Lavoy Finicum, The FBI, and Why You’re Missing the Point

Here is the link to the podcast it’s also available through any podcast app under “the unallowable opinion” http://theunallowableopinion.libsyn.com/lavoy-finicum-the-fbi-and-the-big-point-that-youre-missing  And feel free to go over and like us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/TheUnallowableOpinion/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

Lavoy Finicum, The FBI, and Why You’re Missing the Point

Throughout the past month we have heard news here and there about the “standoff” in Burns, Oregon.  I’m not going to get into the specific reasons why the group was there, to sum it up, it was a protest against unconstitutional federal government power.  As part of their protest, the group occupied an empty federal building and aired their grievances.  This last week we all read and heard about the “shootout” between the FBI and a small group of the protestors.  There are a couple of things we need to clarify about this confrontation.  First off, it wasn’t a shootout.  In order to have a shootout, you must have two parties shooting at each other.  This wasn’t the case as the FBI gunned down a man in cold blooded murder.  Secondly, the accounts from the FBI and from witnesses with Lavoy have extreme differences.  For example, the FBI says they only fired three shots, but when Victoria Sharp an eighteen-year old girl who was a passenger in the vehicle heard that, she said, “Are you kidding?  They shot maybe 120 times.”

A video recently surfaced from the FBI that showed the encounter.  Caleb and I break down the video in the Podcast so I won’t include that in here.  I’ll just say one thing; the video quality is pitiful.  It was shot from an FBI drone in the sky, there is no audio, you can’t see any detail, and the video is inconclusive to say the least.  The FBI’s story is that Lavoy Finicum was reaching for a gun and that is why he was shot.  All we have heard in the main stream media and on social media is whether or not the shooting was justified because he was going for a gun.  We can argue that point all day, without getting anywhere because there is not “indisputable video evidence” for either side.  The fact is, it doesn’t matter!  While we bicker over whether or not the shooting was justified, we are all missing the bigger picture here.

Why was there a roadblock set up in the first place?  Why was there such a display of force for something that had been peaceful up to this point?  When we contrast this protest with the riots in Ferguson or Baltimore, why were they handled so differently?  The answer to all these questions are the same; the Federal Government was trying to send a message.  This protest wasn’t minorities against white cops and police brutality.  It was The People versus the Federal Government.  This group was traveling to speak to a crowd in another city to spread their message of, abuse of government power.  They were exercising their rights to free speech and to peaceably assemble.  Last time I checked, those rights are still guaranteed by the constitution.  Nonetheless, the FBI told them not to go, and when they decided to go anyway, there were roadblocks and armed federal agents to prevent them from getting there.

The Federal Government’s message was loud and clear: “we are not afraid to kill those who stand up against our usurpation’s of power.”  The FBI never intended for this to end peacefully or there wouldn’t have been a roadblock set up in the first place.  Is it any coincidence that the only evidence we have of what actually happened is low quality video from a drone that poses more questions than it answers?  Why is there not more media coverage on what happened?  Can you imagine if this was a young black man shot by the cops?  There would be riots in the streets, with 24/7 media coverage.  There is no coverage however, because it does not fit the narrative of whites vs blacks.  It doesn’t divide the people against each other.  Instead, this is a story that should unite the people together to question the unconstitutional actions of our government.

It is no accident that cops stood by and watched in Ferguson and Baltimore as rioters violently broke the law and destroyed property, but in this case they were quick to exercise extreme force and kill a man.  Victor Hugo, author of the famous Les Miserables, once said “there is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come”.   The Federal Government’s purpose in killing Lavoy Finicum, wasn’t to kill a man but rather to kill the idea that he represented.  He was on his way to share that very idea with the group gathered in John Day, Oregon, and it is the idea I want to share with all of you.  The Federal Government has destroyed the constitution and chains with which it was once bound, and the time is coming for the people to step up as the jealous guardians of our God-given rights guaranteed by the constitution.  I firmly believe that the time is coming when this idea will come to fruition.  The government is afraid of such an idea, and they should be.  It is a powerful idea.  It is an idea that the Federal Government does not want the American people to believe in.  It is an idea worth killing over, and it is the idea we should all be talking about.

If you are still arguing over whether or not he was going for a gun and should have been shot, you are still not getting it.  Lavoy has been labeled a “traitor”, “terrorist” and “enemy of the state” because he stood up to the abuses of his government.  With that logic I suppose we could call every founding father who signed the Declaration of Independence a traitor and a terrorist, who pledged their “lives”, their “fortunes”, and their “sacred honor” to these words in that declaration.

“Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The founders understood that the constitution was just a piece of paper.  It alone could not restrain the monster that is Federal Government.  It is the “right” and the “duty” of the people to protect their rights against government.  We are the only ones who can hold our government accountable. Samuel Adams once said,

“No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.”

 It is time for us to stop arguing about whether or not Finicum was going for a gun.  That’s not the point.  The point is, we are tamely surrendering our liberties in modern day America.  Ignorance abounds, we are sinking under our own weight, and it is time for something to change.

References

Channel, T. A. (2016, January 29). Youtube. Retrieved from youtube.com: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWXBITTC4fw

Jefferson, T. (1776). The Declaration of Independence.

 

Advertisements

271 comments

  1. Thank you for a clear account of the events.Your article plus all the comments(excluding government trolls)from the readers should inform anyone with an intelligent and open mind as to the level of corruption and tyranny by the U.S.Corporation against the people of the several states.I listened to a Nevada radio station that the Finicum family must have a closed casket because he no longer has a face.From the further accounts I have heard they were lured to a meeting to ambush them.Smacks of Ruby ridge in the manner once again the FBI agents were laying in wait poised to kill.I live in NYC and am usually the odd man out of step with the growing culture of Democracy , social justice and statism.Fewer Americans comprehend that U.S citizenship is a type of slavery which no American should volunteer for or into such a system. Yet here in this page I read the SPLC/ADL talking points.Talk about the Republic and the constitutional law and they call us terrorist. Well,good work and God Bless Mr.Finicum and his family.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. NY NATIONAL

      “He was on his way to share that very idea with the group gathered in John Day, Oregon, ” copied and pasted from article that you said “Thank you for a clear account of the events” about, but then you comment that they were “lured to a meeting”. Good informed post!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. the funny thing is , black lives matters burned , raped and pillaged baltimore and ferguson and the federal government turned a blind eye, going against local law enforcement. they were not called terrorist or occupiers. they were reported as protest. not one was shot and killed by the FBI. The ranchers didn’t declare war on the federal government. the federal government declared war on the west, ranchers, farmers, miners, logger, lumbermen, fishermen, and land owners. The government is blocking access to our public lands, the “shovel birgade”, some years back. the “bucket birgade” miners are stopped from mining their claims on public lands, a right that go,s back a hundred and fifty years. We have farmers being raided and arrested for selling flippin milk. we have loggers and lumbermen that cant harvest trees on public lands, in witch money went into and o and c fund the help pay for roads and school. city folks don.t understand what is happening in rural America, all they here is government spin doctors. The latest group to be targeted is gun owners, our we to brand thousands upon thousands of good hard working Americas as terrorist because they refuse to give up their arms. ( god forbid) many in rural America use guns to harvest game to feed their families other for sport and protection. The second amendment not only protects your individual right to live as a freeman, but it also protects WE the PEOPLE from an out of control government. In the words of Thomas Jefferson ” The people can be trusted with THEIR government ….. whenever things get so far wrong to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set it to right. or the father of this great and beautiful land, George Washington ” I shall carry to my grave the hope that YOUR union and brotherly affection my be perpetual; that the constitution may be sacredly maintained and that free government…. the ever sacred object of my heart will be the happy reward of our mutual cares, labors and dangers, agenda 21, the ESA, and the wild lands project in no way trump the constitution of the united states, the supreme law of the land. im just a simple country folk who loves his country, and i ask you city folk to stand up and fight for our most sacred founding document THE CONSTITUTION, for without it we have NOTHING. and all that paid in blood defending her will have died in vain

        Liked by 3 people

      2. America,

        BANG ! Let the domino affect roll down hell. The criminal intent, conspiracy, conflict of interest and aiding and abetting against the Hammond’s by our CORRUPT Government that are directly and indirectly connected the American BAR Association “AKA British Accredited Registry / NAZI PARTY.” These Co-conspirator with the FBI and mercenaries; cost the Life of LaVoy Finicum… ;-(

