Patriots

Tammy, with all due respect, they were wrongly sentenced the first time. Appeals court overturned the sentence and they will have to serve remainder. Supreme Court refused to hear case. This is obviously legal. You can argue and I'd be sympathetic to it being unjust.

The Hammonds did not want or ask for the Bundy Militia to come. To their credit, they turned themselves in to serve the remainder of their sentence. The Bundy Militia, did in fact, hurt things. They plowed new roads through the refuge. Very likely over archaeological ruins from the Burns Paiute Tribe. They stole government vehicles. They threatened to kill anyone attempting to come in and arrest them. It is OUR land and I don't want our land to be occupied by snack less armed thugs. I really do hope they enjoyed the dildo I sent them. I never got to see if mine was one of the ones Jon Ritzheimer angrily tossed off the table. Meanwhile, it seems they are all gone. Back to their government disability checks, posting on Stormfront, and misinterpreting the constitution.

LOL on the dildo. Whether they were wrongly sentenced or not, in my opinion the sentence should have stood. I would need to do some more research to see if the "Bundy militia" did damage or not. If you have links I will read them. I did see an interview with a local sheriff who resigned over FBI agents, pretending to be protesters, coming in and causing trouble that was blamed on the people protesting. He had overwhelming support from the community.

What is stormfront?

Tammy

Stormfront is a neo nazi white supremacist site many of the patriot movement frequent. The guy who resigned was the Fire Marshall, not a sherif.

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/militants-continue-to-operate-bulldozers-move-soil-in-refuge-/

You're correct. It was the Fire Marshall. I forgot.

Tammy

FBI just realeased the footage of Lavoy being shot on their YouTube channel. A few things..

-Ammon Bundy was nowhere near the shooting scene so his story is bunk.
-Oregon State Police fired the lethal shots
-Lavoy did have his hands in the air... Right up to the point he reached towards his jacket multiple times, and lo and behold he had a loaded 9mm in his pocket.

That's what started the whole thing in 2014.
The Hammonds owed millions as they never paid for any of their grazing fees and grazed without a permit on public lands.

Then, they illegally shot wildlife and set fire to the land to cover their poaching.

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

I'm not a big fan of BLM. More often than not, they put private interests over the welfare of the public lands and wildlife that occupies it, selling out public lands to drilling, mining, fracking, grazing enterprises for minuscule fees while taxpayers subsidize these betrayals and destruction.

This is exactly why the armed Bundys and their ilk took over the wildlife refuge.

The Hammonds paid their grazing fees.mit was Cliven Bundy who hadn't. And still hasn't for that matter. He won.

Sigh. No Alana. What happened to the Hammonds is so wrong. They were charged with a crime and sentenced. Whether they did wrong or not, (I don't think they did), they plea bargained and were sentenced. They served their time and were released. The BLM came back and insisted that they serve the mandatory sentence of a minimum of 5 years so these men were taken back into custody to serve 5 years. I don't think that is legal in anyway. They were also charged with an act of terrorism. Really?????

The men who "took over" the wildlife refuge were protesting what happened to the Hammonds. It's called civil disobedience. I don't know what is in their hearts but they did no harm to anyone or anything by camping out on "government (controlled) land." They were protesting on land owned by the people. It's our land.

Just as you are passionate about environmental issues, I am passionate about loss of freedom and government overreach. Just like you, I try to stand up and support what I believe in. I give you no disrespect.

Yes, I wish I could be there to support them but I have a job and a child to raise and I can support them in other ways.

I don't know if you watched the links to the videos that LiquidFloride posted but maybe it would educate you. Not change your mind but give you a little more information. You could even go further and read about the Hammond case. It is very sad.

In any case, we all have our opinions, causes, and things we believe strongly in. It would be nice if our world was not so PC and we could have intelligent discussions with respect.

Tammy

HOLY CRAP, someone who actually researches the situation instead of just repeating MSM talking points.

A rare breed you are Tammy; I support careful intellect and critical thinking. If you ever want to go on a horse ride on the beach let me know, my treat 😉

They were protesting a sentence that was refused to be heard by Supreme Court. Lol. What critical thinkers. The Hammonds are where they should be. The Bundy Bunch is where they should be. I think now it's about time to go collect Cliven's $1M he owes me and you for using our land. Either that or seize his cattle. I like porterhouse steaks. Lots of them. Deliver them on a White Horse wearing Magic Undies too please

They were protesting a sentence that was refused to be heard by Supreme Court. Lol. What critical thinkers.

