


----------



## Shine

Farmerga said:


> The Feds are given governing control over D.C. and are allowed to own property on which to erect forts, magazines, and other needful buildings. I simply don't see where they are authorized to own the majority of the land area in a state.



...because it is not there. I am not certain where this train left the tracks but there is no constitutional wording that allows for it...

And I am somewhat shocked that people not only allow it but actually stand behind the government doing what they do as if it is just.


----------



## Farmerga

Shine said:


> ...because it is not there. I am not certain where this train left the tracks but there is no constitutional wording that allows for it...
> 
> And I am somewhat shocked that people not only allow it but actually stand behind the government doing what they do as if it is just.


 Much of the same crowd would allow the Federal government to restrict the 2nd or 10th amendment, but, would recoil with horror when they try to limit the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc.. 

The Government is like a child, in order for it to behave as it should, it must be forced to honor the bounds placed on it by the Constitution, in ALL areas.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Nope, not rambling, seeking a way to shine the light on the truth. I have already asked What property is the government CONSTITUTIONALLY authorized to own. *You nor anyone else had had the stones to answer*.


You're playing your tired old "you won't answer" game when the question was answered long ago 

Post the *DC* clause again and see if it changes anything this time


----------



## greg273

Forerunner said:


> You never fail to disappoint.
> 
> Yes, the ballot box has been 100% exhausted......to the conscientious, landed, working American.
> .


 Last I checked, conscientious, landed Americans were still free to vote, to hold office, to make laws, to enforce laws. If you feel disenfranchised and shut out of the system, perhaps your approach is wrong. 
If you want your own little republic, good luck.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're playing your tired old "you won't answer" game when the question was answered long ago
> 
> Post the *DC* clause again and see if it changes anything this time



...and you're up to speed with your patented "it's already been answered" diatribe.

Last time I checked, the Constitution still has the same restrictions. 

Just because some crooks figured out a way to hoodwink the American public, or, well - some of the American public, does not necessarily mean that it is legal, just that they are getting away with it and getting stupid rich. Must be a conspiracy...


----------



## Shine

greg273 said:


> Last I checked, conscientious, landed Americans were still free to vote, to hold office, to make laws, to enforce laws. If you feel disenfranchised and shut out of the system, perhaps your approach is wrong.
> If you want your own little republic, good luck.


This video was from quite some time ago, even back then the Electronic Voting Machine was an easy target. I am surprised that you trust those that operate them with regards to the way people are. Some will do anything to see their man in the big house. Now the Voting machines are networked, those that tamper with their coding don't even have to leave home.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVmsaDS_FwY[/ame]

I doubt seriously that the voting process is as pristine as you seem to think it is. Must be some kind of conspiracy...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> ...and you're up to speed with your patented "it's already been answered" diatribe.
> 
> *Last time I checked, the Constitution still has the same restrictions. *
> 
> Just because some crooks figured out a way to hoodwink the American public, or, well - some of the American public, does not necessarily mean that it is legal, just that they are getting away with it and getting stupid rich. Must be a conspiracy...


Those restrictions don't keep them from owning land.



> The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property *belonging to* the United States; and *nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States*, or of any particular State.[8]


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Those restrictions don't keep them from owning land.


I agree, just the land for which they are authorized, by that document, to own.

Read it again:
"...the Territory or other Property *belonging to* the United States" now again, what property, as stated in the Constitution, is the government allowed to own?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I agree, just the land for which they are authorized, by that document, to own.
> 
> Read it again:
> "...the Territory or other Property *belonging to* the United States" now again, what property, as stated in the Constitution, is the government allowed to own?


It's been answered countless times.
No more circles



> nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States,


----------



## RichNC

I just have to tell ya, this whole thing with the "stand off" has me laughing my pants off on a daily if not hourly basis, it is so just silly/fruitless/funny and while I want it to end and the bird sanctuary to get back to normal I don't want it to end because it is just to darn funny!!


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's been answered countless times.
> No more circles


OK... if you insist, but the Constitution still stands...


http://constitution.findlaw.com/article4/annotation17.html#4


----------



## Shine

RichNC said:


> I just have to tell ya, this whole thing with the "stand off" has me laughing my pants off on a daily if not hourly basis, it is so just silly/fruitless/funny and while I want it to end and the bird sanctuary to get back to normal I don't want it to end because it is just to darn funny!!



^^^ And we wonder why we are in the mess that we are in????


----------



## RichNC

Shine said:


> ^^^ And we wonder why we are in the mess that we are in????


Hey darlin' I been spinning around on this planet for 73 years, and to date this is one of the most comical things I have ever seen. Really, comedians, famous ones couldn't image to write this kind of material, it is just silly and has been since day one...also please send snacks and socks or money that I can steal and go spend on booze, or money to pay the ER bill when one of the other "militia" men beats me up, or send a press release explaining why I said I was in the Marines but never have been, I am telling you this whole thing is comedy gold!!


----------



## Shine

RichNC said:


> Hey darlin' I been spinning around on this planet for 73 years, and to date this is one of the most comical things I have ever seen. Really, comedians, famous ones couldn't image to write this kind of material, it is just silly and has been since day one...also please send snacks and socks or money that I can steal and go spend on booze, or money to pay the ER bill when one of the other "militia" men beats me up, or send a press release explaining why I said I was in the Marines but never have been, I am telling you this whole thing is comedy gold!!


Too bad you don't feel that you have some skin in the game... sigh.


----------



## RichNC

Shine said:


> Too bad you don't feel that you have some skin in the game... sigh.


Oh please, like you have skin in this game, it is all just a fart in the wind, but funnier and with better, what do the youngsters call them, Meems??


----------



## arabian knight

RichNC said:


> Hey darlin' I been spinning around on this planet for 73 years, and to date this is one of the most comical things I have ever seen. Really, comedians, famous ones couldn't image to write this kind of material, it is just silly and has been since day one...also please send snacks and socks or money that I can steal and go spend on booze, or money to pay the ER bill when one of the other "militia" men beats me up, or send a press release explaining why I said I was in the Marines but never have been, I am telling you this whole thing is comedy gold!!


Ya and I have big bowl of popcorn munching away at this now soap opera that some seem to think is so serious. But it is funny as heck and I munch away to my hearts delight. And these squatters that are at some time going to find themselves behind bars and the ket thrown away for good, at what they are trying to pull off.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> Actually, you see those actions as being in your own, and your decendants, best interest. You seem willing to understand that sometimes personal sacrifice is the price we pay for what we believe in. Mr Bundy may be similar. I think his reasons wrong and his method flawed but at least he, unlike others who stand on the sideline cheering him but won't join him, is willing to endure some sacrifice. He's more than a keyboard warrior spouting catch phrases.


Well, in the respect that he's trying to do something about a conceived problem that most of us don't think exists in the first place, then yes, that's correct. Oh, and keyboard warriors can be very annoying, dontcha know.


----------



## mmoetc

Heritagefarm said:


> Well, in the respect that he's trying to do something about a conceived problem that most of us don't think exists in the first place, then yes, that's correct. Oh, and keyboard warriors can be very annoying, dontcha know.


I know exactly how annoying they can be. They prove it every day. Combined with even a bit of real action they can even affect real change. But for most its easier to sit on the sidelines repeating the same tired tropes and cheering the actions of others. Want those ceded federal lands returned? There are ways to get it done using processes in place. Whining about its illegality on the internet or occupying useful federal enclaves wouldn't be those processes.


----------



## JJ Grandits

It is very important to be involved. If more people simply wrote letters, made phone calls and voted regularly the Country would look different than it does today. A great number of people doing just a little accomplishes a lot.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> I know exactly how annoying they can be. They prove it every day. Combined with even a bit of real action they can even affect real change. But for most its easier to sit on the sidelines repeating the same tired tropes and cheering the actions of others. Want those ceded federal lands returned? There are ways to get it done using processes in place. Whining about its illegality on the internet or occupying useful federal enclaves wouldn't be those processes.


True, but awareness has to be raised. One potential benefit of keyboard warriors is that they may be able to spread awareness about issues, particularly issues too obscure or dull for the media to cover. Of course, many of the same things that attract "slacktivists" also attract the media.
For my part, I use slacktivism, purchase products known to be from reputable, environmentally, and economically sound sources, amongst other things, such as occasionally donating to activist groups.


----------



## arabian knight

mmoetc said:


> I know exactly how annoying they can be. They prove it every day. Combined with even a bit of real action they can even affect real change. But for most its easier to sit on the sidelines repeating the same tired tropes and cheering the actions of others. Want those ceded federal lands returned? There are ways to get it done using processes in place. Whining about its illegality on the internet or occupying useful federal enclaves wouldn't be those processes.


 And this Cowboy Diplomacy just is not 21st century way of doing things. Vote at the ballot box, getting what you BELIEVE is the correct person in office to do what You Believe is true. But that may also be not the way the majority of Americans beeves OR want to go down that road. Limit the cops powers, limit the blm powers limit ALL the 3 figured agencies is the best of all and America, and Americans.


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> And this Cowboy Diplomacy just is not 21st century way of doing things.


Nonsense. You must not have been paying attention during the Bush administration. You don't remember his "bring 'em on" answer? It was cowboy politics that got us into Iraq. Conservatives don't care if their president makes the right or wrong decision, as long as it's a quick decision delivered along with tough talk.

And it's still alive and well today. That was a lot of Rick Perry's appeal. It was also what sank Ben Carson. Carson did fine until the attacks in Paris & San Bernardino, but when it came to terrorism his is soft-spoken, thoughtful manner just didn't cut it for conservatives.


----------



## farmrbrown

You're dang right.
It doesn't matter WHAT century this is.
Right is right and wrong is wrong.
You guys just haven't faced people unwilling to back down on that principle.


----------



## Forerunner

We're a dying breed, Farmr-B.

Someday, they may miss us.......


----------



## farmrbrown

Forerunner said:


> We're a dying breed, Farmr-B.
> 
> Someday, they may miss us.......


I don't know............to most people we're just a pain in the butt, lol.
There IS something to be said for getting all your legal ducks in a row when you start to make your stand. I'm glad I found out about land patents and some of the other legal entanglements have been laid out before our paths.

But I don't think the necessity to be able to stand and face the fire should be overlooked either.:goodjob:


----------



## Forerunner

farmrbrown said:


> I don't know............to most people we're just a pain in the butt, lol.
> There IS something to be said for getting all your legal ducks in a row when you start to make your stand. I'm glad I found out about land patents and some of the other legal entanglements have been laid out before our paths.
> 
> But I don't think the necessity to be able to stand and face the fire should be overlooked either.:goodjob:


Tell that to the MSN-intoxicated.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Shots fired...one dead...


----------



## arabian knight

And Bundy goes to jail. Good Now maybe this carp can get over with. Leader locked up the rest will get cold feet or be arrested also.


----------



## Nevada

I wasn't behind their cause, but I'm still sorry for the loss of life.


----------



## JJ Grandits

I'd like to know how this killing came about. If it was a shoot first and ask questions later this could turn into another Waco or Ruby Ridge. Seems our law abiding government has been killing a lot of civilians recently.


----------



## susanneb

I am very sorry that this situation has become violent and that Lavoy Finicum has died. The loss of life makes everything else pale in significance. I, too, want to know what really went down.

I am, however, very glad that the Bundys and other top YeeHawdists were arrested. Their occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge has nothing to do with the Hammonds. On top of this, none of them are even from Oregon. They said they would leave if residents of Harney County asked them to, and yet when the majority of citizens said they were not welcome and should leave, they said they were staying anyway. They claim to be there to support the citizens, yet refuge employees and numerous citizens have been stalked and threatened. 

As for giving the land back to the original owners, I believe that would be the Native American Paiute tribe -- who, by the way, absolutely do not support this occupation and give credit to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge for being good stewards of the land. Instead of respecting the true original owners, the militants have plundered Paiute artifacts on the preserve

I support peaceful protest and civil disobedience. If these were Oregonians, I might give them more credence, but these guys have come from out of state to slap their cause on an unrelated situation (the Hammonds). It is high time these boys put away their toys and get out of our state.


----------



## farmrbrown

I can agree with that, locals should handle local issues, but the simple fact is y'all DIDN'T.
The gov't will likely succeed in stealing the Hammond's land after trying for over 40 years.
They are serving time, twice now, for a "crime" they didn't commit.
And the majority of people nowadays will watch their neighbors be hauled off or killed and the only finger they will lift is to post the video on facebook..........probably with a smart aleck caption.
The only good thing about this ending is further proof of what our Founders told us.
You get the government you deserve.

It's your country, you do what you want, but........

