The Kooks are Back

D Chapman · Mar 26, 2016

Mongo said:
It's easy to side with these guy's when the only exposure to them is the news and internet. They paint a picture of .gov ruining thier lives, seizing or taking land that's been in the family for hundreds of years, blah, blah, blah…When in reality they are fighting the system because of a warped interpretation of the constitution and aren't paying thier bills.

....... Most of these "patriot's" haven't paid the land use fee's or taxes. They post up interviews and crap all over internet to make people think they are singing kumbaya when in reality they are breaking the law.

This is a good point. For the last 20 years the Bundy's (not LaVoy) have not paid these fees. This is true. However, no criminal charges have been filed against Bundy, and no tax liens have been levied against Bundy or his ranch. So that begs the question, do the feds have a case? If so, why have they not tried to get this money or seize his property? It's been 20 years.

Personally, I think the feds would lose in the Supreme Court (that's not my expert opinion, Chris, just my personal opinion), and that's why the feds are shying away. If the feds had a bulletproof case it seems they would have gone for the throat a long time ago.

Most of this is because there are people who are willing to PAY MORE FOR THE LAND than the current lease and land owners.

Who's paying more?

I know the answer, of course. And that money is being funneled through the Clinton Foundation.

D Chapman · Mar 26, 2016

discostew said:
Did you read the article from the nytimes I posted. What is it you want explained? How a cop will shoot your stupid ass if he feels like your a threat to him?

LaVoy was a not a threat when he was driving away and FBI opened fired.

Or how taking over a gift shop and harassing a town won't help you argue a point about federal land management?

I just hope he did not steal all the lollipops.

What are you looking for? I just thought you wanted to go off about the man keeping us all down.

No, if you read some of my first posts you'll see that this case just interest me. I don't know why really, it just does. I feel there is a bigger case, or objective, hidden in here some place. It's the OJ Simpson case of 2016 for me. Right or wrong I believe the people involved have made some good points and I'd like to see how this plays out in the courts. It seems to have caught the eye of some big time Constitutional Law lawyers as well, so there must be something to it. I think it would be sweet if the BLM is found to be unconstitutional. It would be even sweeter if the EPA goes down with the BLM and we can once again buy a fucking gas can that's worth a shit.

discostew · Mar 26, 2016

Then would you not agree that they would not have furthered there argument a little better had they stayed inside the law. You keep saying that the FBI opened fire on the moving vehicle. Do we really know that's true? The two unreported shots that I see being contested happened right there at the scene of the shooting. Those guys got filmed bending down and picking up what is BELIEVED to be the two shell casings. I think the bottom line on Finicum ending up dead is that he made a cop feel like he was trying to pull a gun on him. Suicide by cop in my opinion. I think those guys fired a couple shots into the ground and started the behavior that got him shot, scared him into action kind of. I'm sure hoping that action would be getting on his knees and stopping the stupidity.

kennith · Mar 26, 2016

discostew said:
Remember a couple pages back when I said that the land here in the midwest was also owned by the gov. and that the large areas of land still owned by the gov. out west was in some way due to the fact that we just haven't expanded that far as a population. This whole argument about what to do with this land has been going on since we started expanding as a nation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/upshot/why-the-government-owns-so-much-land-in-the-west.html?_r=0

I would buy a nice 25 acre parcel that no good for farming or ranching as long as it wasn't desert.

I'm going to quote myself here:

The appropriate agencies administer land for the welfare of the nation and good of it's citizens (my words). It was put together under Truman to (again, in my words) un-fuck revolutionary and homesteading leftovers, and make sure territory was tended to in as balanced and forward-looking a manner as possible.

That said, one of the earliest precedents in this nation's history involves thirteen individually governed territories ceding land holdings directly to the Federal government, and that wasn't the last time. Various treaties forced the ownership of territory upstairs, and it's been slowly bleeding off into parks and private holdings ever since.