        1) 9th Circuit Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court of Oregon ANN AIKEN-KLONOSKI

        2) Lead District Attorney AMANDA MARSHALL

        3) Harney County Judge STEPHAN GRASTY

        4) Mayor of Portland CHARLIE HALES

        5) Attorney Adviser Department of Inspector General 9th Circuit Court of Appeals JAKE KLONOSKI

        6) Brother to Jack ZACH KLONOSKI

        7) Sheriff DAVE WARD

        😎 and OTHERS

        Power Corrupts Absolutely: Ties that Bind Run Deep with Aiken Family in Hammond Case – The Shasta Lantern

        https://shastalantern.net/2016/01/power-corrupts-absolutely-ties-that-bind-run-deep-with-aiken-family-in-hammond-case/

        Liked by 2 people

    2. America,

      BANG ! Let the domino affect roll down hell. The criminal intent, conspiracy, conflict of interest and aiding and abetting against the Hammond’s by our CORRUPT Government that are directly and indirectly connected the American BAR Association “AKA British Accredited Registry / NAZI PARTY.” These Co-conspirator with the FBI and mercenaries; cost the Life of LaVoy Finicum… ;-(

      1) 9th Circuit Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court of Oregon ANN AIKEN-KLONOSKI

      2) Lead District Attorney AMANDA MARSHALL

      3) Harney County Judge STEPHAN GRASTY

      4) Mayor of Portland CHARLIE HALES

      5) Attorney Adviser Department of Inspector General 9th Circuit Court of Appeals JAKE KLONOSKI

      6) Brother to Jack ZACH KLONOSKI

      7) Sheriff DAVE WARD

      😎 and OTHERS

      Power Corrupts Absolutely: Ties that Bind Run Deep with Aiken Family in Hammond Case – The Shasta Lantern

      https://shastalantern.net/2016/01/power-corrupts-absolutely-ties-that-bind-run-deep-with-aiken-family-in-hammond-case/

      Like

    3. To My Knowledge is wasnt the FBI who shot Lavoy, it was a State Policemen , but Lavoy had no weapons as I knew, they had been left in the Vehicle

      Like

  2. Just wondering why you insist in living in America when you hate the government and all it stands for so much.If you are so set on overthrowing the power of the government, please feel free to go somewhere you feel comfortable…I can already here the rants and raves, but save it, because I truly don’t care how picked on you feel. If you hate it here feel free to go somewhere else.

    Like

    1. Marty, in all due respect, you are an idiot. According to you, everyone should just go along with the status quo. He LOVES this country as I do, however it’s the government we fear. We are losing our rights daily as our government gets bigger daily.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Anyone who wants to “just follow order” and obey anything is a slave and allows a master to tell them what they can do, say, eat, drink, smoke, when they can come and go, but we free people choose to be free. I see many abuses of the king against the colonists happening today as I read the Declaration of Independence.Those who wish to be free need to band together and fight for our God given rights. Join us on http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org We have a free civics and constitution course.

        Like

      2. Just curios Marty why you cant see the UN, and EPA, and the Land Grabs, and think everyone who doesnt like them should leave?, why do you think Trump has so much Support, the Founding Fathers wrote the “Enumerated Powers” to LIMIT the Size and Scope of Government, see if you can Find Land Grabs hidden as Management, or The Power to create the EPA?, BLM?, and a Host of Other Agencies that the Government has neither the Power or The RIGHT to create…..then get back with me..

        Like

    2. Actually we love the country, and love what the government is supposed to be. Key word SUPPOSED. The founders of our country did not want an all powerful central government resembling the one they fought hard to remove.. IN part, that is the reason behind the second amendment. This whole thing is over states rights and the federal government’s refusal to recognize them.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. We fought a war in this country over ‘states rights’ and the secessionist, proponents lost. It is not particularly intelligent to continue that pursuit…but would serve better to find ways to work toward finding solutions. But remember, just because YOU object to a government policy [BLM for instance] doesn’t mean that it will or should ever change. Much less does it justify misrepresentation of government and yourselves and engagement of violent actions to get your way. That constitutes terrorism and it is directed not at some vague Washington or government employees…but at US. All of us.

        Like

    3. 10-4 Marty. It’s time for the libertarians to grow up and use the (constitutional) vote if they want change. There’s no place in America for armed resistance based on private opinion.

      Like

      1. 1) Libertarians are in the same minority as ranchers, too few to vote in anything
        2) Our country was founded in armed rebellion
        3) One of the main reasons behind the 2nd amendment was to be sure there was an armed public to keep the government in line

        Liked by 3 people

      2. That’s all nice, however, the US Constitution says otherwise. The idea of armed conflict should be the last thing we do, however, there is a point when it is our obligation to “throw off” a corrupt and oppressive government. I’m not sure we are there yet, but you have to consider it.

        Like

      3. The Constitution does not authorize a citizen armed revolt. Constitutionally citizen’s arms are strictly for defense, protection, from physical attack.

        Like

      4. Alan Douglas – while you are technically correct that the Constitution itself does not specifically specify the right to armed resistance, the Declaration of Independence as well as the 2nd and 9th Amendments DO provide for such a scenario. Not to mention the very basic of Natural Rights and Law…

        Like

    4. Marty, you are not an idiot. I have no intention of leaving America, but at the same time I have no intention of feeling sympathy for people, dead or alive, that occupy federal buildings. There were many other peaceful ways to get their point across without bringing the wrath of the FBI down upon them. People need to think about where their foot steps are taking them before they wind up dead in the snow. Death cannot be cured, only prevented. thanks

      Like

      1. Bob

        So because peaceful means HAVE been tried for 30 years and have gotten the Bundys no where, that means it is time to be unnpeaceful?

        Like

      2. Violent compared to what Pat? They didn’t burn down buildings, loot stores, or turnover police cars. They didn’t close down freeways or waterways. They even allowed people there who were protesting AGAINST what they were doing. They did tear down a fence which BLM put up illegally. The only violence in the whole thing was perpetrated by “law enforcement.”

        Liked by 3 people

    5. It is NOT that any of us “hate it here”, it IS that we HATE the ‘powers that be’ who have subverted the Constitution of this great land and this once great country. The land is great. The people as a whole are great. The ideas perpetuated by the founding fathers of this country are great. The thieves and liars who presently govern this once great country are doing their damnedest to destroy the values that built this country and enslave those live here now. I and we who were born here should not “have to leave” because we do not like what the thieves and liars are doing here. To leave and go somewhere else would be both traitorous and cowardly. To stay and resist the destruction of our values by the thieves and the liars who seek to destroy our way of life is not only our right but our duty !

      Liked by 4 people

    6. Marty, this is not a kingdom with rulers it is a republic with elected officials to “govern”. These elected officials are no longer able to know the difference. The government is not our beloved U.S.A. WE ARE! We are trying to overthrow THIS government with the “ballot box” while this government is turning our country into a “war zone”. Read the Constitution and you will see just how Stupid your comments were.

      Liked by 2 people

    7. Marty, I believe you would be happy to see us leave, not fight for our freedoms offered by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Happy to remove those who know they can think for themselves, study and learn the realities of what his government is and is not. We built it to be free of overlords, kings, princes and tyrants. As years go by our inactivity, lack of involvement and shear ignorance the government continues move to a more socialist form of government. A government that says we are unable to make our own decision, unable to form creative thought, unable to know the why and what for. Personally, and sure there are others, I will stand and I will express my beliefs here in this Country, the United States of America. I will not leave. Mostely just to see if you can come up with next.

      Liked by 3 people

    8. We don’t leave,because this is our country and we aren’t cowardly Syrians who are willing to rollover, runaway and give up our rights and our land that was paid for with the blood and sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of patriots,any of them my blood relatives. If you wish to live with out your freedoms and rights then you are the one who can move ( North Korea seems to suit your beliefs of comfortable living) this country was made with all these freedoms and rights in place and it isn’t something any true American is willing to give up.

      Liked by 2 people

    9. I don’t understand anyone who would defend a government that is so openly and obviously corrupt. People who do not exercise the constitution and the bill of rights are the ones who may feel free to leave this country.