[ame]https://vimeo.com/60327945[/ame]


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I can agree with that, locals should handle local issues, but the simple fact is y'all DIDN'T.
> The gov't will likely succeed in stealing the Hammond's land after trying for over 40 years.
> They are serving time, twice now, *for a "crime" they didn't commit.*
> And the majority of people nowadays will watch their neighbors be hauled off or killed and the only finger they will lift is to post the video on facebook..........probably with a smart aleck caption.
> The only good thing about this ending is further proof of what our Founders told us.
> You get the government you deserve.
> 
> It's your country, you do what you want, but........


They committed the crimes, they were convicted, and they are now serving the minimum legal sentence. 

There's no point in pretending otherwise


----------



## MDKatie

How is the gov't "stealing" the land? Hasn't it BEEN federal land?


----------



## Forerunner

[YOUTUBE][ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UgCeqKbWWpQ[/ame][/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Forerunner

......and another......

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=e9qZI4W70W8


----------



## Amadioranch

This good man was killed in cold blood, unarmed and with his hands up last night by the federal government. He stood for limited government and the constitution. While you keyboard warriors complain and gnash your teeth this good righteous man STOOD for what he believed in and paid for it with his blood. God bless you Lavoy. God speed. 


[YOUTUBE][ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWfGtQvyb4[/ame][/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Cornhusker

JJ Grandits said:


> I'd like to know how this killing came about. If it was a shoot first and ask questions later this could turn into another Waco or Ruby Ridge. Seems our law abiding government has been killing a lot of civilians recently.


As long as Obama is in charge, (or God help us, Clinton) this will be swept under the rug.
Nothing to see here folks, just the corrupt murderous Obama mob taking care of another little problem. 
Ever notice when democrats are in charge, the government starts killing Americans that are against the government?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Amadioranch said:


> This good man was killed in cold blood, unarmed and with his hands up last night by the federal government. He stood for limited government and the constitution. While you keyboard warriors complain and gnash your teeth this good righteous man STOOD for what he believed in and paid for it with his blood. God bless you Lavoy. God speed.
> 
> 
> [YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWfGtQvyb4[/YOUTUBE]


How do you know all this?


----------



## MO_cows

Never mind, it's been edited out now.


----------



## Irish Pixie

My opinion is Finnicum committed suicide via cop, if the first hand account by one of the protesters is correct. Not honorable, the cop that shot him has to live with what he did, Finnicum doesn't.


----------



## wr

Keep it civil if you'd like to keep the thread open.


----------



## Shine

Well, it seems that those in government have decided that because they are put in place to make decisions "for" the people that the people are agreeable to sell off our properties and therein compensate the sales persons. I hope that the allegations are quickly addressed. The man that was killed seems to be a level headed sort that loved his property and wanted to be left alone. Those in the government are doing things here that do not seem to pass the sniff test. 

It also appears that the Bundys decided enough was enough. Others have decided that too. One could say that there are few on this site that know what is really happening and are willing to extrapolate something that calms their breast from the little bit that they have in hand. Some callous things have been said by many.

Once again, I would have it that a reliable body take this issue and get to the bottom of the claims, one of the most detestable is the charging of the Hammons with a charge of Terrorism.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Shine said:


> Well, it seems that those in government have decided that because they are put in place to make decisions "for" the people that the people are agreeable to sell off our properties and therein compensate the sales persons. I hope that the allegations are quickly addressed. The man that was killed seems to be a level headed sort that loved his property and wanted to be left alone. Those in the government are doing things here that do not seem to pass the sniff test.
> 
> It also appears that the Bundys decided enough was enough. Others have decided that too. One could say that there are few on this site that know what is really happening and are willing to extrapolate something that calms their breast from the little bit that they have in hand. Some callous things have been said by many.
> 
> Once again, I would have it that a reliable body take this issue and get to the bottom of the claims, one of the most detestable is the charging of the Hammons with a charge of Terrorism.


If he loved his property (in Arizona) and just wanted to be left alone, what was he doing in Oregon, illegally occupying a bird refuge? The Bundys place is in Nevada. Seems like they were minding other people's business rather than their own.


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> Well, it seems that those in government have decided that because they are put in place to make decisions "for" the people that the people are agreeable to sell off our properties and therein compensate the sales persons. I hope that the allegations are quickly addressed. The man that was killed seems to be a level headed sort that loved his property and wanted to be left alone. Those in the government are doing things here that do not seem to pass the sniff test.
> 
> It also appears that the Bundys decided enough was enough. Others have decided that too. One could say that there are few on this site that know what is really happening and are willing to extrapolate something that calms their breast from the little bit that they have in hand. Some callous things have been said by many.
> 
> Once again, I would have it that a reliable body take this issue and get to the bottom of the claims, one of the most detestable is the charging of the Hammons with a charge of Terrorism.


I'd rather not dig through dozens of posts so perhaps you could tell me who's property was sold off?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Shine said:


> Well, it seems that those in government have decided that because they are put in place to make decisions "for" the people that the people are agreeable to sell off our properties and therein compensate the sales persons. I hope that the allegations are quickly addressed. The man that was killed seems to be a level headed sort that loved his property and wanted to be left alone. Those in the government are doing things here that do not seem to pass the sniff test.
> 
> It also appears that the Bundys decided enough was enough. Others have decided that too. One could say that there are few on this site that know what is really happening and are willing to extrapolate something that calms their breast from the little bit that they have in hand. Some callous things have been said by many.
> 
> Once again, I would have it that a reliable body take this issue and get to the bottom of the claims, one of the most detestable is the charging of the Hammons with a charge of Terrorism.



Do you have a source showing that the Hammonds were actually charged with terrorism? I can't find anything.


----------



## DryHeat

Btw, what I know I've seen is that the bird refuge land was purchased by the feds in the 1930s, during a time when the Dust Bowl and Depression combination had made the previously operating farm or ranch properties unprofitable and after the owners had *asked* to be bought out so they could leave. Perhaps if you go back to Native American residency in the area before homesteading and land grants and titles being written up, there'd be injustice, but for the tribal ownership idea. As far as rancher/ farmer titles are concerned, the protests and occupation sound like paranoid lunacy to me. I wish somebody had crowd sourced sending them that bag of chocolate private parts, I'd've kicked in on the idea, but maybe suggested making them out of wax so they'd be of no nutritional value at all.


----------



## MO_cows

DryHeat said:


> Btw, what I know I've seen is that the bird refuge land was purchased by the feds in the 1930s, during a time when the Dust Bowl and Depression combination had made the previously operating farm or ranch properties unprofitable and after the owners had *asked* to be bought out so they could leave. Perhaps if you go back to Native American residency in the area before homesteading and land grants and titles being written up, there'd be injustice, but for the tribal ownership idea. As far as rancher/ farmer titles are concerned, the protests and occupation sound like paranoid lunacy to me. I wish somebody had crowd sourced sending them that bag of chocolate private parts, I'd've kicked in on the idea, but maybe suggested making them out of wax so they'd be of no nutritional value at all.


Oregon wasn't in the Dust Bowl. Roosevelt made the original preserve and more was added to it in the 30's. 

I wonder if some of these ranchers aren't suffering from their own kind of PTSD? Their occupation/lifestyle has come under attack from a lot of different directions for many years now. Some of them seem to be cracking under the pressure.


----------



## TripleD

What ever side you are on I don't care. The man made a 30 minute video with no notes. He clearly stated his beliefs and convictions and was willing to stand up for them till the end. How many on here would just bow down ???


----------



## Shine

wr said:


> I'd rather not dig through dozens of posts so perhaps you could tell me who's property was sold off?


In 2012 Reid made JWâs corrupt politician list because he was embroiled in an influence-peddling scandal involving a Chinese âgreen energyâ client of a Nevada law firm run by his son Rory. The senator was one of the Nevada projects most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on its behalf, according to a mainstream news report. Reidâs son was an attorney at the prominent Las Vegas firm that represented the Chinese Company, ENN Energy Group, and helped it locate a 9,000-acre desert site for well below its appraised value from Clark County.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/03/corruption-scandals-led-to-harry-reids-abrupt-retirement/


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The man that was killed seems to be a level headed sort that loved his property and wanted to be left alone.


Do you call occupying Federal property illegally, not in the state where one resides, "wanting to be left alone"?


----------



## Lisa in WA

TripleD said:


> What ever side you are on I don't care. The man made a 30 minute video with no notes. He clearly stated his beliefs and convictions and was willing to stand up for them till the end. How many on here would just bow down ???





Hey...didnt you post this earlier and it was deleted by mods? Isn't that against the rules?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> In 2012 Reid made JWâs corrupt politician list because he was embroiled in an influence-peddling scandal involving a Chinese âgreen energyâ client of a Nevada law firm run by his son Rory. The senator was one of the Nevada projects most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on its behalf, according to a mainstream news report. Reidâs son was an attorney at the prominent Las Vegas firm that represented the Chinese Company, ENN Energy Group, and helped it locate a 9,000-acre desert site for well below its appraised value from Clark County.
> 
> http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/03/corruption-scandals-led-to-harry-reids-abrupt-retirement/


That sale never took place, and has little to do with a man who lived in AZ and was shot in OR

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2013/jun/14/company-dumps-big-laughlin-solar-project-says-mark/


----------



## Lisa in WA

MO_cows said:


> Oregon wasn't in the Dust Bowl. Roosevelt made the original preserve and more was added to it in the 30's.
> 
> I wonder if some of these ranchers aren't suffering from their own kind of PTSD? Their occupation/lifestyle has come under attack from a lot of different directions for many years now. Some of them seem to be cracking under the pressure.


Maybe you aren't aware that a lot of Oregon and Washington are high desert and that Oregon has had Dust Bowls of it's own:

"By the 1930s, after four decades of overgrazing, irrigation withdrawals, grain agriculture, dredging and channelization, followed by several years of drought, Malheur had become a dust bowl...."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/in-oregon-myth-mixes-with-anger.html?_r=0


----------



## Shine

basketti said:


> Do you have a source showing that the Hammonds were actually charged with terrorism? I can't find anything.


I found this:
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 âTerroristsâ under the 1996 Anti terrorism Act. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. Both were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Judge Hogan overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commented 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.

From:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com...uge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/



Then I found this:

Federal prosecutors challenged those sentences, and the 9th Circuit agreed that judges donât have the âdiscretion to disregardâ such requirements.
The appeals court rejected claims by the ranchersâ defense attorney that the federal arson statute was intended to punish terrorism, rather than burning to remove invasive species or improve rangeland.
At the Oct. 7 re-sentencing hearing, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken said the ranchers cannot disregard the law in regard to setting fires on BLM property.
âYou donât have the right to make decisions on public lands when theyâre not yours,â she said.
Aiken compared the situation to âeco-terrorismâ cases in which activists damaged property in reaction to environmental decisions with which they disagreed.
âThey didnât necessarily like how the government was handling things, either,â she said.


From:http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20151007/judge-sends-oregon-ranchers-back-to-prison


So it is not clear exactly what the charges were in the offical case [which I have not been able to find yet]


----------



## wr

basketti said:


> Hey...didnt you post this earlier and it was deleted by mods? Isn't that against the rules?


The member sent me a pm regarding the post that had been deleted and it was deleted because of a single comment that contributed to the strife. 

I suggested the member rephrase his comment rather than starting a precedent of mods editing members words. 

There is nothing technically wrong with someone commenting that a person stood for what they feel is right.


----------



## MO_cows

basketti said:


> Maybe you aren't aware that a lot of Oregon and Washington are high desert and that Oregon has had Dust Bowls of it's own:
> 
> "By the 1930s, after four decades of overgrazing, irrigation withdrawals, grain agriculture, dredging and channelization, followed by several years of drought, Malheur had become a dust bowl...."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/in-oregon-myth-mixes-with-anger.html?_r=0


Yes, I did know they were "high desert" areas. 

Did you know "the" Dust Bowl, as in proper name spelled with caps Dust Bowl, refers to the extended drought and killer dust storms in the middle of the country in the 30's? 

Lots of other places have seen drought of course. Although it's kind of ironic to call someplace a "desert" because of how dry it is already, and then declare "drought" because it gets even drier. Seems like there should be degrees of "desert" doesn't it?


----------



## Lisa in WA

wr said:


> The member sent me a pm regarding the post that had been deleted and it was deleted because of a single comment that contributed to the strife.
> 
> I suggested the member rephrase his comment rather than starting a precedent of mods editing members words.
> 
> There is nothing technically wrong with someone commenting that a person stood for what they feel is right.


Except that they are also calling out members here.


----------



## wr

basketti said:


> Except that they are also calling out members here.