There's still plenty left if you want a square in the middle of nowhere. You'll find, however, that all you own are the rights to occupy the plane created by whatever set of nonlinear points you've chosen; nothing above, and nothing below.

I know it seems a bit of a cop-out nowadays, but that's the point of it all. Everything begins somewhere, and even things that happened so long ago can still cause hiccups. Until all that land is dispersed, Uncle Sam is going to have to manage it for us.

These events may have landed us in some bullshit situations, but they did happen. If they hadn't, we likely wouldn't have much land over which to argue anymore.

There are many reasons the Federal government maintains, sells, and administers lands; especially out west. They didn't just run out there with bulldozers and corral people into California so they could get their hands on it.

It will be well over a century before the situation is completely sorted. New and currently emerging technologies will accelerate the process, but it's still going to be a very long process.

Cheers,

Kennith

D Chapman · Mar 26, 2016

discostew said:
Then would you not agree that they would not have furthered there argument a little better had they stayed inside the law.

I think they stayed within the law from the 1930's sometime until 1993.

You keep saying that the FBI opened fire on the moving vehicle. Do we really know that's true?

At the first stop it is still questionable. Ryan Bundy says yes, the cops say no. The video is questionable as it does sound like shots being fired.

As the truck approached the road block shots were fired from an AR-15 by troopers and two questionable shots from FBI. Ryan Bundy was shot somewhere along the way. The FBI has all but admitted their team took some shots.

I think the bottom line on Finicum ending up dead is that he made a cop feel like he was trying to pull a gun on him. Suicide by cop in my opinion. I think those guys fired a couple shots into the ground and started the behavior that got him shot, scared him into action kind of.

We'll never really know unless some body camera footage emerges.

The problem, or at least the big(er) question, is why were the feds there? If there feds would not have shown up it would not have been nearly as escalated.

chris snell · Mar 26, 2016

Holy shit, Dan. That farmhouse in the woods has not been good to you. You should move back to the city and stop reading so many publications originating in the mountains of Idaho.

D Chapman · Mar 26, 2016

kennith said:
There are many reasons the Federal government maintains, sells, and administers lands; especially out west. They didn't just run out there with bulldozers and corral people into California so they could get their hands on it.

Didn't the gold rush take people west?

Mongo · Mar 26, 2016

D Chapman said:
I think they stayed within the law from the 1930's sometime until 1993.

At the first stop it is still questionable. Ryan Bundy says yes, the cops say no. The video is questionable as it does sound like shots being fired.

As the truck approached the road block shots were fired from an AR-15 by troopers and two questionable shots from FBI. Ryan Bundy was shot somewhere along the way. The FBI has all but admitted their team took some shots.

We'll never really know unless some body camera footage emerges.

The problem, or at least the big(er) question, is why were the feds there? If there feds would not have shown up it would not have been nearly as escalated.

You really have to ask why the feds were there…Did you enjoy some 'shine before you wrote that

discostew · Mar 26, 2016

Dan You need to go to law school. You would make a great Lawyer. I mean it. It's your calling.

kennith · Mar 26, 2016

D Chapman said:
LaVoy was a not a threat when he was driving away and FBI opened fired.

I still haven't watched any of this crap, so I don't know if that happened or not.

If it did, however, it all depends upon actionable intelligence available at the time; intelligence to which we do not have access. We don't know his threat level. We do know that he was part of an inter-state arrangement of resistance accused of violent, threatening, and damaging action.

Sometimes, you just can't let someone get away.

There is a point at which a man becomes a danger to civilians not involved in the action. If he was deemed a threat to public safety, and observed driving away in anger; and if intelligence suggested that he would use his freedom for nefarious action or furthering a violent protest... Take the shot.

I'm only agreeing with why the Federal assets were there and why they might have taken that shot if such a shot occurred.

There's an elephant in the room, and it's a big one. At that point, as much as I hate to say it, he'd committed an act of domestic terrorism. I know, he wasn't out tearing up cities, but his actions define the word far more accurately than those of the damned militant Muslims.

