A good lesson in constitutional law and a government out of control
from an old cowboy who died with his boots on in the name of freedom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g8yfsr7N-E

Latest is .gov planted the gun he supposedly had. Serial numbers didn't match any of the guns in his records.

All of his guns had paper?

His own records that he kept. This is according to his wife.

He didn't die in the name of freedom.

How convenient. Dont suppose he could have set that up beforehand? He was a nutjob who was fighting for the wrong cause and did a terrible job of it thank goodness. I saw the video. LE did nothing wrong, that guy committed suicide by cop.

You sound like an expert. There was no sound, how do you know if, when his hands came down he wasn't responding to being shot to begin with? Or was he shot when the police initially fired on the truck at the first stop. You are speculating on things you have no idea about. How do you know the police didn't have a throw down gun for him? You don't know nearly what you think you know.

He must have got a new pair of chinks for the video!

Was he reaching for a weapon or reaching for his wounds?




There were over a 1000 people at his funeral yesterday.

Whatever happened, its a sad day for all.

Thought his presentation very interesting and educational. No question he committed suicide by cop, but I admire the man for feeling strongly enough about his principles to die for them. Hope I'm not on a watch list now!

It was that. Interesting the feds couldn't be bothered in Ferguson but let a few ranchers in a piddly little place in Oregon minding their own business becomes a federal case. Sherrif was ex-BLM as well. I think the cards were stacked against them.

Especially for his family. Like any family, it's hard for them to think their dad (brother, son, cousin) did wrong or was at fault.

Some things I'd like to know:
-how long had he worked that permit?
-obit I read said he mostly worked in property management
-how many cows was he running? (I have heard 48)
- I NEVER met a public lands rancher who couldn't tell you how big his pastures were.
-I wonder what he meant by "in six years I never grazed this pasture off"
- what's up with the chaps? that's not brushy country. Or was that for the camera?
-tank looked a little low, and some of that green was tumbleweed. Not a prime ranch.
-did he have land (private property) on the ranch, or did he live in town, and leave his cows out on the BLM?

I need to research the legitimacy of his argument.

Yeah, because no one owns a gun they didn't tell their wife about.

Even if he hadn't been armed, he appeared to be reaching for a weapon after running 2 roadblocks

He's not some "hero". He's an old dead fool

There's an analysis of the video out there that claims he was reaching for where he had been shot. Can't really tell from the video. Must say, on his youtube vid (above) he comes across as a likeable, intelligent guy who really believes what he preaches. Again, hope I'm not on a watch list now!

I'm betting you don't "know" any more than anyone else who wasn't directly involved

This guy has some logical ideas on the subject and shows supporting facts:

http://bearingarms.com/lavoy-finicum-murdered-forced-oregon-police-shoot/

This, A man is dead, a daughter is fatherless, a wife is husbandless, a brother is brotherless, ect, ect.

One thing is for certain Lavoy wasn't just a dumb ole rancher.

I too thought Lavoy was at fault and the shoot was good but now realize that the video as it was released is not enough.

I am certain there is more than just the soundless video of this incident, it will be interesting to see if it gets released in time. We'll see.

Nazi Occupation Replaces Militia Occupation in East Oregon: “Papers Examined Under Gunpoint”

http://www.shtfplan.com/emergency-p...-papers-examined-under-gunpoint_02052016

This article was written by Dave Hodges and originally published at his The Common Sense Show website.

Editor’s Comment: It is unreal – after militia protest the overreach of the federal government – the feds turn East Oregon into a militarized police state, under occupation by goons armed with much more serious weaponry than any ranchers or protesters carried.

The unfortunate turn of events for the key players in the Malheur Wildlife Refuge occupation has revealed the heavy hand of the control freaks who have taken over the country. The uneasy atmosphere of “papers please” environment in the wake of a controversial and sensitive highway shooting has quite the dramatic atmosphere of further trouble brewing, not unlike pre-revolutionary America… and maybe revolutionary again.