Or a rhetorical question.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I found this:
> 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 âTerroristsâ under the 1996 Anti terrorism Act. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. Both were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Judge Hogan overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commented 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.
> 
> From:
> http://theconservativetreehouse.com...uge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/
> 
> 
> 
> Then I found this:
> 
> Federal prosecutors challenged those sentences, and the 9th Circuit agreed that judges donât have the âdiscretion to disregardâ such requirements.
> The appeals court rejected claims by the ranchersâ defense attorney that the federal arson statute was intended to punish terrorism, rather than burning to remove invasive species or improve rangeland.
> At the Oct. 7 re-sentencing hearing, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken said the ranchers cannot disregard the law in regard to setting fires on BLM property.
> âYou donât have the right to make decisions on public lands when theyâre not yours,â she said.
> Aiken compared the situation to âeco-terrorismâ cases in which activists damaged property in reaction to environmental decisions with which they disagreed.
> âThey didnât necessarily like how the government was handling things, either,â she said.
> 
> 
> From:http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20151007/judge-sends-oregon-ranchers-back-to-prison
> 
> 
> So *it is not clear exactly what the charges were *in the offical case [which I have not been able to find yet]


It's always been clear the charges were related to arson. 

It's in the first sentence of your post

Saying they were "convicted as terrorists" is alarmist hype


----------



## Lisa in WA

MO_cows said:


> Yes, I did know they were "high desert" areas.
> 
> Did you know "the" Dust Bowl, as in proper name spelled with caps Dust Bowl, refers to the extended drought and killer dust storms in the middle of the country in the 30's?
> 
> Lots of other places have seen drought of course. Although it's kind of ironic to call someplace a "desert" because of how dry it is already, and then declare "drought" because it gets even drier. Seems like there should be degrees of "desert" doesn't it?


No, there are most definitely droughts in deserts. Just like there are droughts in rain forests if they don't get the moisture that is what they are used to, though you might not realize it just from looking. All it takes is a drop in rainfall below average over a given period of time.

I see. So the bulk of what Dryheat was saying just escaped you because he used the proper noun to describe the dust bowl in Oregon that was going on during the Dust Bowl in the Midwest? He was correct in what he said, no? 
I mean, if you take those pesky capital letters out. Good catch!


----------



## MO_cows

basketti said:


> No, there are most definitely droughts in deserts. Just like there are droughts in rain forests if they don't get the moisture that is what they are used to, though you might not realize it just from looking. All it takes is a drop in rainfall below average over a given period of time.
> 
> I see. So the bulk of what Dryheat was saying just escaped you because he used the proper noun to describe the dust bowl in Oregon that was going on during the Dust Bowl in the Midwest? He was correct in what he said, no?
> I mean, if you take those pesky capital letters out. Good catch!


No, Dryheat's description was not correct. Teddy Roosevelt originally set aside the preserve in the early 1900's. Then additional land was added in the 30's. The official FWS history doesn't even mention the drought. http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Malheur/about.html


----------



## Lisa in WA

MO_cows said:


> No, Dryheat's description was not correct. Teddy Roosevelt originally set aside the preserve in the early 1900's. Then additional land was added in the 30's. The official FWS history doesn't even mention the drought. http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Malheur/about.html


Okay, the original part was proclaimed by teddy Roosevelt from unclaimed government lands, right. According to your source. The lands that people are griping about were purchased by the government during the dust bowl to add to the refuge. Isn't that the point? They were unclaimed lands and purchased lands. No one "stole" any land from ranchers.

What exactly is your point? That you dislike improper use of proper nouns?

And why are ranchers getting PTSD from a refuge that was bought and laid for in the 30's based on unclaimed land in 1908. Just because they are used to using a certain place doesn't give them the right to continue.


----------



## Lisa in WA

I just saw a new name for the Malfeur Snackhounds:

The Ranch Davidians! :nanner:


----------



## 7thswan

Murder.[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2wA18O_6dgw[/ame]


----------



## Irish Pixie

7thswan said:


> Murder.


Your opinion, mine is suicide by cop.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> That sale never took place, and has little to do with a man who lived in AZ and was shot in OR
> 
> http://lasvegassun.com/news/2013/jun/14/company-dumps-big-laughlin-solar-project-says-mark/


So, by your edict, I am not allowed to answer questions posed by other people? You are something else.

And yes, once it saw the light of day, I'm sure that it didn't go through for whatever reason that they gave.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's always been clear the charges were related to arson.
> 
> It's in the first sentence of your post
> 
> Saying they were "convicted as terrorists" is alarmist hype


I think that I explained my self quite well. Why is that you feel the need to ever correct what I already explained and then to criticize such?

You continue to amaze me.


----------



## Shine

basketti said:


> If he loved his property (in Arizona) and just wanted to be left alone, what was he doing in Oregon, illegally occupying a bird refuge? The Bundys place is in Nevada. Seems like they were minding other people's business rather than their own.


I understand what you're saying, but there are those that will not wait while this group of people is being [in his opinion] unfairly treated and that group is unfairly treated, it appears that he intended to stand in unison against what he perceived as a visible evil.

That's just a guess though.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you call occupying Federal property illegally, not in the state where one resides, "wanting to be left alone"?


hmmm... by your own edict, haven't you just violated that?


----------



## wr

I'm sorry I had to delete the video Arabian Knight posted because of profanity but essentially, one of the men that was present at the time and subsequently arrested and released did indicate the deceased was not murdered in cold blood while submitting to police. 

His video did indicate that the deceased had gotten his truck stuck in a snowbank while evading a roadblock, exited his truck and charged at an officer. 

If his words are credible, this seems to go back to the same discussion we've had multiple times regarding various police shootings. 

I'm not certain that the ranchers are suffering from PTSD because I don't know if they've been subjected to traumatic events typically associated with the condition but I may suggest that they are ramping each other up.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Your opinion, mine is suicide by cop.


The person that was originally driving behind them said that they were pulled over, one person was taken out of LaVoy's car and detained, then LaVoy took off and crashed into a snow bank, got out of his vehicle and was walking towards the officers speaking in an agitated manner so while this is new info, I am not sure it should be "Suicide by Cop" but it very well could be.


----------



## 7thswan

Irish Pixie said:


> Your opinion, mine is suicide by cop.


You saw a suicide note?


----------



## keenataz

7thswan said:


> You saw a suicide note?


You have any proof it was murder, as you posted it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

7thswan said:


> Murder.


Not according to people who were there.

Posting family pictures doesn't change reality.
If he had been *at home* with his family he'd still be alive


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> The person that was originally driving behind them said that they were pulled over, one person was taken out of LaVoy's car and detained, then LaVoy took off and crashed into a snow bank, got out of his vehicle and *was walking* towards the officers speaking in an agitated manner so while this is new info, I am not sure it should be "Suicide by Cop" but it very well could be.


The sources I saw didn't say that at all.

This is quite different from "he walked":


> After he hit that snowbank, he came out of that truck and *he charged *at the law enforcement (officers) â as I understand it.â





> The bodyguard said Cox and Payne each told him that *Finicum charged *toward officers before he was shot, and he explicitly denied that the rancher had surrendered or complied with law enforcement.


http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/eye...icum-dying-with-his-hands-up/comments/#disqus

What's your source?


----------



## Irish Pixie

7thswan said:


> You saw a suicide note?


Is a note required for it to be suicide by cop?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> The sources I saw didn't say that at all.
> 
> This is quite different from "he walked":
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/eye...icum-dying-with-his-hands-up/comments/#disqus
> 
> What's your source?


That's the same one I saw. According to the guy that was actually there he didn't walk.


----------



## keenataz

One thing I want to add. Although I think these guys are a bunch of "wingnuts" I am sorry this person was killed. And it bothers me when I read on OTHER forums that some people seem to be saying, he got what he deserved. I believe what they were doing was dumb, wrong, illegal etc, but I wish he hadn't died.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Irish Pixie said:


> Is a note required for it to be suicide by cop?


Maybe I'm misremembering but didn't he do a video in which he proclaimed he wouldn't ever be locked up? Given the criminal activity he was involved in, that is as good as a suivide note in my opinion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

basketti said:


> Maybe I'm misremembering but didn't he do a video in which he proclaimed he wouldn't ever be locked up? Given the criminal activity he was involved in, that is as good as a suivide note in my opinion.


Could be. I didn't watch all the videos, to me it was just a bunch of idiots that took over a bird refuge.


----------



## haypoint

I've paid a bit of child support in my life. From that experience, when I see a divorced guy with eleven children, most of them under 18, I'd be inclined to believe he might be suicidal.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by 7thswan View Post
> You saw a suicide note?


How about his saying he would never be taken alive?:

https://www.tytnetwork.com/2016/01/07/militia-man-says-he-wont-be-taken-alive/

http://www.bing.com/search?q=finicu...=-1&sk=&cvid=E9364A45CBD349D7A29E7CA69353C3D9


----------



## Lisa in WA

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hed-rather-die-than-go-to-jail-did-just-that/

&#8220;Absolutely,&#8221; he told NBC&#8217;s Tony Dokoupil on Jan. 5. &#8220;I have been raised in the country all my life. I love dearly to feel the wind on my face, to see the sun rise, to see the moon in the night. I have no intention of spending any of my days in a concrete box.&#8221;


----------



## MO_cows

basketti said:


> Okay, the original part was proclaimed by teddy Roosevelt from unclaimed government lands, right. According to your source. The lands that people are griping about were purchased by the government during the dust bowl to add to the refuge. Isn't that the point? They were unclaimed lands and purchased lands. No one "stole" any land from ranchers.
> 
> What exactly is your point? That you dislike improper use of proper nouns?
> 
> And why are ranchers getting PTSD from a refuge that was bought and laid for in the 30's based on unclaimed land in 1908. Just because they are used to using a certain place doesn't give them the right to continue.


My understanding is, the Bundy boys and their followers came in response to the re-sentencing of the Hammonds. Who were sentenced by a sitting judge in good standing and did their time, but then the feds intervened and took the case to a higher court because the original judge didn't follow some mandatory sentence that was actually passed as part of an anti-terrorism act. Not exactly business as usual. 

I don't know why they would pick the wildlife refuge as their ground zero and I don't agree with those tactics, however it does seem like the Hammonds got a raw deal. Sending them both back to prison for 5 years, well that likely puts them out of business, losing them their grazing permits. So in a roundabout way, it could be seen as "government takeover" of their lease land. And especially now that a man has died, I think it is callous and tacky to make up "not so funny" names for their cause. Especially the one that is attached to a previous mass death. 

I speculated PTSD could be caused by their occupation/way of life coming under attack for years and years, not this one incident. Challenges have come from the animal rights movement, environmental zealotry, shoot even Oprah put the whole country off hamburger for awhile, remember that? The mad cow episode, media meltdown over "pink slime", collusion between the big packers to suppress prices, striking down of COOL labeling so consumers could actually pick and choose US beef, extended drought in some areas, blizzards that kill 10's of thousands of cattle but never even make the evening news most places - the list goes on and on. Everybody has a breaking point for stress and this is a group who seems to get more than their share. 

I have a lot of respect and empathy for the multi-generational ranchers. It is even an important part of our culture, what is America known for more than cowboys after all. The Bundys are terrible poster boys for the cause, but remember what started their whole downward spiral was the feds not renewing their lease because of a tortoise. It must be maddening to have your life's work be considered less important than a tortoise.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

haypoint said:


> I've paid a bit of child support in my life. From that experience, when I see a divorced guy with *eleven children*, most of them under 18, I'd be inclined to believe he might be suicidal.


The 11 were foster children through some sort of program that *paid him* for their support, according to a report I saw on another site


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> My understanding is, the Bundy boys and their followers came in response to the re-sentencing of the Hammonds. Who were sentenced by a sitting judge in good standing and did their time, but then the feds intervened and took the case to a higher court because the original judge didn't follow some mandatory sentence that was actually passed as part of an anti-terrorism act. Not exactly business as usual.


The Hammonds told them not to come.

The judge in their trial erred in the sentencing, and the Govt appealed, with the Hammonds losing the appeal. 

They have to serve the mandatory statutory sentence the judge was supposed to give them to begin with, less time already served. 

They didn't get a "new sentence", but rather got the proper sentence under the laws


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> The person that was originally driving behind them said that they were pulled over, one person was taken out of LaVoy's car and detained, then LaVoy took off and crashed into a snow bank, got out of his vehicle and was walking towards the officers speaking in an agitated manner so while this is new info, I am not sure it should be "Suicide by Cop" but it very well could be.


Based on the video I saw and had to delete, the person that was there did not indicate he walked toward the officers at all. The truck was still in gear in the snowbank, tires spinning, he opened his door and rushed the police. 