      Liked by 2 people

    10. The government is what we allow it to be! The government is controlled by us, not the other way around , except maybe for a few such as you and your thinking . Your best choice sound be to leave yourself , and go to China, Cuba, Russia or some government controlled country . You are the prime example of what is wrong with our country , I bet you lick your governments boots 3 times a day for your meal, and we all pretty much know what you have from them for your creamy dessert !

      Like

  3. I live here because I’m an American born United States citizen. The problem is a corrupt, power hungry, money driven career politicians. I hope that myself along with the US Americans get rid of this type of government. First, every politician lives on the same they vote in. Example they don’t get their own health care, they get what they vote for everyone, have the same social security, medicare, pay taxes, vacations paid by themselves, drive their own vehicles and pay maintenance from their pay, like most of us have to, not vehicles paid by tax payers. Our government has forgot the tax payers pay their wages. I look at this way I’m their employer. They need to be held accountable for mistakes, ablilty to be fired, like the rest of working Americans. The time has come for US citizens to over throw our government and take our country back.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Absolutely agree I also loved paying for dumb ass Obama to fly in to be on a talk show today what about you? We cant feed homeless or take care of our vets but, hey feel free to spend our tax money to embarrass us more on a talk show.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Your summation of what and why is right on the money! As a former leo/retired, I can easily see that the ONLY EVIDENCE of what happened is the poor quality video. And the Feds didn’t release it in the name of justice….it was released because it shows absolutely nothing that can be used to besmirch their rep or their version of what happened! I have stated on several other blogs that everything We the People say about the incident is hearsay! Talk, with little to support whatever contention is being made! Was the vehicle riddled with gunfire? Possible, but it’s hearsay only! To be proven, pictures of the vehicle with holes everywhere and the glass shot out will be REQUIRED for proof! Personally, I have reviewed every available vid, original, enhanced, blown up…….I see no evidence, nothing to support ANY shots riddling the truck….again, this viewing the poor quality video. With this is mind, I wonder about agent provocateurs spreading stories to make the patriots look like “lying, anti government” loons! On the same hand, if the Feds have nothing to hide, they would produce Finicums truck to show it wasn’t all shot up. Their silence is deafening. My guess is that the truck will be held as evidence till it is no longer needed and then will be crushed and destroyed, a la the OKC bombing/WTC debris………As for LaVoy being shot multiple times…..Someone should have taken pictures of the body, better yet, there should have been another independent sutopsy! Rather than standing around yelling the sky has fallen, patriots should have pushed for and paid for this! It would have answered a multitude of questions! Again, I think you were on the money with your article, but I feel any opportunity to reach the truth about this “Armed Standoff/Shootout is slipping away. We will be left to ponder whatever story they feed us! One more point: We have pondered for months if not years, wondering if there were men in the government that would take the “Nuremberg” stand. “I was following orders,” and shoot American citizens: I think that question has been answered in spades! We have seen the enemy and it is us! Also, the “reporting parties” (cop talk) and the witnesses to the truck being shot up need to be thoroughly vetted!

    Like

    1. The Finicum family has supposedly done an autopsy, but nothing releaased yet. Links to article and Finicum family statement in one of my earlier posts.

      Like

    2. The family had a private autopsy done, my guess is that it will not be made public until the possible “wrongful death” hearing. Please analysis this for us: http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/file/816166/download
      All that I see in Katherine D. Armstrong’s affidavit is hearsay. She uses “local news report”, so tell me who is “local news reports” and is that first hand knowledge of the claims? She uses videos of Pete Santilli who is exercising his 1st Amendment right to free speech. I don’t see a seal on the document, no address of the court. I would also require a sworn affidavit of any law enforcement or witness to this crime. I would also require that all law enforcement uphold their oath of office, if they even have one. I asked for Judge Stacie Beckerman’s oath of office, the Oregon secretary of state first told me it was not public information, then she told me it would be in the county where she took her oath. Please check into this affidavit, ask questions of these public officials. Do we know who fired at LaVoy?

      Like

    1. Jesse,
      Hard to get facts when the FEDS will release nothing!!! Where is the audio / video from @ ground level….have you asked that or don’t you care? This entire killing STINKS of a cover -up and if you see it otherwise your willfully blind!!

      Like

  5. I believe that many Americans are truly arrogant, how can anyone not see that this was a premeditated murder. What on earth are the deaf and blind reading? Wait until it comes to you personally, and it will, keep thinking it wont, but , I guarantee you , you will eventually feel it, and it will be too late for you.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Think about this!!! The Bundy bunch don’t own the federal land—we all own it. The rest of us have to follow
    the law and they should too. When I go hunting on federal land and break the law I get fined. When they rent the land for their cattle they should pay the rent. They think they are above the rest of us.

    Like

    1. Actually Bundy is trying to let YOU (and a lot of other people) know that the federal government does not actually own, nor have the right to be controlling the so called federal lands.

      Like

      1. I’m just going to cover the part of the Constitution that explains the federal government’s limitations to owning land within a state, and will capitalize in between sections so you can understand it. Very simple and straight forward English with NO room for misinterpretation… Article I, Section 8, clause 17 Perhaps the most important part of this is the LAST LINE….

        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,

        THE ABOVE IS REFERRING TO THE CREATION OF A SEAT OF GOVERNMENT TO THE UNITED STATES, WHICH COULD BE NO LARGER THAN 10 MILES SQUARE (OR 6,400 ACRES)

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

        THIS EXPLAINS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS TOTAL AUTHORITY OVER FEDERAL LANDS, BUT ALSO REQUIRES THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST NOT ONLY PURCHASE THE LAND BUT ALSO REQUIRES THAT ANY LANDS SOLD TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST ALSO BE APPROVED OF BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE IN WHICH THE LAND IS BEING SOLD.

        for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

        IF YOU WILL NOTICE THIS IS A VERY SPECIFIC LIST OF THE ONLY APPROVED PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY OWN LANDS WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL STATES.

        Do a search for Ken Ivory, who is spearheading Utah’s push to have the federal lands returned to their control. He explains how the equal footing doctrine was illegally ignored in the formation of the western states.

        Like

    2. This is where there is a lot of confusion (caused by the BLM and USFS.)

      Before the Taylor Grazing Act, anyone who wanted to graze on federal land just turned their cattle out. In order to keep the land from being destroyed by over grazing, they broke up the land into “grazing allotments” and sold the grazing rights which were associated with the deeded land of the rancher who bought them, and are transferred with the deed to the ranch. This works like mineral rights or water rights, where the rancher only owns the grazable/browsable forage.

      Eventually, the government decided they could manage the grazing better and came up with “management fees” and eventually changed their terminology to “lease fees,” They are not truly “lease” fees but “management fees.” This makes the whole case a matter, not of refusing to pay lease fees, but one where they refused to pay management fees to an agency which was not just mismanaging,the land, but which was trying to force them off the land under the false flag of an endangered animal (which was not endangered or threatened.

      Further confusing the issue is that even though they owned the grazing rights, they had to allow hunters, fishermen, campers and whoever else wanted to spend time on their allotments to do so as they only have the grazing rights

      Like

    3. When they tell you “You can’t hunt here anymore” what will you say? When they destroy all the dams and reservoirs, what will you say when you can’t find a drink of water? When you are forced into a 450 ft space, stacked up like a chicken coop, what will you say? When you can’t drive to your hunting grounds and only allowed to use public transportation, what will you say? It’s all coming under UN (foreign) Agenda 21 and 30. Tell us how you will feel then.

      Like

  7. LaVoy Finicum – not under arrest and attempting a peaceful resolve received 9 bullet holes from law inforcement agencies. All in a attempt to stand up for his freedom and in support of the Constitution.
    He had a peaceful funeral where over 1000 supporters of the Constitution attended.

    Like

  8. Bob
    I would agree with everything in Art I Sect 8 Clause 17. No arguments here. But you fail to mention the Property Clause of the Constitution. Art 4 Sect 3 Clause 2
    “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.”
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv
    With the last part being the most important. This part of the Constitution would supersede Art I.