Nazi Occupation Storm Troopers Have Taken Over Eastern Oregon

by Dave Hodges

Steve Quayle has written one of the most informative and timely books of this era entitled Empire Beneath the Ice-How the Nazis Won World War II. In the book, Steve makes the point that Nazis were never defeated, they simply transferred their centers of power. Nowhere is Steve’s book more telling than it is in Eastern Oregon where the Gestapo has moved in with all the heinous depravity befitting the Nazi Empire.

Papers Please

The phrase, “papers please”, was the hallmark and poster child phrase of Nazi occupation in the World War II era. In Oregon, the American version of the Gestapo, the Federal government occupation forces have set up its Gestapo practices on state owned and privately owned land in a wholly unconstitutional action. But since when did the Constitution deter this criminal administration from doing anything? In Eastern Oregon, near the site of the murder of Lavoy Finicum, the public’s identity papers are being examined while under gunpoint. And of course, every rancher in the area is keenly aware that any kind of perceived resistance will be met with extreme prejudice.

In this Infowars interview, conducted by David Knight, a local rancher, who was forced to produce his papers under gunpoint, shares what it is like to have guns pointed in his face as he travels to and from his home to his property in rural Amerika.

In the video, this rancher was noticeably distraught and stressed out as it was obvious that he was afraid to criticize this criminal government for the murder of a fellow rancher. This rancher’s comments, caught on tape by David Knight, speaks to an even greater threat to Amerika, the fear of government reprisal.

Coincidence Or Another Murder?

In The Common Sense Show interview with Shawna Cox in which she established the fact that she was ordered to surrender her guns as a precondition to her release from jail following her arrest at the scene of the murder of Lavoy Finicum.

Subsequently, Shawn Cox’s son-in-law moved the guns to his work space from the Cox household. And just coincidentally, that very night, he dies in a mysterious fire in the work area. Coincidence or a second murder? After dealing with this criminal administration for the past seven years, I stopped believing in coincidences a long time ago.

Nazis take delight in creating false flag events. The Reichstag fire is a prime example of how Nazi’s do business. And now we have a modern day version of this event with the suspicious death of Shawn’s son-in-law.

When the smoke cleared from the Reichstag fire, Hitler was quick to blame the communists and they executed many communist leaders. After the execution of Lavoy Finicum this modern day version of the Nazis are seeking to vilify all ranchers and move them off of their land once and for all.

There is one public official who does honor his Constitutional oath of office and that is Governor Gary Herbert. After three years of dancing with the Federal government, Herbert is taking back 31 million acres of land illegally obtained by the federal government.

Some may consider this to be a bad parallel, but I view Governor Herbert’s actions in the same light as when the state of South Carolina bombarded Ft. Sumter. This is a very serious undertaking by the Governor and will no doubt be met with extreme hostility by the Obama administration because apparently, Governor Herbert did not get the memo regarding Agenda 21 and the Wildlands designations in the West. What am I talking about, if you are new to Agenda 21, take a look at the following map and you can begin to see why the ranchers in America have a short shelf life, a very short shell life in the case of Lavoy Finicum.

It would be interesting to know if he had a gut full of cancer or some other such malady.

Look up "jurisdiction".
You seem confused about what it means

Subsequently, Shawn Cox’s son-in-law moved the guns to his work space from the Cox household. And just coincidentally, that very night, he dies in a mysterious fire in the work area. Coincidence or a second murder? After dealing with this criminal administration for the past seven years, I stopped believing in coincidences a long time ago.


I wonder what is up with that???

That would make some things more understandable

It is a good time to ask ourselves what we would do in the lawmens place. If it were our job to arrest the perps and we had been warned he bragged about dying rather than being in a cell. Then he separated himself from the other perps with his hands in the air, then he lowered his hands and reached for his waist. Would it depend on how fast of a shot you feel like you are, would you wait until you saw the flash from his gun or what?
Wait and shoot the gun out of his hand like Wyatt Earp or just kill him like Marshall Dillion.