Even in my country, that's considered an act of aggression and will get you shot.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Finicum says foster children are families main source of income:

http://www.chieftain.com/news/nation/4380025-120/finicum-federal-foster-occupation

His other source of income were books and videos about "Govt oppression" and his struggles, but the kids were the big money-makers:



> The rancher was media-savvy and tried to popularize and monetize his political beliefs on his website, www.onecowboystandforfreedom.com. He used the site to sell his book, a 252-page paperback titled &#8220;Only by Blood and Suffering,&#8221; as well as T-shirts, bumper stickers and posters emblazoned with slogans like &#8220;Let Freedom Ring&#8221; and &#8220;Defend the Constitution Original Intent.&#8221;
> 
> He described himself as a longtime friend of Cliven Bundy, and he participated in the standoff with federal authorities over grazing fees at the elder Bundy&#8217;s Nevada ranch in 2014.
> 
> Finicum and his wife, Jeanette, raised dozens of foster children, though social workers removed the kids from the couple&#8217;s home a few days after the occupation began.
> 
> Finicum said the foster kids were the family&#8217;s main source of income.
> 
> *Catholic Charities paid the family more than $115,000 in 2009* to foster children, according to tax filings. Foster parents are generally paid a small per-child amount by the government. It&#8217;s intended to reimburse them for the costs incurred in fostering. The money sometimes is disbursed through nonprofit partners.


----------



## Lisa in WA

MO_cows said:


> My understanding is, the Bundy boys and their followers came in response to the re-sentencing of the Hammonds. Who were sentenced by a sitting judge in good standing and did their time, but then the feds intervened and took the case to a higher court because the original judge didn't follow some mandatory sentence that was actually passed as part of an anti-terrorism act. Not exactly business as usual.
> 
> I don't know why they would pick the wildlife refuge as their ground zero and I don't agree with those tactics, however it does seem like the Hammonds got a raw deal. Sending them both back to prison for 5 years, well that likely puts them out of business, losing them their grazing permits. So in a roundabout way, it could be seen as "government takeover" of their lease land. And especially now that a man has died, I think it is callous and tacky to make up "not so funny" names for their cause. Especially the one that is attached to a previous mass death.
> 
> I speculated PTSD could be caused by their occupation/way of life coming under attack for years and years, not this one incident. Challenges have come from the animal rights movement, environmental zealotry, shoot even Oprah put the whole country off hamburger for awhile, remember that? The mad cow episode, media meltdown over "pink slime", collusion between the big packers to suppress prices, striking down of COOL labeling so consumers could actually pick and choose US beef, extended drought in some areas, blizzards that kill 10's of thousands of cattle but never even make the evening news most places - the list goes on and on. Everybody has a breaking point for stress and this is a group who seems to get more than their share.
> 
> I have a lot of respect and empathy for the multi-generational ranchers. It is even an important part of our culture, what is America known for more than cowboys after all. The Bundys are terrible poster boys for the cause, but remember what started their whole downward spiral was the feds not renewing their lease because of a tortoise. It must be maddening to have your life's work be considered less important than a tortoise.



I know a lot of ranchers who manage to coexist with the BLM and the NFS without claiming PTSD. They would laugh at the notion of getting PTSD from their livelihood being threatened. All kinds of people lose their jobs and are laid off every single day without claiming PTSD. 

I find it tacky and callous to claim that these ranchers who might have lost partial access to land that isn't even theirs, have PTSD when we have veterans coming back who are grievously wounded and REALLY have PTSD from actual battle. I'd be with you on policemen and firemen, but ranchers? 
Please.


----------



## wr

keenataz said:


> One thing I want to add. Although I think these guys are a bunch of "wingnuts" I am sorry this person was killed. And it bothers me when I read on OTHER forums that some people seem to be saying, he got what he deserved. I believe what they were doing was dumb, wrong, illegal etc, but I wish he hadn't died.


I hate hearing that it came to this and I'm sure his family is hurting terribly right now.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Bearfootfarm said:


> Finicum says foster children are families main source of income:
> 
> http://www.chieftain.com/news/nation/4380025-120/finicum-federal-foster-occupation
> 
> His other source of income were books and videos about "Govt oppression" and his struggles, but the kids were the big money-makers:


nice that he had the kids as a cash cow.


----------



## Nevada

I don't like the idea that we might start resolving our political differences with guns.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Nevada said:


> I don't like the idea that we might start resolving our political differences with guns.


Have you seen the latest video coming out of the wildlife refuge via RawStory? Can't post a link per HT rules because of language.
I don't think there is much hope for a non-violent resolution. There are some people who are very far from mentally/emotionally stable. With guns.


----------



## keenataz

basketti said:


> Have you seen the latest video coming out of the wildlife refuge via RawStory? Can't post a link per HT rules because of language.
> I don't think there is much hope for a non-violent resolution. There are some people who are very far from mentally/emotionally stable. With guns.


You just hope cooler heads will somehow prevail. Because if they don't, to so e it won't matter who shoots first, these people, if killed will become martyrs to some.

They have already tried it with the fellow killed, making up stories. Saying he was killed while lying on ground with hands above his head. And I suspect many, including some here will choose to believe it, no matter how much evidence to the contrary.


----------



## MO_cows

basketti said:


> I know a lot of ranchers who manage to coexist with the BLM and the NFS without claiming PTSD. They would laugh at the notion of getting PTSD from their livelihood being threatened. All kinds of people lose their jobs and are laid off every single day without claiming PTSD.
> 
> I find it tacky and callous to claim that these ranchers who might have lost partial access to land that isn't even theirs, have PTSD when we have veterans coming back who are grievously wounded and REALLY have PTSD from actual battle. I'd be with you on policemen and firemen, but ranchers?
> Please.


I know someone who had a permit in Oregon, had to pull the cattle weeks earlier than the permit specified on very short notice, causing him to miss the national cattle show for the breed he raised. The show was important for establishing value and quality of his genetics. And a lot of cattle get sold at the shows. Not to mention losing money on entry fees paid and hiring help to gather in the show string and prepare them. There had been better than normal rainfall that year, the range was in great shape, just the whim of a bureaucrat turned his life upside down for a few weeks, and cost him thousands. 

There are many instances of "workplace violence" where people lose it over something to do with their job. So an occupation that is not merely a job but a lifestyle and a heritage intended to be passed down thru the generations could certainly create enough stress and pressure for a person to reach their breaking point.


----------



## Lisa in WA

MO_cows said:


> I know someone who had a permit in Oregon, had to pull the cattle weeks earlier than the permit specified on very short notice, causing him to miss the national cattle show for the breed he raised. The show was important for establishing value and quality of his genetics. And a lot of cattle get sold at the shows. Not to mention losing money on entry fees paid and hiring help to gather in the show string and prepare them. There had been better than normal rainfall that year, the range was in great shape, just the whim of a bureaucrat turned his life upside down for a few weeks, and cost him thousands.
> 
> There are many instances of "workplace violence" where people lose it over something to do with their job. So an occupation that is not merely a job but a lifestyle and a heritage intended to be passed down thru the generations could certainly create enough stress and pressure for a person to reach their breaking point.


A heritage intended to be passed down, on land that doesn't belong to you doesn't exactly seem like a safe or even reasonable bet. 
As far as your acquaintance: you're getting one side of the story. I seriously doubt the evil bureaucrat just decided on a whim to turn someone's life upside down. But if it's true...it's sad but it's also life. Employers and landlords turn people's lives upside down all the time. But normal folks don't run and take over wildlife refuges and beg for snacks.

The Malheur YeeHawdists are clearly not the coldest beers in the fridge.


----------



## wr

MO_cows said:


> I know someone who had a permit in Oregon, had to pull the cattle weeks earlier than the permit specified on very short notice, causing him to miss the national cattle show for the breed he raised. The show was important for establishing value and quality of his genetics. And a lot of cattle get sold at the shows. Not to mention losing money on entry fees paid and hiring help to gather in the show string and prepare them. There had been better than normal rainfall that year, the range was in great shape, just the whim of a bureaucrat turned his life upside down for a few weeks, and cost him thousands.
> 
> There are many instances of "workplace violence" where people lose it over something to do with their job. So an occupation that is not merely a job but a lifestyle and a heritage intended to be passed down thru the generations could certainly create enough stress and pressure for a person to reach their breaking point.


I've shown cattle all over Canada and the US and as a rule, show cattle aren't turned out on grazing leases simply because they have to be in show condition, which requires a lengthy specialized feeding program and halter broke, which requires consistent training and they do seem to forget quite quickly and the dates of those big shows are known about a year in advance. I do understand the importance of those shows because one of my cousin's bulls was syndicated because of his exposure at the Denver Stock Show. 

I'm also the next in several generations of ranching and had to deal with all of the other miseries, including lost grazing leases and it's all part of agriculture. 

I can see how someone could 'lose it' and I actually walked away from it at one time simply because when BSE hit in Canada, the borders closed, auction houses closed down and there was literally no feed because of a drought but losing it is much different than PTSD.


----------



## keenataz

basketti said:


> A heritage intended to be passed down, on land that doesn't belong to you doesn't exactly seem like a safe or even reasonable bet.
> As far as your acquaintance: you're getting one side of the story. I seriously doubt the evil bureaucrat just decided on a whim to turn someone's life upside down. But if it's true...it's sad but it's also life. Employers and landlords turn people's lives upside down all the time. But normal folks don't run and take over wildlife refuges and beg for snacks.
> 
> The Malheur YeeHawdists are clearly not the coldest beers in the fridge.


I was going to say that. I actually work in that field and there is no way we can tell a range holder to remove his livestock from range without a reason and certainly not on a whim.

And I suspect if it was done with no valid reason there would be legal remedies for the permit holder.

Us lowly bureaucrats are not above the law as many seem to think.


----------



## MO_cows

basketti said:


> A heritage intended to be passed down, on land that doesn't belong to you doesn't exactly seem like a safe or even reasonable bet.
> As far as your acquaintance: you're getting one side of the story. I seriously doubt the evil bureaucrat just decided on a whim to turn someone's life upside down. But if it's true...it's sad but it's also life. Employers and landlords turn people's lives upside down all the time. But normal folks don't run and take over wildlife refuges and beg for snacks.
> 
> The Malheur YeeHawdists are clearly not the coldest beers in the fridge.


Well if great grandaddy would have been clairvoyant he would have tried to own the land outright instead of just water rights and grazing rights, I guess. Who could have foreseen that a tortoise or maybe even a bug would take priority later?

This group is certainly misguided and "out there" but mocking them with school yard names, seriously?

My acquaintance is a solid individual, he made his plans based on his permit and then the terms were changed on him mid-stream. 

And wr, this wasn't your typical show string. These cattle are not halter broke and show prep isn't fattening and fluffing them. It's tuning them up on their performance in the arena and getting them settled down for a trip to town.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> My acquaintance is *a solid individual*, he made his plans based on his permit and then the terms were changed on him mid-stream.


Even "solid individuals" have been known to embellish stories when they are put upon.

Just because he told you something doesn't mean it was 100% factual.

If the show were that important it would have been his priority, and rounding up the rest of the herd secondary, since he had documentation that said they could be there.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> They committed the crimes, they were convicted, and they are now serving the minimum legal sentence.
> 
> There's no point in pretending otherwise





MDKatie said:


> How is the gov't "stealing" the land? Hasn't it BEEN federal land?


I posted the evidence on this earlier in this thread, if you care to know what the government has been up to in trying to get the Hammond's ranch, it's there for you to read.
I'll try to find the post # in a moment................post #62, page 4.
The gov't with its power can fabricate a case, refuse to let your defense evidence into court, sentence you to a prison term and large fine.
While you're in prison, you somehow still make substantial payments on that fine, when you get out and they see you will be able to keep your land (BLM has first option to buy if land goes into default) they repentance you and put you in prison again so they can do what they've been trying to do since your grandfather was alive.
Is that a good enough explanation?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> *I posted the evidence on this earlier* in this thread, if you care to know what the government has been up to in trying to get the Hammond's ranch, it's there for you to read.
> I'll try to find the post # in a moment.
> *The gov't with its power can fabricate a case*, refuse to let your defense evidence into court, sentence you to a prison term and large fine.
> While you're in prison, you somehow still make substantial payments on that fine, when you get out and they see you will be able to keep your land (BLM has first option to buy if land goes into default) they repentance you and put you in prison again so they can do what they've been trying to do since your grandfather was alive.
> *Is that a good enough explanation?*


They were tried and convicted.

The evidence you posted doesn't change that

Your "explanation" is a conspiracy theory and little more


----------



## haypoint

I've always thought that rationalization was a strong human emotion. I'm beginning to think that it is the strongest of emotions. If someone benefits from a certain belief, they can justify, in their mind, that what they think is the truth. Everyone is guilty at some time. 
When one child is caught shoving another child in the school yard, that child can often recall a time when they were shoved and no one was punished. Rationalization.