Call him a patriot if you'd like. I don't know what I'd call him, because I wasn't involved.

His actions may not seem like a big deal, but he riled a lot of people up in the process, picked up tons of media coverage, destroyed property, occupied a Federally administered service facility on Federally administered lands, armed himself, and threatened violence in protest of something he didn't like; and in the process of building to that stand-off, he took his party across state lines.

We have different rules for problems like this, and they are written to be executed in quick succession with maximum threat reduction. Sometimes they result in unfortunate outcomes, but many other times they stop a problem before it starts.

This situation went from reactionary to preemptive, and that means someone either got caught up in the moment, or unlocked the thinner rule book. The latter is not done lightly, but it is done quickly.

Agree with him or not. That's your business. In the end, if those shots were fired as you suggest...

He had them coming; whether he knew it or not. Doesn't mean he deserved them, but he had them coming.

Cheers,

Kennith

discostew · Mar 26, 2016

Ryan Bundy probably shot himself in the arm trying to get both sides of his face to smile.

Mongo · Mar 26, 2016

discostew said:
Ryan Bundy probably shot himself in the arm trying to get both sides of his face to smile.

OUCH...:rofl:

kennith · Mar 26, 2016

D Chapman said:
Didn't the gold rush take people west?

Some of them, but not all by a country mile.

There were plenty of incentives provided for western settlement. There have been some very adventurous times in our nation's history, when families took great risks to legally occupy a new territory and build a life.

In the age of the automobile, the Ford Model T allowed mass migration again. Times existed when great assemblies would gather out west in the creation of automotive shanty towns after the journey.

There is so much great history of western migration that people just don't study. They either don't know it happened, or aren't interested.

Cheers,

Kennith

D Chapman · Mar 27, 2016

Mongo said:
You really have to ask why the feds were there…Did you enjoy some 'shine before you wrote that

It's still a a state issue.

If some crazy guy beats the shit out of his wife and holds the kids hostage in your home town, does the FBI show up with their hostage negotiations team to settle the situation?

Ok, it's a "federal building on federal land". Is it, though? I don't think you or I are smart enough or knowledgeable enough to answer that. That's why folks like Larry Klayman and Krisanne Hall have jumped in voluntarily. These are constitutional gurus. They're not Supreme Count Justice material by any means, but they do have a pretty solid understanding of the constitution and it's history. Rand Paul is another, although he backed away from the Hammond/Bundy's a while back due to their activities. That does not change the core principal of the matter...

So the feds showed up in 2014, with guns, because Bundy did not pay his taxes??? You get held at gun point because you did not pay your fucking taxes? And folks wonder why things escalated the way they did in 2014. Our federal government and their special forces are there to protect our country from terrorists. No tax evaders. What terror did the Bundy's bring in 2014? The people in NY City brought more terror with the occupy wall street protests.

Fast forward two years. The feds talked some Judge into agreeing that Dwight and Steven Hammond did not serve a long enough sentence for starting a fire in 2006 and ordered them back to jail. The court agreed that anyone who starts a fire on federal property should spend so many days in jail, minimum.

Here's the back story to that:

"Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several ‘back fires’ in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed,” the government wrote. “The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.

Susan Hammond again explained her family’s thinking.

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

The Hammonds’ fires, part of an obscure beef between ranchers and BLM, might seem tangential — not the real center of a national news story about the Bundys’ hostage-free, would-be armed rebellion. But at least one federal judge opined that the Hammonds have been unfairly treated."

And the Judge ruled:

"It just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality,” U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan, who declined to impose the five-year sentence mandated by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, said. “I am not supposed to use the word ‘fairness’ in criminal law. I know that I had a criminal law professor a long time ago yell at me for doing that. And I don’t do that. But this — it would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me."

The problem starts in the 9th Court of Appeals:

"Hogan — who sentenced Dwight Hammond to three months in prison and Steven Hammond to one year and one day — was overruled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which upheld the five-year mandatory minimum sentence in October and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced accordingly."