You know, it would be very interesting to see the videos from the cars and possibly the personnel videos from the people on the site of the shooting. I don't for a minute believe that the only video record the Feds have was shot from a helicopter.

Why haven't they released any videos from the actual shooting site?

It wasn't a gunfight, it was a bushwhacking.

Other than some early reports that said "shootout" no one has ever claimed there was a "gunfight", or that Finicum actually pulled a gun.

If you look at the video you'll see many of the vehicles weren't official "LEO" vehicles and probably didn't have dash cams installed.

Even if they had, most were pointed away from the side of the road where the action took place.

There wasn't a helicopter either.
It was filmed from an FBI airplane

They might not have been "patrol cars" but they were FBI cars and it appeared to me that this was a pretty well planned operation..... You don't think that these professionals had the means to document what they were doing? If they didn't it was because they didn't want any damning evidence of what they were up to.

Helicopter/airplane.... mox nix. I would bet cash money there are tapes of what happened from the shooting site.

The fact that they are not releasing them makes me want to put on my tinfoil helmet.

As far as I can see this is another Ruby Ridge.

There were no cars at all.

The roadblock was 3 pickup trucks, none of which were in a position to record with a dash cam.

The FBI doesn't do "traffic stops" that often so it's not logical to think they would have dash cams in their cars.

The OSP may have them in their patrol cars, but there were none at the scene.

This isn't even remotely similar to Ruby Ridge, where totally innocent people were killed.

Finicum instigated everything that happened to him through his own actions alone.

There may be more tapes released later, but they will still show he ran 2 roadblocks and then jumped out of his truck, acting erratically instead of simply remaining still.

There are causes worth fighting and dying for. This wasn't one of them.

If it were an ambush there would have been no video, no survivors, no witnesses. There were 3 other men in the truck that were arrested and were 1st hand witnesses. They haven't disputed the FBI's version.

We're at the tip of the iceberg imo


For all I know this is Finicum guy may have just decided to do suicide by cop


But I find it hard to trust a gov't that takes every 3rd day of your & mine labors as their own & is not only dead flat broke but in debt doing so


Also makes it difficult to trust them when they pass laws for us but exempt themselves

And even when they are subject to the same laws they are treated vastly different than the citizens they are purported to serve when found in violation of those laws


They add insult to the injury of our taxation by rubbing it in our faces with many of the outrageous & ridiculous applications of our tax dollars

They go on 1st class trips all at taxpayer expenses


They may not have been in the wrong in this instance but please spare me that those in the US gov't are working for the good of the people of the USA

I may never be a Mensa candidate but this ole country boy has enough sense to know when we're being pizzed upon only to be told it's raining

Interesting questions about the details of the shooting at the roadblock. Armed confrontations with an emplaced Federal LE force executing a pre-planned operation is, almost always, likely to result in the death of the resistor(s). Based on the silent airborne video perspective, LE acted justifiably in the shooting. However, don't see Finicum's actions as SBC.

The important questions really arise from the pre-filmed video Finicum left, explaining his interpretation of the US Constitution and the Founders' intent with respect to Federal Government power and land ownership. One would be hard pressed to disagree with anything he said and I believe that most strict constructionists would agree with most of his points.

We seem to forget that the Revolutionary War was inspired by the abrogation of individual unelienable rights. Freedom is an individual right in our Nation's construct.

It's obvious that Finicum's interpretation of individual freedom and rights, while consistent with the Founders', is different than a number of posters on this Forum. We are FREE to disagree, but inpugning the man's motives, the sincerity of his beliefs, and whether he bought new chaps for a video, are really irrelevancies and beneath the dignity of most members on this Forum.

Let's not forget that only 3% of Colonists were in the field during the War of Independence, with roughly twice that number as active supporters. These patriots were viewed as radicals by the majority of the population then, especially the majority Tories in their midst.

By the standard many posters seem to apply here, the Founders' would be viewed as radical right-wing nut jobs. Fortunately for us, they understood the basis for their beliefs, were committed to them, (see the Declaration of Independence) and persisted for long years to achieve freedom.