When one family was about to get caught hunting illegally, set a fire to cover their activity, but was charged for setting the fire, one can expect that the family will not focus on their illegal activity. Instead, they recall a time when the accuser set a fire that got out of control. Rationalization.

When a rancher's multi-generational leased Federal range is no longer available for rent, one might want to ignore the notice and simply continue to graze cattle, with the benefit of no lease fees, on the "closed to cattle" federal lands. If several years go by, one might start to think this lease for free land belongs to them and anyone gathering up cattle would be rustlers, even when the land is theirs. Rationalization.

Surround yourself with a group of like minded folk that see those that enforce laws you deem unjust as enemy combatants and you are a freedom fighter, saving us all from a dictatorial government, you might be emboldened to take a bullet for the team. Rationalization.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> They were tried and convicted.
> 
> The evidence you posted doesn't change that
> 
> Your "explanation" is a conspiracy theory and little more


I never said they weren't tried and convicted.
I'll put it bluntly. It was a kangaroo court.
As far as the conspiracy to take their land being a "theory", I cited in the post above where the documents can be read, and there are other affidavits including law enforcement that confirm this.
But just for the fun of it, care to wager on whether the Hammond ranch ends up in gov't hands in the next 5 years?
Would you still call it a conspiracy theory then........or a cold, hard *fact?*


----------



## farmrbrown

haypoint said:


> I've always thought that rationalization was a strong human emotion. I'm beginning to think that it is the strongest of emotions. If someone benefits from a certain belief, they can justify, in their mind, that what they think is the truth. Everyone is guilty at some time.
> When one child is caught shoving another child in the school yard, that child can often recall a time when they were shoved and no one was punished. Rationalization.
> 
> When one family was about to get caught hunting illegally, set a fire to cover their activity, but was charged for setting the fire, one can expect that the family will not focus on their illegal activity. Instead, they recall a time when the accuser set a fire that got out of control. Rationalization.
> 
> When a rancher's multi-generational leased Federal range is no longer available for rent, one might want to ignore the notice and simply continue to graze cattle, with the benefit of no lease fees, on the "closed to cattle" federal lands. If several years go by, one might start to think this lease for free land belongs to them and anyone gathering up cattle would be rustlers, even when the land is theirs. Rationalization.
> 
> Surround yourself with a group of like minded folk that see those that enforce laws you deem unjust as enemy combatants and you are a freedom fighter, saving us all from a dictatorial government, you might be emboldened to take a bullet for the team. Rationalization.


You might want to read the link I just re-posted before putting much faith in the one testimony of a 13 year old boy at the time that event alleged happened. That and the sheriff's report that found no evidence of that claim.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Saying they were "convicted as terrorists" is alarmist hype


Actually, that's another "fact" that you are denying.
It IS correct to say the terrorism charge (3 days before the statute of limitations) and conviction are *government alarmist hype.*
Why do you think the Hammonds went BACK to prison?
Please read before posting any further misinformation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I never said they weren't tried and convicted.
> I'll put it bluntly. *It was a kangaroo court.*
> As far as the conspiracy to take their land being a "theory", I cited in the post above where the documents can be read, and there are other affidavits including law enforcement that confirm this.
> But just for the fun of it, care to wager on whether the Hammond ranch ends up in gov't hands in the next 5 years?
> Would you still call it a conspiracy theory then........or a cold, hard *fact?*


Yes, you keep* repeating* that theory.
It's not going to change the end results



> Actually, that's another "fact" that you are denying.
> It IS correct to say the terrorism charge (3 days before the statute of limitations) and conviction are government alarmist hype.
> Why do you think the Hammonds went BACK to prison?
> *Please read before posting any further misinformation*.


There was no "terrorism" charge

The *original arson charge* carried a mandatory 5 year sentence, and the Govt appealed the first incorrect sentence.

You should stop getting all your info from the hard core right wing propaganda militia sites if you're truly concerned about "misinformation"


----------



## arabian knight

Bought time he gets smart~!!!

*Oregon occupation leader Bundy urges remaining protesters to go home*


----------



## MO_cows

Bearfootfarm said:


> Even "solid individuals" have been known to embellish stories when they are put upon.
> 
> Just because he told you something doesn't mean it was 100% factual.
> 
> If the show were that important it would have been his priority, and rounding up the rest of the herd secondary, since he had documentation that said they could be there.


The show and the accompanying board meeting were important and if he had not had to gather the cattle off the lease early he would have been there. He had no reason to "embellish" and wasn't the type anyway. 

You don't really know me, you certainly don't know him, so I can understand your skepticism. But I know it happened.


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> I don't like the idea that we might start resolving our political differences with guns.


Start? Ever cracked a history book?


----------



## Lisa in WA

MO_cows said:


> Well if great grandaddy would have been clairvoyant he would have tried to own the land outright instead of just water rights and grazing rights, I guess. Who could have foreseen that a tortoise or maybe even a bug would take priority later?
> 
> This group is certainly misguided and "out there" but mocking them with school yard names, seriously?
> 
> My acquaintance is a solid individual, he made his plans based on his permit and then the terms were changed on him mid-stream.
> 
> And wr, this wasn't your typical show string. These cattle are not halter broke and show prep isn't fattening and fluffing them. It's tuning them up on their performance in the arena and getting them settled down for a trip to town.





Hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it? Still doesn't give the Hammonds or the Bundys any special rights. 

As far as mocking, seems like you indulge in it yourself given your response to Nevada.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, you keep* repeating* that theory.
> It's not going to change the end results
> 
> 
> 
> There was no "terrorism" charge
> 
> The *original arson charge* carried a mandatory 5 year sentence, and the Govt appealed the first incorrect sentence.
> 
> You should stop getting all your info from the hard core right wing propaganda militia sites if you're truly concerned about "misinformation"



I didn't say it would change the end results, I asked if you were confident enough to bet on what those results would be?

I've read the trial transcripts, thank you.
While denial buy U.S. prosecutors that they were not "charged" with terrorism, per a plea agreement, disregarding the *judge's* comment that they were terrorists at sentencing, the rules of their appeals process and required restitution are found here:

ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ132/html/PLAW-104publ132.htm


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MO_cows said:


> The show and the accompanying board meeting were important and if he had not had to gather the cattle off the lease early he would have been there. He had no reason to "embellish" and wasn't the type anyway.
> 
> You don't really know me, you certainly don't know him, so I can understand your skepticism. But I know it happened.


If it were truly that important, he would have chosen to go, since he could only do one of the two tasks.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I didn't say it would change the end results, I asked if you were confident enough to bet on what those results would be?
> 
> I've read the trial transcripts, thank you.
> While *denial buy U.S. prosecutors* that they were not "charged" with terrorism, per a plea agreement, disregarding the *judge's* comment that they were terrorists at sentencing, the rules of their appeals process and required restitution are found here:
> 
> ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996
> https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ132/html/PLAW-104publ132.htm


There was no need for any "denial"

They were convicted of *arson*, not "terrorism".
Let's not keep rehashing this, since once should have been sufficient.

There's also little point in posting some long rambling "anti terrorism act" when only one tiny portion applies to this case, and it's really not a comment on their particular trial at all, as you implied.

I don't have any interest in your long range predictions of the future since they are based on your present conspiracies theories and militia hype. 

If you want to make bets, call a bookie



> While denial buy U.S. prosecutors that they were not "charged" with terrorism, per a plea agreement, disregarding the judge's comment that they were terrorists at sentencing, the rules of their appeals process and required restitution are found here:


That's not even coherent


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> There was no need for any "denial"
> 
> They were convicted of *arson*, not "terrorism".
> Let's not keep rehashing this, since once should have been sufficient.
> 
> There's also little point in posting some long rambling "anti terrorism act" when only one tiny portion applies to this case, and it's really not a comment on their particular trial at all, as you implied.
> 
> I don't have any interest in your long range predictions of the future since they are based on your present conspiracies theories and militia hype.
> 
> If you want to make bets, call a bookie
> 
> 
> That's not even coherent


Fair enough, I was just asking.

As far as coherency, it appeared you knew exactly why I referenced the law.



> *"anti terrorism act" when only one tiny portion applies to this case,*


If the remark about the sentencing judge wasn't clear, here's a link.
http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20151007/judge-sends-oregon-ranchers-back-to-prison

*"At the Oct. 7 re-sentencing hearing, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken said the ranchers cannot disregard the law in regard to setting fires on BLM property.

&#8220;You don&#8217;t have the right to make decisions on public lands when they&#8217;re not yours,&#8221; she said.

Aiken compared the situation to &#8220;eco-terrorism&#8221; cases in which activists damaged property in reaction to environmental decisions with which they disagreed.

&#8220;They didn&#8217;t necessarily like how the government was handling things, either,&#8221; she said.*


Coincidentally that same judge appears in this Oregon story.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/fundraiser_in_protest_of_orego.html

*"A fundraising campaign launched in protest of the occupation of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has raised more than $50,000 in pledges in 72 hours, the Oregon brothers behind the crowdfunding site announced Wednesday.

The organizers, Eugene natives Zach and Jake Klonoski, are the sons of U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken, who re-sentenced Burns area ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond to mandatory five-year prison terms on arson charges in October.

The Hammonds' conviction under a domestic terrorism statute appalled Ammon Bundy and his supporters, who were outraged when a panel of appeals court judges found the Hammonds' earlier and shorter sentences were improper and ordered the father and son to be re-sentenced. The refuge occupation now in its 19th day is an outgrowth of Bundy's offer to protect the Hammonds from re-arrest earlier this year.
*


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> As far as coherency, it appeared you knew exactly* why *I referenced the law.


You referenced the law because it has "terrorism" in the title, and the *spin* is to claim they were "sentenced as terrorists" which is still false.

You just keep repeating the reporter's hype

Partial quotes out of context are just more spin

That last sentence was still incoherent


----------



## wr

Bearfootfarm said:


> The 11 were foster children through some sort of program that *paid him* for their support, according to a report I saw on another site


In an article I read today, it was said that the foster children had been removed from the home and he was quite upset because they were his primary source of income as well as labor for his ranch. 

The comment regarding the kids being his primary source of labor kinda rubbed me wrong. My kids certainly worked harder than most when they were growing up but they were working toward something that was ours and for their futures, not just government subsidized work crews.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

wr said:


> In an article I read today, it was said that the foster children had been removed from the home and he was quite upset because they were his primary source of income as well as labor for his ranch.
> 
> The comment regarding the kids being his primary source of labor kinda rubbed me wrong. My kids certainly worked harder than most when they were growing up but they were working toward something that was ours and for their futures, not just government subsidized work crews.


Yeah, it rubbed me wrong too after hearing all the hype about what a great "family man" he was supposed to be.

I think that whole crowd is teetering on the edge


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yeah, it rubbed me wrong too after hearing all the hype about what a great "family man" he was supposed to be.


Well then, I can understand why Obama had him shot


----------



## wr

Cornhusker said:


> Well then, I can understand why Obama had him shot



I might be missing something but when someone charges an officer, they may expect some fairly ugly consequences.


----------



## Cornhusker

wr said:


> I might be missing something but when someone charges an officer, they may expect some fairly ugly consequences.


(Unless they are black, then the cop should just stand there and let the bad guy beat/stab/shoot him.)
So far, I'm not convinced he charged anybody.
Some reports said he had his hand up, was told to get on the ground, then shot 3 times.
I don't trust the Obama regime to be honest about anything, and it wouldn't be the first time Obama put out a hit on an American citizen


----------



## Echoesechos

There are two witness statements. One from the other vehicle and one from someone riding with The deceased. I am very sad that someone list their life.


----------



## Cornhusker

Is this where Soros pays us to riot, loot, torch police cars, destroy private and public property and burn down buildings?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> Is this where Soros pays us to riot, loot, torch police cars, destroy private and public property and burn down buildings?


Doesn't it get boring typing the same answers in every thread?
Not everything is about BO, et al


----------



## mmoetc

Cornhusker said:


> (Unless they are black, then the cop should just stand there and let the bad guy beat/stab/shoot him.)
> So far, I'm not convinced he charged anybody.
> Some reports said he had his hand up, was told to get on the ground, then shot 3 times.
> I don't trust the Obama regime to be honest about anything, and it wouldn't be the first time Obama put out a hit on an American citizen


So now you want to chant "Hands up, don't shoot!" The irony.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Some reports said he had his hand up, was told to get on the ground, then shot 3 times.


Those reports came out almost immediately, and came from people who were there.
I find it impossible to believe any of those people really had access to their cell phones while being arrested.


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> Doesn't it get boring typing the same answers in every thread?
> Not everything is about BO, et al


Nope, of course not, he probably doesn't even know it's happening until he watches CNN


----------



## Cornhusker

mmoetc said:


> So now you want to chant "Hands up, don't shoot!" The irony.