Yeah... SCREW the 5th amendment and double jeopardy! clearly you CAN be tried, sentenced, serve the sentence... then get sentenced all over again! (this is exactly what happened).

You see it does not matter what the situation is, the fact is this: the 5th and 8th amendments were violated...

The men completed their sentences and repaid about $400,000 in damages to the government.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/the-story-behind-the-malheur-armed-standoff/#KzWlrgwa77CopXkk.99

The constitution does NOT have an option where the "judge made a mistake, so you get to go to jail again"... if the justice system failed, it failed...

They were protesting a sentence that was refused to be heard by Supreme Court. Lol. What critical thinkers.

Yeah... SCREW the 5th amendment and double jeopardy! clearly you CAN be tried, sentenced, serve the sentence... then get sentenced all over again! (this is exactly what happened).

You see it does not matter what the situation is, the fact is this: the 5th and 8th amendments were violated...

The men completed their sentences and repaid about $400,000 in damages to the government.

Well the Supreme Court disagrees and since they interpret laws and the constitution I will let them play law expert not World Net Daily or a YouTube video. If you have MANDATORY minimum sentences (which I disagree with btw)
http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/the-story-behind-the-malheur-armed-standoff/#KzWlrgwa77CopXkk.99

The constitution does NOT have an option where the "judge made a mistake, so you get to go to jail again"... if the justice system failed, it failed...

I'm not too surprised he got shot after seeing this, though I still do not think he should have been shot...

If you can shoot a man when he lowers his hands, you can shoot him as he pulls a gun too... just wait a bit longer to make SURE he's going for a gun and not loosing his 55 year old balance or something...

Either way, running from costumed thugs who are waiting for an excuse to shoot is a terrible idea, I guess he got what he wanted. :[

in the above post I was talking about this video:
(lavoy in his vehicle, footage from a helicopter)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS5qo2gGdSY

Here's another interview with a LEO that gives a much different perspective... so now I'm not sure again what happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZbxmaWQj2A

I still think he should not have been shot, they did have an officer in the woods so they were ready to shoot before hand.

they never checked him for vitals, if he WAS armed like they said the normal procedure is to disarm him after shooting (even if they SEEM dead)... this wasn't done.

he was left for dead, this is not typical behavior.

They had 4 other armed people in a truck who were not exiting. I'm no fan of police but I would make sure the other suspects without holes in their faces were neutralized first before I lent support to a guy who wanted suicide by cop. Now since we are in the realm of conspiracies with this whole occupation.. My theory is Finicum was terminally ill and this was planned,

Spartygrad95, I am not a lawyer but I don't believe it is constitutional for the government to overturn or change a sentence when it has been agreed upon by all parties (plea deal) in a court of law. I would have to do more research to see if I am correct. I also believe the Supreme Court is doing a bit of overreaching these days as well. I am biased because I have been on the receiving end of government land grab and corruption. The government can and will destroy you if you try to defend and protect yourself from their greed and corruption.

It is very sad that anyone was killed and it is impossible to tell what was going on in the minds and actions of all the people involved without being there. I certainly cannot make any judgement or assumptions based on the video shown.

LiquidFluroide, JJ and I would love to go riding but maybe we could earn it by volunteering a day or two a week to help with the care of your horses.

Tammy

This isn't a government land grab. These have been federal lands for almost 100 years. Eminent domain and other government land grabs are BS. I agree there. You can't legally plea a mandatory minimum. I don't understand how the prosecutor and judge agreed to that. This is why we have appeals courts. The Hammonds are where they belong. Read the history of abuse and intimidation the Hammonds wielded on BLM employees.

I'm not disagreeing with you Spartygrad95. I said I am biased because of my own experiences. I have not educated myself enough on the history of the Hammonds so I have nothing to say about that. I will commit to saying that what we read and hear in the media is not always accurate and I can tell you from experience that the government will tell lies, plant evidence and do whatever they want to get what they want.

I haven't had time to read all the cases cited in the paper but what I have read is very interesting. I posted the link below in case anyone wants to read it.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation02.html

Tammy

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/11/us/the-larger-but-quieter-than-bundy-push-to-take-over-federal-land.html?referer=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com&_r=0

Here is another paper explaining Dual Sovereignty Doctrine as it applies to double jeopardy. It would seem to support Spartygrads opinion. Basically it is when two different jurisdictions can charge for the same crime. In the case we are discussing the crime was committed in both state and federal jurisdictions.