We might draw a distinction between constitutionally accountable local LE - county sheriffs, some PDs - serving the interests of the People, and the politically led Feds. Just my 2 cents.

Even insinuating this bunch is in ANY WAY comparable to the Founders is ludicrous to the extreme.

Interesting terminology for an armed takeover by people not from that area in Oregon. The ranchers that WERE wronged in Oregon weren't involved in this bunch and didn't want them there.

It's very simply another chapter in an ongoing scenario.

There's right and wrong on both sides of the issues. Yes, there are many issues.

Mistakes have been made by both sides of these issues. When pressed, humans make mistakes.

Stay tuned for more...

We're gonna need alot more folks with the balls to stand up to the gov't for what they KNOW are blatant and gross constitutional violations if this Country is ever to be saved from the socialists. Clearly this is not the place to find them.

The enemy is far greater than just the socialists.

The root problem is that govt isn't the "people" anymore. It has a life of it's own, and feeds on "the people".

You're preaching to a member of the choir here bbar.

We know...you're a Tory!

What I think is the best general piece I've seen written on the criminal Bundy's:

http://www.hcn.org/articles/im-not-so-different-from-the-bundys-heres-what-id-like-to-say-to-them

"Like the Bundy brothers now illegally occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Oregon, I'm a lifelong rural Westerner, and I believe that if I were to talk with them, we'd most likely find we have a lot in common.

There's the way our lives were shaped by the land, for instance. I was born in Nevada, and I grew up and now live in southwestern Idaho. Though my family worked as carpenters, we lived on small farms where we raised cows and grew hay for the winter. Like the Bundys and many of their allies, I come from hard working, blue-collar folks.

From them I learned to love the land, especially the Northwestern high desert. I've hunted the uplands of eastern Oregon from Juntura to Rome, and from Leslie Gulch to the Imnaha. Much of that country is open range where cattle graze. Thanks to ranchers, I've watered my bird dogs at troughs where ranchers had enhanced a spring, benefitting both cattle and wildlife.

I imagine that if the Bundys and I sat down over coffee, we'd start trading stories about our early years. Pretty quickly, though, our differences would emerge. They'd insist that taking over a wildlife refuge is speaking for "the people" – Westerners frustrated by the federal government. I couldn't let that stand.

Want to read more of our coverage of the standoff and what led to it? Find it here.

I'd respond by saying: That wildlife refuge you're occupying belongs to me and to 320 million other Americans. You are trespassing, taking advantage of the hospitality and tolerance of the rest of the American people. You are abusing the rights you so readily invoke by occupying the refuge indefinitely. I would remind you that you are free to stay a maximum of 14 days, because that is the camping limit in most places, and it was put in place so that everyone can share the land.

If they let me continue, I'd suggest they go home and read Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau and perhaps brush up on their history about Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement. Parks didn't wave guns around and threaten to kill people on the bus.

Then I'd say: "You are carrying firearms and threatening to commit violence if you don't get your way. You say you want this to be a peaceful protest, but in the same breath you warn that you will fight and die for your cause. You bluster, trying to provoke a response, all the while using the media to protect you and further your cause.

"You are abusing your rights as an American. There are legal ways to change systems if you feel that they aren't working. I have heard nothing from you about your responsibilities, only demands about what you want, though ultimately, what you want is to control a resource that belongs to me and to every other American. Public lands are our birthright, and you have no right to commandeer them for your own purposes.

"Frankly, I don't want my land – which includes all the federal land in the West – turned over to people who behave like you. I want to be free to hunt, fish, hike, ride my horse, my mountain bike or all-terrain vehicle, to picnic, camp, and to bird watch on the nation's vast tracts of federal ground, and I don't want to have to ask for your permission to do so.

"Your protest is nothing more than an elaborate tantrum conducted with firearms. If you actually won claim to any public lands, I think you'd intimidate and bully others the way you and your followers did in Nevada, and the way you are doing now. Furthermore, your family owes me and 320 million of my fellow Americans more than a million dollars in back grazing fees for using public land without paying your fair share.