And suddenly you don't.
Why is that?


----------



## farmrbrown

While denial buy U.S. prosecutors that they were not "charged" with terrorism, per a plea agreement, disregarding the judge's comment that they were terrorists at sentencing, the rules of their appeals process and required restitution are found here:





Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not even coherent




OK Bearfoot, I found my spelling mistake (buy should have been "by"). I think that was autocorrect, but I'll take the blame for it anyway, I should have caught it.

The link I didn't post with that, someone else found later, which was a statement *by* the federal prosecutor that the Hammonds were not charged with "terrorism".
I can try to find out about the specifics of the plea deal, but usually a threat of a higher charge is made in order for the defendant to plead to the lesser one and avoid a trial. The prosecutor wins without "trying". :happy2:
That's what I meant by this.....
*While denial buy U.S. prosecutors that they were not "charged" with terrorism, per a plea agreement,*


I DID post a link for this.....
*disregarding the judge's comment that they were terrorists at sentencing,*
The judge compared the Hammond's to eco-terrorists, the prosecutor denied ever saying it.......publicly.
The insinuation gets to the media without it being charged in writing.


The last part.....
* the rules of their appeals process and required restitution are found here:*

The 1996 law I posted, the one the Hammond's avoided with the pale deal, was still used to enforce the fines and the reversal of their sentence to the minimum required by that law.

To clarify my poor sentence structure and incoherency, allow me to try again.

The prosecutor says they weren't charged as terrorists.
That's true, they were only threatened by the charge, in private with their attorney present, no doubt.

The judge is the one that actually called them terrorists, at their sentencing that sent them back to prison.

And even though the "official" conviction is arson, under the 1996 anti-terrorism law, the sentence, including the high amount of fines and restitution is what they are required to pay.

It's like getting a conviction for speeding, but by taking a plea deal, you lose your license for a year, spend 10 days in jail and pay a $5000 fine, just like a DUI case.
Here's a good explanation in this link.
http://www.opb.org/news/series/burn...mmonds-entered-plea-knowing-sentences-loomed/

And this is the official court record from the appeal, which led to their last sentence to prison. It confirms what was said in the above link. You can read the citation of the law yourself, it is the very same one, google it.
http://www.landrights.org/or/Hammond/Hammonds Appeal 9th district court.pdf

I'm sorry I didn't say it more clearly, but in my defense, when I do, I usually get a "rambling" charge against me, or something similar.
:hammer:


----------



## mmoetc

Cornhusker said:


> And suddenly you don't.
> Why is that?


Never did.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> While denial buy U.S. prosecutors that they were not "charged" with terrorism, per a plea agreement, disregarding the judge's comment that they were terrorists at sentencing, the rules of their appeals process and required restitution are found here:
> 
> OK Bearfoot, I found my spelling mistake (buy should have been "by"). I think that was autocorrect, but I'll take the blame for it anyway, I should have caught it.
> 
> The link I didn't post with that, someone else found later, which was a statement *by* the federal prosecutor that *the Hammonds were not charged with "terrorism".*
> I can try to find out about the specifics of the plea deal, but usually a threat of a higher charge is made in order for the defendant to plead to the lesser one and avoid a trial. The prosecutor wins without "trying". :happy2:
> That's what I meant by this.....
> *While denial buy U.S. prosecutors that they were not "charged" with terrorism, per a plea agreement,*
> 
> 
> I DID post a link for this.....
> *disregarding the judge's comment that they were terrorists at sentencing,*
> The judge compared the Hammond's to eco-terrorists, the prosecutor denied ever saying it.......publicly.
> The insinuation gets to the media without it being charged in writing.
> 
> 
> The last part.....
> * the rules of their appeals process and required restitution are found here:*
> 
> The 1996 law I posted, the one the Hammond's avoided with the pale deal, was still used to enforce the fines and the reversal of their sentence to the minimum required by that law.
> 
> To clarify my poor sentence structure and incoherency, allow me to try again.
> 
> The prosecutor says they weren't charged as terrorists.
> That's true, they were only threatened by the charge, in private with their attorney present, no doubt.
> 
> The judge is the one that actually called them terrorists, at their sentencing that sent them back to prison.
> 
> And even though the "official" conviction is arson, under the 1996 anti-terrorism law, the sentence, including the high amount of fines and restitution is what they are required to pay.
> 
> It's like getting a conviction for speeding, but by taking a plea deal, you lose your license for a year, spend 10 days in jail and pay a $5000 fine, just like a DUI case.
> Here's a good explanation in this link.
> http://www.opb.org/news/series/burn...mmonds-entered-plea-knowing-sentences-loomed/
> 
> And this is the official court record from the appeal, which led to their last sentence to prison. It confirms what was said in the above link. You can read the citation of the law yourself, it is the very same one, google it.
> http://www.landrights.org/or/Hammond/Hammonds Appeal 9th district court.pdf
> 
> I'm sorry I didn't say it more clearly, but in my defense, when I do, I usually get a "rambling" charge against me, or something similar.
> :hammer:


All that repetition was unnecessary.

The spelling error had nothing to do with the incoherence, and I already told you they weren't charged with "terrorism" so showing someone also said that is redundant. The charges were always arson.

You should get over the idea that repeating everything will make it different the next time around.

The lower court broke the law and the appeals court provided the remedy


----------



## Tiempo

The helicopter video of the shooting has now been released. He exits the vehicle with his hands up then drops his hands as though reaching. The video is very clear.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tiempo said:


> The helicopter video of the shooting has now been released. He exits the vehicle with his hands up then drops his hands as though reaching. The video is very clear.


I read some reports today that said he was reaching for his waist as if he had a gun. He said he wouldn't be taken alive, so at least he was honest about that.


----------



## Tiempo

To me he looked confused, indecisive maybe. He dropped his hands twice, the first time he didn't get shot, the second time a second cop/fed ran out of the woods as Finicum dropped his hand to his waist again. The second guy shot him but the first one would have been justified too imo.


----------



## mmoetc

According to the FBI statements a gun was found in the pocket he reached for twice. He almost ran over an officer, ignored orders to give up peacefully and met a tragic, avoidable end. I feel sorry for his family.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> The spelling error had nothing to do with the incoherence, and I already told you they weren't charged with "terrorism" so showing someone also said that is redundant. The charges were always arson.





Bearfootfarm said:


> The lower court broke the law and the appeals court provided the remedy


What "law" did the lower court break?
I'll add that *I* don't get as annoyed as you for a person repeating something, so in case you said what law the court broke before, would you tell me again?
Were you referring to the appellate decision I linked, that found the first judge had erred in the *plea agreement?*
The one that called for sentencing under USC 18?
http://www.landrights.org/or/Hammond/Hammonds Appeal 9th district court.pdf

*"2
UNITED STATES V. HAMMOND
Filed February 7, 2014
Before: Richard C. Tallman and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges, and Stephen J. Murphy, III, District Judge**
Opinion by Judge Murphy
SUMMARY*** Criminal Law
&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;On appeals by the government, the panel vacated sentences for maliciously damaging the real property of the United States by fire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Â§ 844(f)(1), and remanded for resentencing, in cases in which the defendants set fires on their ranch land that spread to public land.
The panel rejected the defendants&#8217; contention that the government waived its right to appeal the sentences in the plea agreements or otherwise failed to preserve its objection to the sentences. The panel explained that the principles governing the formation and interpretation of plea agreements leave no room for implied waivers.
"*

*That law*?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Unless you are talking about this post.


----------



## Raeven

What I don't think you're understanding, *farmrbrown*, is how sentencing guidelines work.

Judges do not have complete discretion to sentence someone to a term that they, themselves, believe a crime merits. The reason for this is to create consistency by judges in sentencing for the same crime. Sentencing guidelines, compliance with which is statutorily required, have been around for decades.

When someone is convicted of a crime, a judge may impose a statutory minimum or maximum sentence, or something in between the minimum and the maximum. *What they cannot do is sentence below the minimum or above the maximum.* In order to sentence to the minimum, then factors in mitigation must be stated by the judge on the record and must outweigh the factors in aggravation. In order to sentence to the maximum, factors in aggravation must be stated by the judge on the record and must outweigh the factors in mitigation.

What happened here is, the trial and sentencing judge sentenced *below the statutory minimum sentence*. On appeal, the Appellate Court found (very understandably) that the sentence was incorrectly imposed. Thus, they remanded the case for the trial judge to sentence the defendants properly -- which the judge did, and with which the defendants, the Hammonds, had no disagreement.

No big mystery about what happened, although not many people understand (or have any reason to understand) the particulars of sentencing guidelines.


----------



## farmrbrown

Raeven said:


> What I don't think you're understanding, *farmrbrown*, is how sentencing guidelines work.
> 
> Judges do not have complete discretion to sentence someone to a term that they, themselves, believe a crime merits. The reason for this is to create consistency by judges in sentencing for the same crime. Sentencing guidelines, compliance with which is statutorily required, have been around for decades.
> 
> When someone is convicted of a crime, a judge may impose a statutory minimum or maximum sentence, or something in between the minimum and the maximum. *What they cannot do is sentence below the minimum or above the maximum.* In order to sentence to the minimum, then factors in mitigation must be stated by the judge on the record and must outweigh the factors in aggravation. In order to sentence to the maximum, factors in aggravation must be stated by the judge on the record and must outweigh the factors in mitigation.
> 
> What happened here is, the trial and sentencing judge sentenced *below the statutory minimum sentence*. On appeal, the Appellate Court found (very understandably) that the sentence was incorrectly imposed. Thus, they remanded the case for the trial judge to sentence the defendants properly -- which the judge did, and with which the defendants, the Hammonds, had no disagreement.
> 
> No big mystery about what happened, although not many people understand (or have any reason to understand) the particulars of sentencing guidelines.


Nope, that part I understood.
That was the reason the appellate court reversed the sentence by the first judge and the Hammond's were re-sentnced.
The reason I posted the appellate court's decision was to challenge Bearfoot's statement that they were "never charged with terrorism" and that is was only right wing media "hype" that they were jailed as such. 
The first part is technically true, the charge was only arson, but the threat of being charged under the terrorist statute was used to get them to plead guilty.
The *minimum* sentence under that statute is 5 years - the *maximum is life.* 
To say the !996 law was not used for the sentencing guidelines is to deny what the appellate court said, that was clear.
Otherwise, the original sentence would have been upheld on appeal that it was "only" arson, started as a brush fire on private land and the judge had the authority to pass the sentence that he gave.
The sentencing statute in Oregon is here:
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-28.htm
What you will find is, the MAXIMUM sentence for arson in Oregon is 3 years, unless extraordinary circumstances are cited.
In that case, it would have to be Arson I, a first degree felony, not a class C or D felony.
http://www.crimevictimsunited.org/measure11/crimeseriousness.htm


The plea deal is what was in question.
It put severe restrictions on the grounds for ANY appeal, including the federal government.
The prosecutor and the Hammonds agreed to those terms, and when the feds didn't get the sentence they wanted, they pulled their trump card out and played it - the 1996 anti-terrorism law.