    You also, if you haven’t already, should read the Supreme Court decision in the following case. I have copied and paste some of the findings of that case here.
    Kleppe v. New Mexico
    426 U.S. 529 (1976)
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/426/529/case.html
    Page 426 U. S. 542
    powers, which are not involved in this case, with its powers under the Property Clause. Congress may acquire derivative legislative power from a State pursuant to Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, of the Constitution by consensual acquisition of land, or by nonconsensual acquisition followed by the State’s subsequent cession of legislative authority over the land. Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. at 371 U. S. 264; Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. at 114 U. S. 541-542. [Footnote 11] In either case, the legislative jurisdiction acquired may range from exclusive federal jurisdiction with no residual state police power, e.g., Pacific Coast Dairy v. Dept. of Agriculture of Cal., 318 U. S. 285 (1943), to concurrent, or partial, federal legislative jurisdiction, which may allow the State to exercise certain authority. E.g., Paul v. United States, supra, at 371 U. S. 265; Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U. S. 518, 304 U. S. 528-530 (1938); James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134, 302 U. S. 147-149 (1937).
    But while Congress can acquire exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands within a State by the State’s consent or cession, the presence or absence of such jurisdiction has nothing to do with Congress’ powers under the
    [Footnote 11]
    Article I, § 8, cl. 1, of the Constitution provides that Congress shall have the 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. . . .”
    The Clause has been broadly construed, and the acquisition by consent or cession of exclusive or partial jurisdiction over properties for any legitimate governmental purpose beyond those itemized is permissible. Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U. S. 518, 304 U. S. 528-530 (1938).
    Page 426 U. S. 539
    See also Paul v. United States, 371 U. S. 245, 371 U. S. 264 (1963). In neither case was the power of Congress under the Property Clause at issue or considered and, as we shall see, these dicta fail to account for the raft of cases in which the Clause has been given a broader construction. [Footnote 9]
    [Footnote 9]
    Indeed, Hunt v. United States, supra, and Canfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518 (1897), both relied upon by appellees, are inconsistent with the notion that the United States has only the rights of an ordinary proprietor with respect to its land. An ordinary proprietor may not, contrary to state law, kill game that is damaging his land, as the Government did in Hunt; nor may he prohibit the fencing in of his property without the assistance of state law, as the Government was able to do in Canfield.
    [Footnote 10]
    Appellees ask us to declare that the Act is unconstitutional because the animals are not, as Congress found, “fast disappearing from the American scene.” § 1, 16 U.S.C. § 1331 (1970 ed., Supp. IV). At the outset, no reason suggests itself why Congress’ power under the Property Clause to enact legislation to protect wild free-roaming horses and burros “from capture, branding, harassment, or death,” ibid., must depend on a finding that the animals are decreasing in number. But, responding directly to appellees’ contention, we note that the evidence before Congress on this question was conflicting, and that Congress weighed the evidence and made a judgment. See Hearing on Protection of Wild Horses and Burros on Public Lands before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 1-2, 7, 11-14, 17, 26-32, 80, 87-88, 101, 103, 134-136, 139-141 (1971). What appellees ask is that we reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of Congress. This we must decline to do. United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 310 U. S. 29-30 (1940); Light v. United States, 220 U. S. 523, 220 U. S. 537 (1911); United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. 526, 39 U. S. 537-538 (1840). See also Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U. S. 583, 306 U. S. 594 (1939). In any event, we note that Congress has provided for periodic review of the administration of the Act. § 10, 16 U.S.C. § 1340 (1970 ed., Supp. IV).
    Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.
    I thought it only fair to put the disclaimer in there, trying my best to be open.

    Now these three Footnotes, from one Supreme Court case disproves three facts that you are arguing.
    Footnote 11 disproves that it is illegal for federal government to own vast amount of land in any state.
    Footnote 9 disproves that Lavoy Finicum cut down an illegal fence. I will agree that if the fence he cut down was put up on completely private property by the BLM, it was probably an illegal fence. But if that fence was put up on BLM ground, he did break the law by tearing it down.
    Footnote 10 disproves your points on that tortoise and the spotted owl. The animal in question, does not have to necessarily be truly “endangered” for protection from Congress.
    Now, I would agree that there may be more Supreme Court cases out there after 1976 that strikes down Footnote 11, but my opinion is that if there is, the Bundy family, Lavoy Finicum, and all the supporters out there would have it in hand. That leads me to believe that these decisions by the Supreme Court in 1976 are still the law of the land.
    I politely ask you, Bob, or any others to find facts, not opinions, to refute this.

    Like

  9. Bob
    I would agree with everything in Art I Sect 8 Clause 17. No arguments here. But you fail to mention the Property Clause of the Constitution. Art 4 Sect 3 Clause 2
    “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.”
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv
    With the last part being the most important. This part of the Constitution would supersede Art I.

    You also, if you haven’t already, should read the Supreme Court decision in the following case. I have copied and paste some of the findings of that case here.

    Kleppe v. New Mexico
    426 U.S. 529 (1976)

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/426/529/case.html

    Page 426 U. S. 542
    powers, which are not involved in this case, with its powers under the Property Clause. Congress may acquire derivative legislative power from a State pursuant to Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, of the Constitution by consensual acquisition of land, or by nonconsensual acquisition followed by the State’s subsequent cession of legislative authority over the land. Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. at 371 U. S. 264; Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. at 114 U. S. 541-542. [Footnote 11] In either case, the legislative jurisdiction acquired may range from exclusive federal jurisdiction with no residual state police power, e.g., Pacific Coast Dairy v. Dept. of Agriculture of Cal., 318 U. S. 285 (1943), to concurrent, or partial, federal legislative jurisdiction, which may allow the State to exercise certain authority. E.g., Paul v. United States, supra, at 371 U. S. 265; Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U. S. 518, 304 U. S. 528-530 (1938); James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134, 302 U. S. 147-149 (1937).
    But while Congress can acquire exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands within a State by the State’s consent or cession, the presence or absence of such jurisdiction has nothing to do with Congress’ powers under the

    [Footnote 11]
    Article I, § 8, cl. 1, of the Constitution provides that Congress shall have the 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. . . .”
    The Clause has been broadly construed, and the acquisition by consent or cession of exclusive or partial jurisdiction over properties for any legitimate governmental purpose beyond those itemized is permissible. Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U. S. 518, 304 U. S. 528-530 (1938).

    Page 426 U. S. 539
    See also Paul v. United States, 371 U. S. 245, 371 U. S. 264 (1963). In neither case was the power of Congress under the Property Clause at issue or considered and, as we shall see, these dicta fail to account for the raft of cases in which the Clause has been given a broader construction. [Footnote 9]

    [Footnote 9]
    Indeed, Hunt v. United States, supra, and Canfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518 (1897), both relied upon by appellees, are inconsistent with the notion that the United States has only the rights of an ordinary proprietor with respect to its land. An ordinary proprietor may not, contrary to state law, kill game that is damaging his land, as the Government did in Hunt; nor may he prohibit the fencing in of his property without the assistance of state law, as the Government was able to do in Canfield.

    [Footnote 10]
    Appellees ask us to declare that the Act is unconstitutional because the animals are not, as Congress found, “fast disappearing from the American scene.” § 1, 16 U.S.C. § 1331 (1970 ed., Supp. IV). At the outset, no reason suggests itself why Congress’ power under the Property Clause to enact legislation to protect wild free-roaming horses and burros “from capture, branding, harassment, or death,” ibid., must depend on a finding that the animals are decreasing in number. But, responding directly to appellees’ contention, we note that the evidence before Congress on this question was conflicting, and that Congress weighed the evidence and made a judgment. See Hearing on Protection of Wild Horses and Burros on Public Lands before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 1-2, 7, 11-14, 17, 26-32, 80, 87-88, 101, 103, 134-136, 139-141 (1971). What appellees ask is that we reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of Congress. This we must decline to do. United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 310 U. S. 29-30 (1940); Light v. United States, 220 U. S. 523, 220 U. S. 537 (1911); United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. 526, 39 U. S. 537-538 (1840). See also Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U. S. 583, 306 U. S. 594 (1939). In any event, we note that Congress has provided for periodic review of the administration of the Act. § 10, 16 U.S.C. § 1340 (1970 ed., Supp. IV).

    Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

    I thought it only fair to put the disclaimer in there, trying my best to be open.

    Now these three Footnotes, from one Supreme Court case disproves three facts that you are arguing.
    Footnote 11 disproves that it is illegal for federal government to own vast amount of land in any state.

    Footnote 9 disproves that Lavoy Finicum cut down an illegal fence. I will agree that if the fence he cut down was put up on completely private property by the BLM, it was probably an illegal fence. But if that fence was put up on BLM ground, he did break the law by tearing it down.