Guess who nominated Judge Sidney R. Thomas to the Court of Appeals? You guessed it, Bill Clinton.

Mongo · Mar 27, 2016

D Chapman said:
It's still a a state issue.

If some crazy guy beats the shit out of his wife and holds the kids hostage in your home town, does the FBI show up with their hostage negotiations team to settle the situation? Nope, but if the guy is in a federal facility, they trump state on jurisdiction

Ok, it's a "federal building on federal land". Is it, though? I don't think you or I are smart enough or knowledgeable enough to answer that. That's why folks like Larry Klayman and Krisanne Hall have jumped in voluntarily. These are constitutional gurus. They're not Supreme Count Justice material by any means, but they do have a pretty solid understanding of the constitution and it's history. Rand Paul is another, although he backed away from the Hammond/Bundy's a while back due to their activities. That does not change the core principal of the matter… Agree, but the what is the core problem…To me it's the fact that people are taking advantage of the system and not paying the land use fees.

So the feds showed up in 2014, with guns, because Bundy did not pay his taxes??? You get held at gun point because you did not pay your fucking taxes? And folks wonder why things escalated the way they did in 2014. Our federal government and their special forces are there to protect our country from terrorists. No tax evaders. What terror did the Bundy's bring in 2014? The people in NY City brought more terror with the occupy wall street protests. I was following this, the feds showed up because of the lemmings and several of those morons were wanted on federal warrants. Golden opportunity for them to arrest a bunch of morons

Fast forward two years. The feds talked some Judge into agreeing that Dwight and Steven Hammond did not serve a long enough sentence for starting a fire in 2006 and ordered them back to jail. The court agreed that anyone who starts a fire on federal property should spend so many days in jail, minimum.

Here's the back story to that:

"Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several ‘back fires’ in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed,” the government wrote. “The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.

Susan Hammond again explained her family’s thinking.

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

The Hammonds’ fires, part of an obscure beef between ranchers and BLM, might seem tangential — not the real center of a national news story about the Bundys’ hostage-free, would-be armed rebellion. But at least one federal judge opined that the Hammonds have been unfairly treated."

And the Judge ruled:

"It just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality,” U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan, who declined to impose the five-year sentence mandated by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, said. “I am not supposed to use the word ‘fairness’ in criminal law. I know that I had a criminal law professor a long time ago yell at me for doing that. And I don’t do that. But this — it would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me."

The problem starts in the 9th Court of Appeals:

"Hogan — who sentenced Dwight Hammond to three months in prison and Steven Hammond to one year and one day — was overruled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which upheld the five-year mandatory minimum sentence in October and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced accordingly."

Guess who nominated Judge Sidney R. Thomas to the Court of Appeals? You guessed it, Bill Clinton.

So let me guess, you're not voting for Clinton…

There is so much backstory on what has transpired that you could post 5 pages of quotes and that only addresses the one issue. As for the back fires, you missing some very key facts:

#1. They set the fires on LEASED LAND. You don't own it and have to follow the rules and conditions set by BLM. Whether you like it or not. It's arson if you do not have permission to do a controlled burn. While it seems harsh, you have no idea the damage caused by wildfires and here's a quote "“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires. Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze,” Oregon U.S. Attorney Billy Williams said in a statement. “Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison. These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.” and another According to the U.S. Attorney’s office, the Hammonds argued during their sentencing that the five-year mandatory minimum they faced was unconstitutional, and the trial court agreed. But the Ninth Court of Appeals upheld the federal sentencing law, saying “given the seriousness of arson, the five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.” The Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds case

#2. There are multiple cases. From 2001 and 2006. They claim they were set to protect their property, but both were not controlled and burned federal land outside of thier lease agreements. The 2001 fire was set in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area, which is not part of thier lease. Also, part of the back story is they were poaching in the management area. Two different fires, one or thier land, one on the contested land that borders theirs.