This documented in court here.
http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/Ha...for-Writ-of-Certiorari-Filed-June-17-2013.pdf

*"
II. Convictions.
On June 17, 2010, the government charged the Hammonds in a 19-count indictment with conspiracy, arson and other charges involving numerous range fires occurring in a 24-year period from August 1982 to August 2006. ER-1273. On May 17, 2012, less than 30 days before trial, the government filed a 9-count superseding indictment focusing on four separate fires. SER-137.
Steven Hammond had acknowledged starting two of the fires, and those were the fires upon which
6
the jury returned guilty verdicts. Both petitioners were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. Â§ 844(f)(1) in connection with a 2001 range fire known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire. Steven Hammond was also convicted of violating Â§ 844(f)(1) because he started a back burn during the 2006 Krumbo Butte Fire. The jury found that neither fire had caused more than $1,000 in damages. ER-35, 41.
The Ninth Circuit described the 2006 fire as fol- lows:
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.
App. 3.
As for the 2001 fire, there were several facts petitioners had acknowledged at trial: Petitioners had been warned after a 1999 prescribed burn on their private land had spread to public land that they would face serious consequences should a similar event occur again. Id. On September 30, 2001, after the Hammonds and their invited guests finished a day of hunting on their private land, Steven Ham- mond called the BLM to see if burning was per- mitted. After being told there was no burn ban in effect, he informed the BLM that the Hammonds would be setting a fire on a section of their private
7
land. ER-234; ER-306. The Hammonds then set a fire intended to burn off invasive species; the fire spread to approximately 139 acres of adjacent public land on the Hardie-Hammond Allotment. ER-287; ER-243; ER-54-64.
Some of the circumstances of the 2001 fire were disputed at trial. The government&#8217;s main witness on the 2001 fire was Dwight Hammond&#8217;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&#8217;s version of the events. See SER-11-22. At sentencing, the trial judge rejected Dusty&#8217;s version of what had happened, based on his age and bias. App. 14.
The trial judge found that the 2001 fire had, at most, temporarily damaged sagebrush and that, while those damages might have technically been greater than $100, &#8220;mother nature&#8221; had remedied any harm. App. 14. The judge&#8217;s conclusion was supported by the BLM, which had determined that the 2001 fire improved that portion of the federal land to which the fire spread. ER-305.
Having listened to all of the evidence and testi- mony at trial, the trial court succinctly summarized the basis for the convictions as follows:
With regard to the sufficiency of the jury verdicts, they were sufficient. And what hap- pened here, if you analyze this situation, if you listened to the trial as I did and looked
8
at the pretrial matters, there was a &#8211; there were statements that Mr. Steven Hammond had given that indicated he set some fires [after he had been warned about the conse- quences if they spread], and the jury ac- cepted that for what it was.
App. 13.
III. District Court&#8217;s Sentences.
The trial court&#8217;s advisory guidelines calculations were undisputed on appeal. The advisory range for Dwight Hammond was 0 to 6 months imprisonment, App. 15; the advisory range for Steven Hammond was 8 to 14 months imprisonment, App. 16.
Prior to sentencing, petitioners filed a memoran- dum seeking less than the five-year mandatory min- imum provided for under 18 U.S.C. Â§ 844(f)(1) on the grounds that such sentences would be disproportion- ate to their criminal conduct and, thus, would violate the Eighth Amendment. ECF-205.
At sentencing, the prosecutor addressed peti- tioners&#8217; Eighth Amendment argument as follows:
Perhaps the best argument, Judge, the defendants have in this case is the propor- tionality of what they did to what their sen- tence is. Perhaps that&#8217;s the most troubling for the court. It is for the prosecutor who tried the case. . . .
***"*


----------



## 7thswan

Video of actual shooting.[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBNC-ZA9OKE&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop[/ame]


----------



## painterswife

He almost hits someone while trying to evade the officers. Then he gets out of his vehicle and charges them. Puts his hands up as if to prove he is not shooting but then reaches down twice. 

On first glance he was the aggressor and may have been reaching for a gun. I am not surprised he was shot.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The reason I posted the appellate court's decision was to challenge Bearfoot's statement that they were "never charged with terrorism" and that is was only right wing media "hype" that they were jailed as such.
> The first part is technically true, *the charge was only arson,* but the threat of being charged under the terrorist statute was used to get them to plead guilty.


"Threats" are all in your mind.
You're still just repeating the same things over and over
The first judge didn't follow (broke) the law.

Cherry-picking phrases out of the court documents don't change the ruling at all.
They don't mean what you say they do



> The sentencing statute *in Oregon* is here:
> https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap...#Sec53a-28.htm
> What you will find is, the MAXIMUM sentence for arson in Oregon is 3 years, unless extraordinary circumstances are cited.
> In that case, it would have to be Arson I, a first degree felony, not a class C or D felony.
> http://www.crimevictimsunited.org/me...eriousness.htm


The above is a great example of how you like to post *irrelevant* "facts" that just tend to confuse things 
It makes no difference what Oregon *state* law says when it's a crime on Federal property


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> The first part is technically true, the charge was only arson, but the threat of being charged under the terrorist statute was used to get them to plead guilty.


They plead guilty? I thought they were tried & convicted by a jury.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> They plead guilty? I thought they were tried & convicted by a jury.


They were convicted by a jury on two counts of arson:

http://registerguard.com/rg/news/lo...utrage-over-harney-county-arson-case.html.csp


> PORTLAND &#8212; The seeds of this month&#8217;s insurrection at a Harney County wildlife refuge were planted in an unusual midnight deal struck in 2012 between prosecutors and Harney County ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond.
> 
> The long feud between the Hammonds and the government reached a surprise moment of consensus that night. After eight days of trial in a Pendleton courthouse on charges they had set illegal fires near their remote Eastern Oregon ranch, the parties agreed to abide by the jury&#8217;s partial verdict.
> 
> 
> The jury informed the judge it had concluded that the Hammonds were guilty of two counts of arson. On seven other counts, the jury had voted to acquit or was deadlocked.
> 
> The Hammonds agreed to accept the partial verdict, to accept U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan&#8217;s sentence and to waive their rights to appeal.


It's even stated in the long rambling post by farmrbrown:



> *the jury returned guilty verdicts*. Both petitioners were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. Â§ 844(f)(1) in connection with a 2001 range fire known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire. Steven Hammond was also convicted of violating Â§ 844(f)(1) because he started a back burn during the 2006 Krumbo Butte Fire. *The jury found* that neither fire had caused more than $1,000 in damages. ER-35, 41.


To fit his narrative though, there has to be a "*plea* bargain" or else the Govt won't look as bad


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> They were convicted by a jury on two counts of arson:


Interesting. I wasn't aware of that.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Threats" are all in your mind.
> You're still just repeating the same things over and over
> The first judge didn't follow (broke) the law.
> 
> Cherry-picking phrases out of the court documents don't change the ruling at all.
> They don't mean what you say they do
> 
> 
> 
> The above is a great example of how you like to post *irrelevant* "facts" that just tend to confuse things
> It makes no difference what Oregon *state* law says when it's a crime on Federal property


Would care to wager on THAT one?
It doesn't have to be for money, you name the stakes, big or small.



Bearfootfarm said:


> The first judge didn't follow (broke) the law.


I've already reviewed the Oregon state laws on sentencing, and shouldn't have a problem finding the exact ones allowing what the judge did.
But you insist otherwise, so I call.......
If what you say is true, cite the law the judge did not follow (broke).






Bearfootfarm said:


> They were convicted by a jury on two counts of arson:
> 
> http://registerguard.com/rg/news/lo...utrage-over-harney-county-arson-case.html.csp
> 
> 
> It's even stated in the long rambling post by farmrbrown:
> 
> 
> 
> To fit his narrative though, there has to be a "*plea* bargain" or else the Govt won't look as bad



Let me get this straight, because I'm confused.
First you don't like me "cherry picking" a few excerpts, then you go back to the old tired standby of my "rambling".
If there weren't so much misinformation in what you post, it wouldn't take near as many words to correct them.
But hey, I'm doing the best I can to keep up.




Nevada said:


> Interesting. I wasn't aware of that.



:umno:
The reason you aren't aware of it Nevada, is because the jury hadn't finished.
At least when you don't know something, you can admit it, there's nothing wrong with that, we all have things we don't know. I still learn new things even in the occupation I've worked in most of my life.
The biggest obstacle is when all the facts point one way and the person persists in accepting it.:doh:

I'll find the actual first trial transcripts and post it.
To summarize, the jury was halfway thru deliberations. They had decided the Hammonds were guilty of arson, but the judge rejected the sentence of the federal law which carried the 5 year minimum, primarily because the damage was minimal and it was started on their own land and spread onto the adjoining federal property. The jury also didn't believe anyone was in danger or that it was set intentionally to hurt federal employees, a requirement to convict under the USC ch.18 law I cited.
So the feds were losing their case, but the Hammonds were going to be convicted for a lesser charge .
THAT'S when the plea deal was made, before the jury finished deliberations, not uncommon at all.
The federal prosecutor wanted the minimum allowed under the law, 5 years, which is the minimum sentence under the federal law that they weren't going to convict them on.
They gambled and lost, when the judge sentenced them under the legal state guidelines.
The plea deal waived both parties' rights to appeal, but the gov't reneged and got an appellate court to agree, so back to prison they went.
Sentenced under the 1996 anti-terrorism law.

How 'bout THEM apples?
From previous link.
*"
V. Procedural History Relating to Govern- ment&#8217;s Right to Appeal.
As noted, in 2012, petitioners proceeded to trial on a 9-count superseding indictment focusing on a 2001 fire and a series of 2006 fires. Before that trial, petitioners filed numerous pretrial motions, many of which were denied and, thus, appealable. During trial, petitioners made numerous evidentiary objec- tions. After a two-week trial and several hours of jury deliberations, the jury initially returned a partial verdict. As detailed above, it found petitioners guilty of the only fires they admitted to setting. Petitioners were acquitted on some counts and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on others. ER-1256-66.
12
After the court received the partial verdict, it directed the jury to continue deliberating. ER-1267. During deliberations, the parties agreed to resolve the case with partial verdicts. ER-1268-70. Their agreement was oral, not written, and the terms were placed on the record in open court:
Prosecutor: My understanding is that Dwight Hammond &#8211; Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jun- ior, and Steven Hammond have agreed that they would waive their appeal rights and ac- cept the verdicts as they&#8217;ve been returned thus far by the jury.
The government will agree to run any sen- tences that apply to Steven Hammond, rec- ommend that they run concurrent. And would agree that they should remain re- leased pending the court&#8217;s sentencing deci- sion.
And the government does have only one rec- ommendation as an additional condition. The court, of course, has discretion to impose. That they need to waive any and all ap- pellate rights and [18 U.S.C. Â§] 2255 rights, except for, of course, ineffective assistance of counsel, which, quite frankly, in this case I think would be real difficult to prove. I think that&#8217;s a summary of our understanding.
Counsel for Steven Hammond: Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Steven Hammond has indicated after these discussions with the government that we want this case to be over. The idea is there will be no further proceedings beyond
13
this court and will be done with at the sen- tencing. Mr. Steven Hammond has agreed to that. He understands where we are.
Court: All right. Mr. Hammond &#8211;
Counsel for Steven Hammond: He wants it to be over. He wants this matter to be fin- ished.
Court: Mr. Hammond, do you agree to that? Steven Hammond: Yes.
Court: Do you have any other questions of your lawyer before I accept that?
Steven Hammond: I accept that.
Court: Is that a voluntary decision on your part?
Steven Hammond: Yeah.
Court: Thank you. Mr. Blackman?
Counsel for Dwight Hammond: Yes, Your Honor. I&#8217;ve conferred with Dwight Ham- mond. He is agreeable to waive his appellate rights to bring this matter to a close. And it&#8217;s our understanding that this would be a reso- lution of this case with the sentence the court imposes. And the parties would accept the &#8211; your judgment as to the sentence that&#8217;s imposed.
Court: Mr. Dwight Hammond, is that your agreement?
Dwight Hammond: Yes, it is."*


And THIS is the important footnote........


*"
1 Although the Hammonds did not enter guilty pleas, the Hammonds agreed not to contest the jury verdicts in exchange for the government moving to dismiss other charges. The re- sulting posture is the same as that following a plea agreement. We thus will refer to the oral agreement here as a plea agree- ment and apply to it the law governing plea agreements."*


Below is the proof that they were charged under the 1996 anti-terrorism act on May 17th, 2012....
http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/Hammond_superseding-indictment May 17 2012.pdf


----------



## MO_cows

Raeven said:


> What I don't think you're understanding, *farmrbrown*, is how sentencing guidelines work.
> 
> Judges do not have complete discretion to sentence someone to a term that they, themselves, believe a crime merits. The reason for this is to create consistency by judges in sentencing for the same crime. Sentencing guidelines, compliance with which is statutorily required, have been around for decades.
> 
> When someone is convicted of a crime, a judge may impose a statutory minimum or maximum sentence, or something in between the minimum and the maximum. *What they cannot do is sentence below the minimum or above the maximum.* In order to sentence to the minimum, then factors in mitigation must be stated by the judge on the record and must outweigh the factors in aggravation. In order to sentence to the maximum, factors in aggravation must be stated by the judge on the record and must outweigh the factors in mitigation.
> 
> What happened here is, the trial and sentencing judge sentenced *below the statutory minimum sentence*. On appeal, the Appellate Court found (very understandably) that the sentence was incorrectly imposed. Thus, they remanded the case for the trial judge to sentence the defendants properly -- which the judge did, and with which the defendants, the Hammonds, had no disagreement.
> 
> No big mystery about what happened, although not many people understand (or have any reason to understand) the particulars of sentencing guidelines.


I think what is giving people heartburn is, that "mandatory sentence" is from a statute which was passed as an anti-terrorism measure. So, prosecuting them under that statute was onerous. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. And somewhere I read that one of the fires in the case was from 2001. Geez Louise is there no statute of limitations?

I'm not a fan of "mandatory sentences" and "zero tolerance" type of crap to begin with. We had a guy in MO doing life for being a small time pot dealer thanks to "mandatory sentences". But on the other hand, one thief and troublemaker I know of can bounce in and out of prison for 25 years, so when does "3 strikes" catch up with him??

In addition, if their trial judge failed to follow the law, it seems they would be entitled to a new trial, doesn't it?