    Footnote 10 disproves your points on that tortoise and the spotted owl. The animal in question, does not have to necessarily be truly “endangered” for protection from Congress.

    Now, I would agree that there may be more Supreme Court cases out there after 1976 that strikes down Footnote 11, but my opinion is that if there is, the Bundy family, Lavoy Finicum, and all the supporters out there would have it in hand. That leads me to believe that these decisions by the Supreme Court in 1976 are still the law of the land.

    I politely ask you, Bob, or any others to find facts, not opinions, to refute this.

    Like

  10. Bob
    I would agree with everything in Art I Sect 8 Clause 17. No arguments here. But you fail to mention the Property Clause of the Constitution. Art 4 Sect 3 Clause 2
    “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.”

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv

    With the last part being the most important. This part of the Constitution would supersede Art I.

    You also, if you haven’t already, should read the Supreme Court decision in the following case. Kleppe v. New Mexico
    426 U.S. 529 (1976)
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/426/529/case.html

    Now these three Footnotes, from one Supreme Court case disproves three facts that you are arguing.

    Footnote 11 disproves that it is illegal for federal government to own vast amount of land in any state.

    Footnote 9 disproves that Lavoy Finicum cut down an illegal fence. I will agree that if the fence he cut down was put up on completely private property by the BLM, it was probably an illegal fence. But if that fence was put up on BLM ground, he did break the law by tearing it down.

    Footnote 10 disproves your points on that tortoise and the spotted owl. The animal in question, does not have to necessarily be truly “endangered” for protection from Congress.

    Now, I would agree that there may be more Supreme Court cases out there after 1976 that strikes down Footnote 11, but my opinion is that if there is, the Bundy family, Lavoy Finicum, and all the supporters out there would have it in hand. That leads me to believe that these decisions by the Supreme Court in 1976 are still the law of the land.
    I politely ask you, Bob, or any others to find facts, not opinions, to refute this.

    Like

    1. OK Pat, I’m game – I don’t even need to do any research into case law for this one…It is quite simple.
      1) SCOTUS issues opinions, not rulings – Kings and despots issue ruling to their subjects.
      2) Article VI, Clause 2 states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
      Clause 2 of Article VI mentions nothing about opinions issued by SCOTUS being Laws…
      3) The true intended purpose of SCOTUS is defined by Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 – “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”
      Hmm, nothing in there about INTERPRETING the Constitution or law…only that it is to be the top court…therefore any OPINIONS it may issue with regard to Unconstitutional laws created by Congress concerning land ownership by the federal government are complete and utter bull…
      May Liberty Prevail!

      Like

      1. The Supreme Court did declare that Congress may not pass laws which are not constitutionally correct.

        Marbury v. MadisonSection 13 of the Judiciary Act of 179 is unconstitutional. This declaration formed to concept of Judiciary Review- OCngress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution.

        Like

      2. Yes it did, and in essence raised the Supreme Court’s power to a higher level that what was originally intended. Congress should not be writing laws that are not in keeping with the Supreme Law of the Land, but as is wont with mankind, they do. It is up to the People and the several States to keep such overreach in check by way of nullification of such federal laws.

        Like

      3. Lady Federalist

        I think I understand what you are saying, please correct if I am wrong.

        SCOTUS can only give opinion of the constitution, not interpret it.

        Now, whether that is what you are saying or not, my question is then, in your opinion, who has the authority to uphold the constitution? To interpret a law made by congress that is unconstitutional?

        Like

      4. Pat, interpreting laws to see if they are Constitutional is the Supreme Court’s job, but not until the law is challenged.. In Justice Robert’s opinion on Obabmacare was they had to let it pass because the court is not allowed pass judgement on a law until after it has been implemented.

        Like

      5. SCOTUS is not even allowed to give opinion on the Constitution. They are only allowed to determine whether or not legislation is in keeping with the Constitution and to be the Highest Court of the Land.

        Like

      6. Lady Federalist Bob

        Let me see if I understand now.

        SCOTUS can ONLY interpret laws to see if they are allowed by the Constitution and Amendments? If there is nothing specifically in Constitution or Amendments, then the law is unconstitutional, and can not be enforced?

        My question still remains, who interprets the Constitution? Or does SCOTUS have to abide by the exact writing of Constitution?

        Like

      7. Pat, SCOTUS interprets the constitutionality of laws, but only after they have been passed and challenged. Any laws not adhering to the Constitution are in fact, invalid.

        Equal footing doctrine came about because states with large amounts of federal land were not on equal footing with states which had little federal land as they cannot use the resources within their own state.

        Like

      8. Bob

        I understand what you are telling me about SCOTUS interpret laws to decide if constitutional or not. I admit, that my thinking was backwards on that.

        I still do not understand how they determine if law is constitutional or not.

        Like

  11. Bob

    I agree completely on Art I of the Constitution about legal land holdings of federal government. You failed to mention Art 4 Sec 3 Clause 2.

    No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv

    Check out Kleppe v New Mexico 1976 brought before the US Supreme Court.

    Three very important footnotes in the Supreme Court Decision.

    I tried to copy and paste all the information that I thought was important into a Word document and then copy and paste whole thing onto here, but for some reason, it has not showed up. It was a fairly long comment, maybe it just taking awhile for this site to get it processed. Due to not seeing it up here and has been at least 30 minutes, I am going to post the highlights now.

    Footnote 9
    Disproves that Lavoy Finicum cut down and illegal fence. If that fence was put up by BLM and on BLM ground, perfectly legal for it to be there. Lavoy did break the law by destroying/tearing down said fence.

    Footnote 10
    Disproves your point on the tortoise and spotted owl. The animal in question does not necessarily have to truly be “endangered” for protection from Congress.

    Footnote 11 and this is the big one.
    Disproves that it is illegal for the federal government to own vast amounts of land in any state.

    Now, I would agree that there may be more Supreme Court cases out there after 1976 that strikes down Footnote 11, but my opinion is that if there is, the Bundy family, Lavoy Finicum, and all the supporters out there would have it in hand. That leads me to believe that these decisions by the Supreme Court in 1976 are still the law of the land.
    I politely ask you, Bob, or any others to find facts, not opinions, to refute this.

    Like

  12. Deb

    I am not attacking you. I am looking for facts, not opinion, not hearsay. Facts. I am trying to learn why Cliven Bundy thinks he has the right to thumb his nose at the government. What legal right. Not just his opinion. The best way to learn is to find people that know about the subject. People on this public forum should know the subject. But from both sides, 98% of the comments on here are opinion and hearsay. NO FACTS. When I question you on anything, you get all upset.

    You need to remember Deb, my first post on here was questioning you on 1st Amendment, when you commented “People who do not own land, (live in the city) have no business even voicing their opinion.”
    dated by this forum February 3, 2016 at 2:25pm. And now, almost a week later you have refused to respond. Other than to say how I always miss your point.

    I say the same to you, but now, I am attacking you? Where you attacking me when you said the same to me?

    Like

    1. Pat, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. You said you had thick skin..lol.. All you want to do is accuse me of trying to take your 1st AMENDMENT RIGHT AWAY!!!!
      I can’t take your first amendment, I’m not part of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, just like you can’t take mine away!!!, but I do think you are HARASSING me!!!!!!
      I have an idea DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!!!! and make your own conclusions. I can’t speak for everyone else here but I’m sick of you HARASSING m. All I’ve seen from you is a link to part of the Constitution. This document is written in a way that can construed differently. Like attorny’s sell their definitions and the best selling attorney wins.
      All you are doing is telling people there wrong in their beliefs and how they interpret things. Bring something to the table, do your own research, then give your educated opinion. Your haven’t brought anything productive to this site except attack me and everyone elses.

      Like

      1. Deb
        Please explain your comment about non land owners should not have an opinion in this debate. I understand that you will probably respond with “I don’t have to” or “You don’t understand”, and thats fine. Your right. Bob Kinford even expressed the “NEED” for the general public to quit following mainstream media opinion. But from my point of view, you do want to silence opposing views, right or wrong, informed or uninformed, inteligent or uninteligent, you are wanting to take away 1st amendment rights.

        Have any of you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, that some people have done research, have become informed, and come to their own opinion to disagree with you? And that if someone does, it is perfectly fine?