I have a friend whose land borders a wildness area here and leases from the BLM. It pretty clearly stated in the lease what you can and can't do and he has ZERO ACCESS to the wildness lands that border his. And we are talking 30 square miles, not 300 acres. He cannot do controlled burns of any kind without permission. Plain and simple.

oh god…I'm quoting AND using BOLD letters...

D Chapman · Mar 27, 2016

Mongo said:
#1. They set the fires on LEASED LAND. You don't own it and have to follow the rules and conditions set by BLM. Whether you like it or not. It's arson if you do not have permission to do a controlled burn. While it seems harsh, you have no idea the damage caused by wildfires and here's a quote "“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires. Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze,” Oregon U.S. Attorney Billy Williams said in a statement. “Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison. These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.” and another According to the U.S. Attorney’s office, the Hammonds argued during their sentencing that the five-year mandatory minimum they faced was unconstitutional, and the trial court agreed. But the Ninth Court of Appeals upheld the federal sentencing law, saying “given the seriousness of arson, the five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.” The Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds case

That was the 2001 fires where they intentionally set fire to the leased lands.

The 2006 fire was a fire set to back-fire so their house and crops did not burn. It worked, however some of the fire accidentally jumped in the BLM land.....where there was a fire already burning. Nonetheless, their home and crops were saved.

#2. There are multiple cases. From 2001 and 2006. They claim they were set to protect their property, but both were not controlled and burned federal land outside of thier lease agreements. The 2001 fire was set in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area, which is not part of thier lease. Also, part of the back story is they were poaching in the management area. Two different fires, one or thier land, one on the contested land that borders theirs.

The 2001 fire was to coverup illegal hunting. That's a different case from the 2006 fire. The Bundy's were protesting the 2006 fire.

I have a friend whose land borders a wildness area here and leases from the BLM. It pretty clearly stated in the lease what you can and can't do and he has ZERO ACCESS to the wildness lands that border his. And we are talking 30 square miles, not 300 acres. He cannot do controlled burns of any kind without permission. Plain and simple.

The problem was not the fire. The Hammond's were found guilty, sentenced, served time in jail, and were released.

kennith · Mar 27, 2016

D Chapman said:
It's still a a state issue.

If some crazy guy beats the shit out of his wife and holds the kids hostage in your home town, does the FBI show up with their hostage negotiations team to settle the situation?

Absolutely.

If he's been accused of battery in one state, holds hostages in another, and keeps associations with other abusive husbands in both, he's already on the Federal naughty list. He's also holding those hostages on Federally administered property, right, even in my hometown?

Since that town has a population of -16 and is only a few minutes from a better one that has a resident agency and plenty of places to bring in more assets quickly, you can bet they'd be there.

D Chapman said:
Ok, it's a "federal building on federal land". Is it, though? I don't think you or I are smart enough or knowledgeable enough to answer that. That's why folks like Larry Klayman and Krisanne Hall have jumped in voluntarily. These are constitutional gurus.

Ask those people, then.

Cheers,

Kennith

D Chapman · Mar 27, 2016

kennith said:
Ask those people, then.

Cheers,

Kennith

kennith · Mar 27, 2016

D Chapman said:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/T424sWq1SkE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Don't waste energy trying to prove anything to me. I'm only tackling two issues, here; and they're academic in relation to the story that seems to have fascinated you.

I don't care about the motivations or belief involved. In my personal opinion, any such nonsense lasting this long is perpetuated by people that aren't bright enough to swim in the deep end of a pool. Tens of thousands of citizens who never even saw a high school had this stuff figured out and working for them over a century ago.

If these people still haven't it got it right in 2016, their family clearly hasn't visited enough bedrooms.

Cheers,

Kennith

D Chapman · Mar 27, 2016

I have no idea what you just said.

The Kooks are Back

1

1

Well-known member

Well-known member

1

Administrator

1

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

1

Well-known member

1

Well-known member

1

Well-known member

1