Sometimes there is a difference between what's "legal" and what's truly right or just. And to me, this is one of those times.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I've already reviewed the Oregon state laws on sentencing, and shouldn't have a problem finding the exact ones allowing what the judge did.
> But you insist otherwise, so I call.......
> If what you say is true, *cite the law the judge did not follow (broke)*.


Scroll back and find it, since it's been mentioned multiple times in multiple threads, and the constant repetition is tiresome


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Scroll back and find it, since it's been mentioned multiple times in multiple threads, and the constant repetition is tiresome


Didn't see it, how about a post #?


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, you keep* repeating* that theory.
> It's not going to change the end results
> 
> 
> 
> There was no "terrorism" charge
> 
> The *original arson charge* carried a mandatory 5 year sentence, and the Govt appealed the first incorrect sentence.
> 
> You should stop getting all your info from the hard core right wing propaganda militia sites if you're truly concerned about "misinformation"





farmrbrown said:


> What "law" did the lower court break?
> I'll add that *I* don't get as annoyed as you for a person repeating something, so in case you said what law the court broke before, would you tell me again?
> Were you referring to the appellate decision I linked, that found the first judge had erred in the *plea agreement?*
> The one that called for sentencing under USC 18?
> http://www.landrights.org/or/Hammond/Hammonds Appeal 9th district court.pdf
> 
> *"2
> UNITED STATES V. HAMMOND
> Filed February 7, 2014
> Before: Richard C. Tallman and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges, and Stephen J. Murphy, III, District Judge**
> Opinion by Judge Murphy
> SUMMARY*** Criminal Law
> &#65532;&#65532;&#65532;On appeals by the government, the panel vacated sentences for maliciously damaging the real property of the United States by fire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Â§ 844(f)(1), and remanded for resentencing, in cases in which the defendants set fires on their ranch land that spread to public land.
> The panel rejected the defendants&#8217; contention that the government waived its right to appeal the sentences in the plea agreements or otherwise failed to preserve its objection to the sentences. The panel explained that the principles governing the formation and interpretation of plea agreements leave no room for implied waivers.
> "*
> 
> *That law*?


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Unless you are talking about this post.

If you look at the link for the superseded indictment, you will find the prosecutors own words detailing the charge under the terrorism law.
I'd post it for you, but that might be considered "rambling".


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If you look at the link for the superseded indictment, you will find the prosecutors own words detailing the charge under *the terrorism law.*
> I'd post it for you, but that might be considered "rambling".


The "prosecutor's words" don't change the fact they were neither charged with nor convicted of "terrorism" 
We've had this conversation already, once at least 50 posts back



> I'll find the actual first trial transcripts and post it.
> To summarize, the jury was *halfway thru deliberations*.


That's simply false, and it has already been shown
Scroll back and read



> The jury informed the judge it had concluded that the Hammonds were guilty of two counts of arson. On seven other counts, the jury had voted to acquit or was deadlocked.
> 
> The Hammonds agreed to accept the partial verdict, to accept U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan&#8217;s sentence and to waive their rights to appeal.


They weren't "halfway through" at all. That was the end of deliberations.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> The "prosecutor's words" don't change the fact they were neither charged with nor convicted of "terrorism"
> We've had this conversation already, once at least 50 posts back


Quote the statute they were convicted of, I know that I already did.
It was in the indictment I posted as well as all the trial transcripts.
Explain how the indictment, written by the prosecution, are NOT the charges presented at the trial?
If that statute is NOT in the 1996 Anti-Terrorism law, then I will happy to inform the Hammond's lawyer so they can be released.




Bearfootfarm said:


> That's simply false, and it has already been shown
> Scroll back and read
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't "halfway through" at all. That was the end of deliberations.


Then you should have no problem finding the foreman of the jury's statement, read aloud in court, documenting their verdict.

I sometimes wonder you actually read documentation or just automatically assume everyone else is always wrong?

Why would the plea deal be mentioned in the appellate case that increased their sentence, if it didn't happen?


You can find it here, BTW.
#183 describes the last day.
http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/mmnu031v/oregon-district-court/usa-v-hammond-et-al/
The jury never returned to court after dinner. They were polled and the jury notes are recorded in a separate docket.
The results of their deliberations, still in progress, were given to the judge when the plea deal was offered and accepted. They never reached a verdict on counts 1, 7 and 8 because....................(hopefully this is coherent).....................the gov't dismissed those charges and the Hammond's agreed to be sentenced, knowing what the jurors had voted on *while they were still in deliberation*.
This is the statement made by the U.S. attorney.


*"Below is the complete text of both press releases from the the US Attorney's Office

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

To The Citizens of Harney County, Oregon

As the Acting United States Attorney for the District of Oregon, I write to the citizens of Harney County to address ongoing attempts by outside individuals and organizations that are making statements and using social media to express views which are clearly contrary to what occurred publicly in an open courtroom.

I understand that there are some individuals and organizations who object to the Hammonds returning to prison to serve the remainder of their sentences mandated by statute. I respect their right to peacefully disagree with the prison terms imposed.

However, any criminal behavior contemplated by those who may object to the court's mandate that harms someone will not be tolerated and will result in serious consequences. The following is a summary of the facts in United States v. Dwight and Steven Hammond, including the actions and positions taken by this office throughout the course of the case.

Five years ago, a federal grand jury charged Dwight and Steven Hammond with committing arson on public lands, and endangering firefighters.

The charges came after the Hammonds rejected an offer to settle the case by pleading guilty to lesser charges and sentences.

Three years ago, after a two-week trial in Pendleton, Oregon, a jury found 70-year old Dwight and his son, 43-year old Steven Hammond, guilty of committing arson on public lands in 2001. Steven Hammond was also found guilty of committing a second arson in 2006.

They were found not guilty of other arson charges, and while the jury was deliberating on the remaining charges, the Hammonds negotiated for the dismissal of those charges and a promise from the U.S. Attorney to recommend the minimum sentence mandated by law. The Hammonds assured the trial judge that they knew the law required they serve no less than five years in prison."

*


----------



## Bearfootfarm

More repetition

You're even starting to contradict yourself:



> Petitioners were acquitted on some counts and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on others. ER-1256-66.
> 12


That matches what I already posted:



> The jury informed the judge it had concluded that the Hammonds were guilty of two counts of arson. On seven other counts, the jury had voted to acquit or was deadlocked.


Now you are trying to claim they "never finished", when two sources have already shown they did.

"Partial verdict" doesn't mean the trial was stopped early. 

The constant rehashing and reposting the same material is *boring.*


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> More repetition
> 
> You're even starting to contradict yourself:
> 
> 
> 
> That matches what I already posted:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are trying to claim they "never finished", when two sources have already shown they did.
> 
> "Partial verdict" doesn't mean the trial was stopped early.
> 
> The constant rehashing and reposting the same material is *boring.*


I'm not claiming it "now", I said it from the beginning.
Here's a clue:
If the jury finishes and gives the verdict in court, it's too late to make a "deal".
The only boring repetition here is you being wrong and instead of just saying, "My mistake", you won't even take the courtroom documents as facts.
Good grief.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I'm not claiming it "now", *I said it from the beginning.*
> Here's a clue:
> If the jury finishes and gives the verdict in court, it's too late to make a "deal".
> The only boring repetition here is *you being wrong* and instead of just saying, "My mistake", you won't even take the courtroom documents as facts.
> Good grief.


I know you have, since I keep pointing out how often you keep *repeating *everything.

That's largely your opinion, nothing more.

The courtroom documents don't mean what you claim they do, and saying it once more, or 100 more times isn't going to change that.

The Govt never agreed to the entire "plea bargain", the Judge erred in the sentencing, and no one was ever charged with terrorism.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> I know you have, since I keep pointing out how often you keep *repeating *everything.
> 
> That's largely your opinion, nothing more.
> 
> The courtroom documents don't mean what you claim they do, and saying it once more, or 100 more times isn't going to change that.
> 
> The Govt never agreed to the entire "plea bargain", the Judge erred in the sentencing, and no one was ever charged with terrorism.


Correct.
You finally got it right.:thumb:

The Govt never agreed to the entire "plea bargain", they appealed the sentence when the judge used his discretionary authority.

The Judge erred in the sentencing, according to the appellate court, which I documented. They also ruled that it was legal to break the signed agreement.

And no one was ever charged with terrorism, because that isn't a specific crime. The many specific crimes that are classified as terrorism under the statute they were charged, include arson, theft, assault, murder, even vandalism.
The criminal act was arson, the charge that it was done with intent to harm federal employees elevated it to terrorism thus the minimum 5 year sentence.
The trial judge's opinion was that elevated charge was incorrect.

.........I'll save you the time of replying...........

"THAT'S WHAT I SAID ALL ALONG, there was no need for useless rambling."


----------



## Bearfootfarm

440 posts to get right back where it started. :shrug:


----------



## 7thswan

Here is the actual criminal complaint.
http://documents.latimes.com/oregon-protest-criminal-complaint/


----------



## Lisa in WA

What were they really hoping to accomplish? It seems like they only associated with people who shared their rather radical beliefs and somehow thought that most people would agree with them. 
Even here in the rural west, most people ridiculed them. They seem to be very disconnected.


----------



## Miss Kay

Now that they broke into a government facility, resisted arrest, and who knows how many other crimes, they will all be convicted felons. Which means, they can no longer have guns. Yep, the government will now take their guns or else they go back to prison. Wouldn't it have been better to just do a legal march on the capital, or start a petition for signatures, or heck maybe even run for office so they could change the laws they didn't like. But no, they had to go down in a blaze of glory only his buddies got cold feet and didn't jump out with their guns. Like they say, stupid is as stupid does!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Miss Kay said:


> Now that they broke into a government facility, resisted arrest, and who knows how many other crimes, they will all be convicted felons. Which means, they can no longer have guns. Yep, the government will now take their guns or else they go back to prison. Wouldn't it have been better to just do a legal march on the capital, or start a petition for signatures, or heck maybe even run for office so they could change the laws they didn't like. But no, they had to go down in a blaze of glory only his buddies got cold feet and didn't jump out with their guns.
> 
> *Like they say, stupid is as stupid does!*


Yes, we see that far too often


----------



## wr

Please keep discussion civil.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Bundy "believes in Govt", and isn't aligned with the 4 remaining protesters:



> Four militiamen still remain holed out at the Malheur refuge despite the fact that Mr Bundy has now urged the occupiers to go home.
> 
> Ammon Bundy's lawyer told the court that her client was "not an anarchist; he believes in government", that he was not aligned with those remaining at the refuge, and wants to go back to his family in Idaho.
> 
> http://thedailycroton.com/2016/01/31/prosecutors-use-refuge-occupiers-own-words-against-them/


----------



## Vikestand

Play stupid games win stupid prizes!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burn...undy-calls-for-refuge-occupation-to-continue/

One Bundy who is in jail calls for the stand-off to end, and the one sitting at home says it will continue.

It seems a little presumptuous of him to say "*we* the people of Harney County" when he's not even a resident of the state.



> Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy said Monday that the occupation at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge would continue.
> 
> In a notarized letter from Clark County, Nevada, Bundy wrote to Harney County Sheriff David Ward that :
> 
> &#8220;We the People of Harney County and also We the People of the citizens of the United States DO GIVE NOTICE THAT WE WILL RETAIN POSSESSION OF THE HARNEY COUNTY RESOURCE CENTER. (Malhaur [sic] National Wildlife Refuge).&#8221;
> 
> The letter was also sent by certified mail to Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and President Barack Obama.


They should decide who is in charge and what is the end goal


----------



## mmoetc

It's also nice that he's sitting safely at home while others fight his battle . Maybe he does have a future in government.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Federal Grand Jury indicts 16 in connection with standoff:

http://www.reuters.com/article/oregon-militia-indictment-idUSL2N15J032



> A U.S. grand jury returned an indictment on Wednesday against 16 people in connection with the armed occupation of a wildlife refuge in Oregon, prosecutors said.
> 
> The U.S. Attorney's Office in Portland did not disclose the charges contained in the indictment, which has been sealed, but said it would likely be made public soon. A previous criminal complaint charged 11 former occupiers with conspiracy to impede federal officers.


No details yet on the additional charges


----------



## Miss Kay

With the election and trump getting all the media attention, these guys are wasting their time not to mention blowing their future. They are just old news at this point waiting on the inevitable.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Miss Kay said:


> With the election and trump getting all the media attention, these guys are wasting their time not to mention blowing their future. They are just old news at this point waiting on the inevitable.


I'm still not sure what they thought this would accomplish, or why Cliven thinks it should continue.


----------



## farmrbrown

........


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Is there supposed to be a point there?
If so, it's not clear


----------