If the state had given the defendants the mandatory minimum sentence, the Feds would have probably let it stand. I think, however that the Feds would have to retry the case in order to extend the original sentence.

Very interesting opinions and case law in this paper.

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/dual-sovereignty-due-process-and-duplicative-punishment-a-new-solution-to-an-old-problem

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/29/oregon-occupiers-whine-treated-worse-ferguson-protesters.html

This isn't a government land grab. .

Since 1994, the BLM has been fining ranchers double the old rate and seizing their belongings and property when they fail to pay while arming its agents to intimidate Americans into compliance. At the Bundy ranch, BLM agents tried to force dissenters into "free speech zones."

Land grab in texas:
http://www.law360.com/articles/728055/texas-landowners-sue-blm-over-land-seizure-on-red-river
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/22/republicans-warn-blm-eyeing-land-grab-along-texas-oklahoma-border.html

More bureaucratic-screwery:

The federal government seized Raymond Yowell's cattle - all 132 head - and hauled them across the state and sold them at auction.

Then the U.S. Bureau of Land Management sent Yowell a bill for $180,000 for back grazing fees and penalties, and later garnished part of his Social Security benefits.

Now, nearly a decade later, the 81-year-old former chief of the Western Shoshone National Council is fighting back. He's suing the BLM, the Treasury Department and others for $30 million. Yowell claims the government violated his constitutional rights, broke an 1863 treaty and saddled him with a debt that he doesn't owe.

"There's no other way," said Yowell, a member of the Te-Moak Band of Western Shoshone, who still works a small cattle ranch with his son in northeast Nevada's high desert.

"I kept writing letters to them saying I didn't have a debt with them, that I never signed a contract," he told The Associated Press. "But they just ignored it. There's no use talking to them."

http://www.reznetnews.org/article/nevada-tribal-leader-81-sues-blm-30m

'Bigger than Bundy': Land agency's battles go beyond rancher dispute
t's the most powerful agency you've never heard of -- at least, until recently.

The Bureau of Land Management, the nation's biggest landlord, found itself in the spotlight after a high-profile brawl with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and another dispute with state officials over the Texas-Oklahoma borderlands.

But the seemingly obscure agency, which is in charge of millions of acres of public land, is no stranger to controversy. History shows the power struggle over property rights and land use is one that's been fought -- fiercely -- ever since the bureau was created.

Ivory says he wants the federal government to keep a promise it made in the 1894 Enabling Act that made Utah a state. He argues that public lands, except for congressionally designated national parks and wilderness areas, should be transferred back to the states.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/04/bureau-land-management-bundy.html

Quick history on the BLM's slow creep from owning nothing to owning 1/8th

The 1894 agreement was never repealed, Shortly following Utah’s statehood, however, the federal government moved away from its promises by shifting to a policy of retention. The result was the establishment of the Bureau of Reclamation in 1902, the first federal wildlife refuge in 1903, the U.S. Forest Service in 1905, and the National Park Service in 1916. In 1905, the National Forest Service was created by combining the General Land Office (the agency created for the purpose of disposing of the public land) and the Division of Forestry. In 1906 and 1907, President Roosevelt more than doubled the acreage of forest reserve.

This shift of policy was not lost on the Utah Legislature. In its 1915 Session, the Legislature urged the federal government to return to its disposal policy. Federal policy was not reversed. Rather, the policies of conservation and control were expanded over time. The move away from disposal of the public lands, and toward a policy of retention and preservation, culminated in the 1976 passage by Congress of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”). The Act declared that, “it is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless . . . it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest.”

https://senatedist23.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/utahs-enabling-act/

So while that's not a direct violation of law (I'd argue it is a violation of contract law) it's some shady shady dealings that the agency with the monopoly on force should NOT be allowed to do... it's rather tyrannical.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/29/oregon-occupiers-whine-treated-worse-ferguson-protesters.html

Awww, you collectivists are so cute! how's the view from over there on the left?

is that the echo chamber you hang out in mostly?

Lost in all that is much of the land was given away as part of homestead act. I'm truly not a collectivist, but I'm glad I got to go experience much of our nation's national parks and refuges.

Interesting NYT article

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/opinion/the-war-for-the-west-rages-on.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

I believe that it's important to keep our parks, wildlife refuges and sanctuaries our of the hands of private concerns, free of fracking, drilling, mining, deforestation, grazing, hunting, invasive roads and traffic and moochers.

Logging and hunting play a vital role in preservation of flora and fauna. Even on public lands. You can hunt on national forest area in Michigan I know, I've done it.