"When I cut firewood on nearby Forest Service land, I purchase my 10-cord, personal use permit. I pay my camping fees. I buy my hunting license. I pay to park and use ramps on wild rivers where I kayak. I pay fees because they are used to improve recreation opportunities for everyone.

So I want you to go home and start paying me and your fellow citizens what you owe us. That's what good citizens and neighbors do. Thanks for the conversation."

Chris Dempsey is a contributor to Writers on the Range, the opinion service of High Country News. He lives in Idaho.

A suicidal idiot, born about 200+ yrs too late to have any impact.

And to put a period on the sentence:

Posted from Oregon?

Complete BS on your part!! The fact that I'm pointing out that a lot of posters here talk about freedom and don't recognize when someone does something about it means exactly the opposite of what you're babbling.

You're clearly clueless. Try to learn a lot more about systems of government before reaching unfounded conclusions and making ignorant remarks. Typical low information voter.

Is anyone here naive enough to actually believe resisting arrest earns a fair fight with the law.

Yeah, bull chit. However, I am smart enough to tell the difference between men like the Founders and a bunch of welfare-ranching, gov't check cashing congenital retards.

I'd have to agree with a lot of what this guy is saying. Good write-up!!

You flee from a felony arrest stop and then run a roadblock, you get what you get.

Nobody had to die. He chose his path.

I think folks need to do some research about federal lands, cession of jurisdiction and the Acts admitting each western state into the Union.

There are some Supreme court rulings on federal jurisdiction, the ceding of jurisdiction of federal lands and additionally, the history of federal land grants through expansion, Homestead Acts and mineral and transportation development.

And there lies the problem.....right or wrong it's hard not to be suspicious of a government that seems to spend every waking hour trying to take more and more of my freedoms and money....

This appears to be at least a starting point to review the constitutionality of federal ownership of land.
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf

Here's the deal...This all relates to Commercial Law. Our Courts uphold Commercial Law without question. If you sign a Contract to give up your first born then it is still held as needing to be honored and due by the signer.

An example would be the Old Spanish Land Grants that we had to purchase even though we had Won a war in Texas and redrawn the borders. Our own Constitution outlaws "Ex post facto" laws...Period.

So if a Rancher whether right or wrong has "Grandfather Rights" through the State or through a contract with an Indian Reserve it has legal standing and cannot be challenged.

This is where we are now with this Hammond situation and the Bundy situation. No matter what happened they are in the right and the Government has absolutely no right to even think about placing retroactive regulations on these old contracts.

This is a Constitutional fact. The most recent example of abuse of this is the State of California and the new Diesel Air Quality Standards.

They can indeed require any new vehicles to meet their standards but it is totally unconstitutional for them to make everyone "Retrofit" the vehicles or Engines that are already out there in use built prior to when the law was placed into effect.

This is Ex post Facto and Retroactive and completely unconstitutional whether we like it or not per the Constitution Article 1 Sec 9 Clause 3.

When we start to turn our heads to these facts we are all done for as owners of Firearms. Because we are next...

There's a classic example of a complete misunderstanding of the law and "rights" vs a contract.

Ex post facto laws are retroactive and unconstitutional. However, all the way back to 1798 the Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws was determined to be only applicable to criminal law. I.e., the Congress and by incorporation under the 14th Amendment the states cannot pass a law and make something criminally illegal that was previously legal and THEN prosecute prior actions when they were legal under the law. That would be an ex post facto law. Congress and the states are well within their powers to change laws and require compliance AFTER passage of said laws.