        I agree completely with you that the Constitution is written in a way that can be construed differently. In my opinion, when there is disagreement, that is the perfect time to follow some of the easier parts. Let the Supreme Court make the decision. Which, I hope, we all can agree on that.

        Your comment of me telling people that they are wrong and how they inerpret things, I find very ironic. I have felt the same.

        I can tell you that right now, if you care, that I think that the belief of the federal government can not own land in a state, is not uncontitutuional. I am hoping that Bob and I can continue our chat about that. I do think that any person that runs cattle on any federal owned ground is a thief. The Bundy famly does not own the land, that is fact. So if they are gaining profit by keeping cattle on federal ground, they are stealing. And if it is proven through the courts that the government can not own that ground, it should not automatically be given to last permit holders. The video does not prove that Lavoy was reaching for a gun or was shot and reacting. It actually proves very little. I agree that it is very unlikely that Lavoy would have a stolen gun in his possession. That the closest to an illegal he would have owned, would be an “unregistered” handed down through the family. Which isn’t illegal, as far as I know.

        Like

      2. I forgot one important part.

        Anyone who runs cattel on federal own ground WITHOUT grazing permit or paying grazing fees is a thief.

        Like

      3. Pat the Hammond’s WERE paying their grazing rights. Do more research Pat the 2nd judge who ordered the Hammond’s to do more time is CORRUPT along with the government who ordered a man to be MURDERED in cold blood!!!!!!

        Like

      4. That all depends on the situation. The “permits” are actually plots of land on which the grazing RIGHTS were sold. A grazing “permit” is simply a contract permitting the government to help you manage grazing on the allotted plot of land on which the rancher OWNS the grazing RIGHTS.

        The current situation began when BLM (with help from the EPA) decided to kick ranchers off of lands on which they hold grazing RIGHTS. From their conception, grazing permits were voluntary contracts allowing the government to HELP manage these grazing lands, not “lease permits” as the general public has been lead to believe.

        Like

  13. Deb

    I agree that getting charged and convicted of the exact crime is double jeopardy and that it is illegal. I have not seen anywhere that is what happened to them. The accounts I found online were that they were charged with arson, not sure if felony or misdemeanor, and then found guilty. Minimum sentence requirements for whatever level of arson they were charged is five years. The judge deciding the case thought that five years was too much for no more BLM pasture? was destroyed, so he lowered to three months for the father and one year for the son. After both had served their time, for whatever reason, the government decided they wanted at least minimum requirement. What happened to them is definitely sketchy.

    Like

    1. They were charged with “arson” and sentenced under the Patriot act which makes them “domestic terrorists” and a minimum sentence of five years. Original judge recognized the fact that the fire was NOT set to intentionally burn federal lands and gave them a reduced sentence. The federal prosecutor pushed for the five year sentence AFTER they had already served the reduced sentences.

      Like

    2. Pat,
      Any Forest Service Agency that start a controlled burn that gets out of control should be brought to justice, labeled as Terrorists, charged with ARSON, and even MURDER when life is lost because of the incompetence. The Hammond’s ordered to pay more than a half a million dollars in fines, sentenced to prison for 6 years, labeled ARSONIST and TERRORIST.

      i’ve attached information of controlled burns by the Forest Service killing people, destroying land, homes and structures.

      http://video.foxnews.com/v/1536483828001/prescribed-burns-to-blame-for-wildfires-in-colorado/?#sp=show-clips

      http://www.outsideonline.com/1988971/playing-fire-feud-grows

      http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/10/18/prescribed-burn-gets-out-of-control-and-damages-structures/

      http://www.fseee.org/index.php/ground-truth/200035

      Time for State and Federal Agency’s pay for setting intentional forest fires!!!!!

      Oh by the way I’m just exercising my FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT!!!!!! not yours.

      Like

      1. I have never disagreed with you on Hammonds. I know that government entities do prescribed burns from time to time. I also know that sometimes the burn gets out of control. I also know that, at least in Colorado, the state government can not be held liable if out of control burn destroys private property. I agree that what the Hammonds did is pretty much modern handling of overgrown areas and management of wildfires.

        My biggest disagreement has been over facts. Lots of stuff posted on this public forum from both sides that is just speculation. My biggest concern, over some of your early posts, was 1st amendment issues. Your, and others, thinking that people living in a metro area should not have a say in this. Your comment that I can say what I want on this public forum as long as it supports your views, if I am going to oppose your view, go somewhere else.

        I really do admire your passion on this subject. But, if you want to try and sway me to your side, give me good facts from credible resources. Don’t let your passion override your intelligence when posting on a public forum. Two examples are in the post that I am replying to. Hammonds were sentenced second time to five years, not six. YOU can not exercise MY 1st amendment rights.

        Like

  14. I believe the Finicum family has not released anything because. One they are sitting silent waiting for the results from the investigation, and second advise from their attorney to stay quiet.
    I’m sure they are also afraid, I mean after all their husband, father, grandfather, and son was murdered in cold blood. If the FBI or State could commit such a hanis crime, and then post the video, what could they, or will they do to the family!!!!!

    Like

  15. Lavoy FInicum and his compatriots committed crimes when they occupied federal property and prevented federal workers from going to work and doing their jobs. The fact that the building was empty on the weekend (when first occupied) is irrelevant. They committed federal felonies when they illegally access the computers in the refuge offices. They committed crimes when they fled from police during what might otherwise have been a peaceful traffic stop. And Finicum (driving) apparently targeted a police officer with the car when he refused to stop for the roadblock during the pursuit.

    Like

    1. They NEVER said the BLM employees could not do their jobs. The BLM employees just refused to go to work because they were there Don’t use the “it was an armed occupation” because (unreported by mainstream propagandists) there were people there protesting AGAINST the ranchers, The only violence ever threatened or committed was from the FBI.
      1) We have the RIGHT to peaceful assembly here (and despite the guns, they were WAY less violent than a Super Bowl celebration.
      2) We have the RIGHT to bear arms. Truth be known, the protesters were probably no better armed than any of the ranchers those BLM workers encountered in their daily work.

      The only real crimes committed were by the federal government, which is why the protest occurred in the first place. The only reason the government is trying to label these people as terrorists and traitors is because they are calling out the government for breaking its own rules (Which we not only have the right, but the DUTY to do so.)

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Bob, yes yes and yes. I said this before people who live in cities don’t realize what is really going on. As long as the meat is at grocery store, they are able to feed their families, hike and fish on BLM land life is great. They haven’t dealt with corrupt government. A man was murdered and claim they deserved this.
        PEOPLE wake up, just because it’s not in your backyard yet it will be!!!! Please educate yourselves. The problem is far deeper than some ranchers went in and took over a Federal Building.
        It’s about Federal government using intimidation, harassment, force, and now murder to get what they want.

        This was in protest for what the Federal government did to the Bundy’s and Hammond’s. The Feds weren’t happy with first out come, after the Hammond’s served their time and charged them again. In my book this is called DOUBLE JEOPARDY. They were labeled TERRORIST because of a controlled fire that accidentally burned some BLM land, no buildings were destroyed.

        I can name several controlled burns started by the Forest Service that got out of control and burned homes causing hundreds of millions of dollars damage. We’re they charged and ordered to serve time in prison. NO!!!! Were they labeled TERRORISTS.. NO!!

        They murdered a man in cold blood, who was standing up for all Americans rights!

        This was a hanis crime committed by the State and Federal government and hopefully they will be brought to Justice!!!!

        People take your blinders off!!!!

        Liked by 2 people

    2. So, that means to you that the government can break any law they please in response? The occupiers didn’t stop anyone from coming there. It was the government that told employees they couldn’t go there or lose their jobs. In fact, one employee had his “home” taken for not leaving. When the government gets as out of control as this one, what are people supposed to do? This got people’s attention, nothing else had. And, that’s exactly what the fed was trying to stop. The occupiers are and have been all along willing to pay the price for their crimes. I can’t say the same for the government. And, now they are trying to turn it into terrorism. The only terror was perpetrated by the government. The FBI no showed a meeting with Ammon to perform this “traffic stop”. I guess you would be okay if your traffic stops were like this one? There was not anything peaceful about this from the government. They never once attempted to end this peacefully or they would have done something peaceful like communicate and try to remedy the problem. I haven’t seen one single attempt from the government other than to push people around without any regard, period.

      I see you used the term roadblock. Is that part of a regular traffic stop? Did you realize they had already tried to shoot passengers in the vehicle? They took the vehicle 140 miles away and covered it with a tarp. No one allowed to see it. Did you happen to notice the police officer jumping in front of the truck, gun in hand? Is it possible for you to realize that maybe you are clueless and will only see what you want to believe is true? And, maybe that’s why you just accept what you are fed without looking any deeper? Wake up.

      Have any of you ever wondered why if we are questioned by authorities and lie, well, that’s not legal. Why does the government get a free pass to lie anytime they want and that’s legal even if it causes harm to the citizens they are paid by the people to protect? And, then, why do you act like that is okay? If you can’t prove a crime without lying then you can’t prove a crime. The street should go both ways or it’s just a one way street, comprehend?

      Liked by 2 people

  16. For all of you that think the good guy are the government then you should hear what this official has to say about the situation. It will give you a chance to come down from your ignorance and the high horse you’re riding.

    Like

  17. As a mother, former public school teacher, and now a Constitutional educator, I am so very proud of you! Stockton, you and Caleb keep up the great work, please! If you like, I would like to invite you to be contributing authors to my WordPress page The Lady Federalist. Of course, I did ‘Press’ this to my page… 😉
    May Liberty Prevail!

    Like

  18. Pat if you were really up on this situation you would know that they already spend 1 year and now sentenced to 5 more. I don’t know how you add, but where I come from that equals 6. As far as your FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT, get over yourself. Guess what Pat, I possess the right to the First Amendment too. I have the right to say city people really have no clue, and they really don’t. The government doesn’t want your house, at least not yet. The government doesn’t want your family farm, at least not yet. You think this all about you, and it has nothing to do with you. You haven’t brought any thing to the table. Do your own research, and make your own opinion.

    Like

    1. If you think the government does not want your house, just quit paying property taxes. Basically we don’t own anything but are leasing it from the government at a rate based on how much the government assesses the value

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Where I come from 1+5 does indeed equal 6. I will not argue that at all. But, if you research what did happen to the Hammonds, you will find that you are incorrect. On the second sentencing, they were given the minimum, which is five years. They only have to do the balance of what is left of the five year sentence. Approximately four years for the son and about four and half years for the father.

      Now, if you think the government will come for my house or our family farm in the future, how can any of this not be about me? Or you? Or anyone in this country? Is it that I personally do not own land? Is it that I do not personally try to get grazing permits on BLM land? Am I a sub-standard citizen in your view that none of this pertains to? How can it not be about me? And you? And all citizens?

      I agree that at least 90%, probably more, of the population, have no idea, what it is like to deal with the BLM and grazing permits. I know that I don’t. I only challenged you on whether they have a voice, the right to give on opinion. It does not matter if it is informed or not. They still have the right, just as you an I.

      I agree that the government, at all levels, overreach their powers at times. I also agree that as citizens, we need to take steps to stop it when it happens. Our views on that are not that different. What differs is our view to fight it. I am still not sold on the federal government can not own large holdings of land in a state. I have never had to deal with the BLM over grazing rights. But, I do know this, if I don’t like the terms of a contract, I wouldn’t enter that contract. If the BLM has gotten to restrictive, then don’t use their land to raise your cattle. Find other grazing areas. My opinion, is that it must be way cheaper to use BLM ground and pay the grazing fees, then to buy land. Otherwise, no one would have ever done it.

      Like

      1. When the BLM – and other federal agencies – change the terms of the contract at their whim; both during and at the end of the current contract, simply not using “their land” is not an option!
        Consider that at least one quarter of Oregon itself is under some type of federal control…and that is a conservative estimate at that. Now, you say that if the terms of the contract are unsatisfactory then don’t sign it – that makes perfect sense with contracts that use plain, simple language that is easily enforceable by any party. While I haven’t seen a contract for a land lease from the feds, I believe I am safe in guessing that they are peppered with so much obtuse “legal language” so as to leave the rancher either guessing as to the meaning, or to outright mislead him. Which allows the BLM agent charged with enforcing said contract to do so as broadly or narrowly as he/she sees fit.
        Such is the way of our current federal government. Or have you already forgotten that “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”? Mr. Obama didn’t lie when he said that; what he did was to leave out the very important part of the ACA language that the vast majority of doctors would be so tightly regulated and under remitted for their services that up to 25% of general practitioners alone would leave the practice or not participate with any insurers remotely associated with the ACA. So yes, you can keep your doctor if you like him/her; provided you can afford to do so.

        Like

      2. Pat
        The Hammond’s had already served their time, and as you said the second sentencing. Double Jeopardy, however the BLM drummed up different charges to get around it. In addition, they fined them an exuberant amount of money for the fire claiming damages. There wasn’t any damage, in fact just the opposite.
        I in fact live in Colorado, you claim the Forest Service pays for damage done to homes and property if a controlled burn gets out of control. I don’t know where you found your information, but it is totally and utterly false. If your lucky enough, you might be able to sue, but at best only get pennies on the dollar.

        Like

      3. Pat I have to give you credit for sticking with the conversation, you may eventually grasp what is going on. Some people claim that if the ranchers managed right, they would not need the leases. What they don’t realize is that many, if not most of the deeded land is too small to actually make a living on because the government was already laying claim to the land.

        That said, the grazing allotments are not leases. The government sold the grazing RIGHTS to these allotments of land. They don’t own the land, only the rights to graze it. When a ranch sells, the grazing rights are included in the sale of the ranch, along with water rights and mineral rights the ranch may have on their deeded land.

        The contracts are something the government came up with at a later date to help ranchers manage the land. As time passed, BLM and USF started getting more power hungry than they already were and began the practice of calling the management contracts “leases” and began the practice of taking away allotments on the premise they are government leases. These agencies do not honor court decisions either. The Hage family fought for close to thirty years against the USFS and won, not only their grazing rights, but several million in damages. They have not seen a penny from the government, nor has the USFS acknowledged the order and returned their allotments.

        Like

      4. Lady Federalist

        Why is not using BLM land an option? If the BLM changes the terms at their whim, why not get away from it.

        Obtuse legal language? Have your attorney break it down to simple language for you. If not easily enforced,, a good attorney should advise you not to sign.

        As far as ACA goes, you kinda comparing apples and oranges. As far as my families healthcare, nothing has changed so far. Just increased premiums, but my premiums have increased annually over the last 25 years, with decreased benefits. If you are unable to see your primary care physician due to they opt out due to ACA being too restrictive, that is on the doctor. That is not on ACA policy/restrictions of any persons health insurance.

        Like

  19. Deb

    You need to read again my post about Colorado agencies and prescribed burns getting out of control.

    “Pat

    February 18, 2016 at 12:14 am

    I have never disagreed with you on Hammonds. I know that government entities do prescribed burns from time to time. I also know that sometimes the burn gets out of control. I also know that, at least in Colorado, the state government can not be held liable if out of control burn destroys private property. I agree that what the Hammonds did is pretty much modern handling of overgrown areas and management of wildfires.”

    I clearly say that they can not be held liable. You can not even sue for pennies on the dollar. If you find yourself in this situation, you have to hope that your home insurance pays for damage.

    On the Hammonds, I ask Bob to give his view. Double jeapordy? 5 or 6 year senctences?

    Like

    1. Pat you missed the whole point again. You keep that government you love so much in your house. They have abused their power and power leads to greed and greed leads to corrupt. That’s where we are now. They were ordered shoot to kill Finicum. They murdered this man in cold blood. Im sorry you cant see you the big picture and what is REALLY going on. Thats why i said people who live in the city have no idea whats really going on. If States and government can not be held liable for what they distroy, how can they charge a ranching family with terrorism and ARSON, and how they have the power to order shoot to kill an innocent man? Please provide this information. I just read that they claim Finicum had a 9mm semi-automatic weapon in his pocket, but in the truck was a rifle and a revolver. I can guarantee the revolver and rifle was Finicum’s but not the 9mm. If you have better information to the contrary, please provide.

      Like

  20. Bob

    On grazing rights. Are you saying that if a ranch/rancher gets original/first rights fo graze on federal ground, that those rights stay with deeded acres of that ranch/rancher perpetual? Always attached to original deeded ranch? With grazing rights paid for upfront? Never to pay anything again? The first ranch has the legal right to use all acres as if they are deeded acres?

    I know that is a lot of questions, sorry for that. Only way to learn is to ask questions.

    Like

    1. Yes Pat…the original selling of the grazing rights made that the rights of that rancher. Just like mineral rights, or property rights, they were to stay with the deeded property or could be sold (just like water rights or mineral rights.) BLM and USFS sold them a bill of goods to help manage the land, then started referring to the management contracts as leases when they are anything but. This is what Bundys did, was to not pay management fees to BLM which was trying to force them off the land which they held the RIGHT to graze.

      Like

      1. Bob

        After some research on the Taylor Grazing Act, my opinion is that not all of your statements are true.

        Allotments were originally assigned by preference. First preference, ranch that had land or water rights and had used allotment previously five years. Second preference given to those with land or water rights, but had not used allotment previously. Third preference, those that have neither land or water rights associated with allotment.

        Current BLM guides for applying for a permit:

        Any U.S. citizen or validly licensed business can apply for a BLM grazing permit or lease. To do so, one must either:
        •buy or control private property (known as “base property”) that has been legally recognized by the Bureau as having preference for the use of public land grazing privileges,
        •or acquire property that has the capability to serve as base property and then apply to the BLM to transfer the preference for grazing privileges from an existing base property to the acquired property (which would become the new “base property”).

        This makes me agree that , yes, allotments are attached to deeded acres.

        But, consider the following:

        The Taylor Act also states that no lease would be for more than ten years, with an annual payment of reasonable fees.
        http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Taylor-Grazing-Act-1934.pdf

        It also states: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/43/315b

        “So far as consistent with the purposes and provisions of this subchapter, grazing privileges recognized and acknowledged shall be adequately safeguarded, but the creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a permit pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands.”

        In USA v Estate of E Wayne Hage http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-16974.pdf

        Appellate Court ruled that even though Hage had legal water right, without grazing permit, he could not graze his cattle on the BLM acres.

        In PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL v BABBITT https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1991.ZO.html

        “permit stability cannot be absolute; and that the Secretary is free reasonably to determine just how, and the extent to which, “grazing privileges” shall be safeguarded” SEC II-A of SCOTUS opinion.

        The Taylor Grazing Act clearly states that allotments are not perpetual, paid up front with no further payments. It states the opposite, contracts and annual fees. Both were upheld in the two cases I referenced.

        As far as the Bundy’s not paying. The only thing I have seen on that is their opinion that the federal government can not have mass land holdings in any state. That was their reasons for not paying. If I remember correctly, they volunteered to pay the state, but refused to pay the BLM.

        Like

  21. Deb

    You keep changing the subject on our commentary back and forth. From the Hammonds, to misstating my point of liability in Colorado, and now to Lavoy Finicum. Mainly about corruption in the government. But we never finish.

    Double jeapordy is handled in the 5th amendment. What part of the 5th Amendment did the courts do against the Hammonds constitutional rights. I have already stated in an earlier post that I do believe that what happened to the Hammonds is sketchy. I have not found any information on fines for the crimes they were convicted, so not sure if the $1M negotiated to $400,000 was exuberant or not. The second sentencing that I mentioned was after the government appealed the original sentence. My apologies, I should have used “re-sentence” instead of “second sentencing”.

    What point did I miss when you completely misstated on what I said about liablity in Colorado? Or were you saying I miss the point on the corruption of government? If that is it, I have already stated that i believe that there is corruption and overreaching of government on all levels. I do not think that it is to the point that you believe.

    Now on to Lavoy Finicum. You really should read some of my earlier posts. I have already stated that Mr Finicum, probably would not own a stolen 9mm, as was stated by FBI, I believe, just a day or two after he was killed. That is old news. I have not seen that his pistol and rifle were in the pickup. You say “I can guarantee the revolver and rifle was Finicum’s but not the 9mm.” I can believe that. But how can you gurantee that? Many on this forum stated that his pistol was left at the refuge. I do not believe that the government had plans to kill Mr Finicum when the day started. I also believe that if he would have stayed in his vehicle, like the others, he would not have been killed, like the others.

    You ask for information that could argue your points. I can not do that. And not because your are 100% correct, but becase most of your points are speculation, not proven facts. I will say it again. I agree there is corruption in the government, at all levels. I do disagree with you to what level. Does the BLM and other government entities do shady stuff. Defiantely. Does the government make plans to kill US citizens becasue they speak out. Definatley not. My reasoning is that if they would, Cliven Bundy and his two sons would have been killed two years ago, or earlier.

    Like

    1. Pat you are wrong. They would’ve Killed Cliven Bundy if they thought they could’ve got away with it. There were to many supporters and the media. Finicum and Bundy’s on horse back out in the open. Not the same, they couldn’t hide stuff.
      Did you read Bundy was shot in the shoulder?
      All your opinions are speculations also. You have no evidence that I’m wrong, or that your right.
      You only have your interpretation of the Constitution and I have mine, but as Bob said they were grazing aliments that thru the years have been change by the government to appease their needs. That’s not how it was intended to be.
      You say ranchers should just live within their means, cut their cattle back to manage, but what your missing is that these families have built their herds for generations.
      The government wants some of their land and the ranchers refuse to sell, that’s when the government starts their tactics in hopes of forcing ranchers to give up. These ranchers are one of the few that stood up against such government including Finicum, which was murdered and the Hammond’s who are now labeled TERRORISTS. If Oregon isn’t liable for damages from controlled burns like Colorado, why should the Hammond’s be charged with and ordered to pay damages.

      Like

  22. With regard to Lavoy Finicum, the other criminal case that compares most directly to this one is the O.J. Simpson case. Suppose that everything said by police about Lavoy Finicum is true. It still only proves that at time the traffic stop was planned, the object was to kill Lavoy Finicum.
    First we consider the offenses which triggered the arrests. In O.J. Simpson’s case, there had been a double homicide. In Finicum’s case the accusation was of tresspassing on federal property. O.J. and Al Cowlings were encountered by police on an interstate freeway; Finicum on a state highway. Al Cowlings did not stop, but informed the police that O.J. had a gun. Finicum did stop and talk with police for eight minutes. Cowlings and O.J. continued to ignore the flashing lights and sirens of the police cars.
    The police were very kind and understanding toward O.J., very hostile toward Finicum. The police convinced Al Cowlings and O.J. to drive to O.J.’s house and gave him a police escort there, where he was given a glass of orange juice from his own refrigerator. Finicum proposed going to the Sheriff’s office and invited state police to give him a police escort there. The state police thought that was amusing because there was a kill zone set up between where they were and the Sheriff’s office.
    Notice that no effort was made to keep Finicum at the first traffic stop. As Shawna Cox noted, the tires of the vehicle were not shot out. In eight minutes time only an open road was ever presented to Lavoy Finicum, no police or vehicles ever put in front of Finicum. The police at the first stop obviously had instructions to send Lavoy down to the kill zone. Everything said to Finicum was calculated to put him in an agitated state of mind, in contrast to the kind words spoken by police to O.J. during the O.J. arrest.
    Now we consider the kill zone. It was put on a blind corner so that Finicum would not have time to stop, but would have to drive off into the snow to avoid the police cars. The place was carefully selected next to a large open area. Police were stationed around the open area because it was known ahead of time that there was little likelihood Finicum would end up anywhere else. When there is a kill zone, it has already been decided somebody is going to be killed.
    For example, it was decided by California police that they would kill rogue California policeman Christopher Dorner instead of trying to arrest him when they found out where he was. If you watch the news videos of the encounter, it is referred to throughout as a kill zone. In like manner, there was never any intention of arresting Lavoy Finicum.
    So now we go back to the time of the occupation, when Lavoy Finicum made the exaggerated remarks that got him killed. During that time Ammon Bundy was going to all manner of meetings in Burns, Oregon, going to the Sheriff’s office and asking to speak with the Sheriff, at which time he was informed by Sheriff’s deputies that the Sheriff would not speak to him, going to a meeting with FBI agents, practically begging to be arrested. He was told by all, Go back to the wildlife refuge, FBI profilers are still working on the plan for you. The reason for not talking to Ammon or arresting him is obvious. If they arrested him, he could do what he ended up doing, telling the other occupiers to stand down.
    What the FBI wanted is what would satisfy Democratic Party members, a kill zone and at least one dead body.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s