Further, this has absolutely nothing to so with any contractual agreement between the Feds (or any other party) as landowners/landlords from renegotiating lease agreements, or enforcing change provisions in said agreements. THAT is applicable to the various ranchers, including the Bundys. The Bundys do not have a "right" as defined and protected under the Constitution, but they have a contract with the Federal government under a lease agreement. To think that they have a "right" to do whatever they want on certain lands because they have had a lease for some period of time is akin to thinking that a rentor/tenant has the "right" to do whatever they want to a property even after the landlord and owner has refused to renew the contract, or is changing certain provisions of that contract for continued use. This is further compounded when rentors/leasors like the Bundys then refuse to pay their fees as determined in the lease agreement.

To conflate Rights, such as the Constitutionally enumerated and protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms, with a contractual interest is a severe flaw in understanding the Constitution, the law, and the situations at hand.

Or the deal could be that Cliven Bundy signed a lease contract and didn't pay the rent? The Spanish land grants in texas were honored after the Mexican war as that was one of the conditions of the peace treaty and also many of the Texas politicians and settlers land claims arose from those grants. Had nothing to do with ex post facto

There is so much wrong with your statement. You apparently had less than the 8th grade required education of the Constitution test I was required to pass before I could go to High School.

This is what they would like you to "Understand it as" coming from an educator who's job it is to redefine the terminology to fit their personal agenda. Give me a bit and I will break it down for you bit by bit in relation to your statement points and proposed side skirting of the Constitution and what it upholds.

First we have to start with the actual facts of both situations...

Now keep in mind that we had folks "Disappear" on their way to testify in Court against the BLM take over back in the 70's...so this particular topic has been very dear to my Heart for many many years now.

YET...WE DID NOT SELL OUT TO THE EXTORTION...

I am quite sure I've studied more on the Constitution than you, and clearly have a FAR better grasp of it than you do.

Please, if there are flaws in what I posted point them out WITH specific citations to the Constitution and pertinent SCOTUS case law.

This, should be interesting.

Bundy had a lease agreement with the State before the area was stolen from the State by the Feds using the "Endangered Species Act". They just did this exact thing without any just cause or excuse at all with over 2 million acres bordering and now annexing my property.

Feinstein slippped it through without even giving notice to the private land owners at all. She appropriated Millions of Fed dollars to do this and all they have spent so far on these "lands" was to put up a couple high classed signs. They won't even now allow the Roads to be repaired, even by volunteers.

I would like to know where the hell the rest of these exuberant funds went???

In reality this is what it is all about...Embezzlement.

I didn't expect many to actually read the link, it is a little long for most. I mainly posted it for RobJordan who was inclined to research the issue after I had found a cogent starting place.
There really are two issue that get lumped together. Whether the federal government has a right to own land, and whether "use rights" such as grazing rights rise to property rights. Water law is a similar "use right".

As noted by the article as to whether the federal government can own land- "The U.S. Constitution addresses the relationship of the federal government to lands. The Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, Clause 2, gives Congress authority over the lands, territories, or other property of the United States. It reads: 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."

Okay, so Bundy had a lease agreement with the State. The State was the landowner/landlord. That landowner/landlord transferred title of the property to the Feds making them the new landowner/landlord. The Feds now control the lease agreement. The Feds didn't "steal" the land; it was transferred to them.

What you're advocating is that any tenant under a lease can subsequently try to force a new landowner/landlord to be beholden to that lease in perpetuity. That is directly counter the concept of property rights, no matter WHO the landowner/landlord is. It's analogous to a renter in an apartment demanding that his rent not be increase, or that he not be evicted, when the apartment building is sold to another landowner/landlord who wants to remodel or tear that building down to build something else. Sorry, that doesn't fly. It certainly doesn't fly when the renter then decides to NOT pay the fees assessed by the new landlord.

Bundy has no "vested right" in rented or leased property any more than any other renter or leaser has in theirs. They provisions are governed by the language of the contract, subject to change by the landlord/landowner. If the renter/leaser doesn't like those new provisions, then they may quit the lease. They do not somehow get "rights" to the rented/leased property outside of the contract from the landowner/landlord, and certainly no "rights" beyond the contract that they then do not have to pay for under the terms of the contract.

I'll certainly read it. Thanks for posting.

Sure no problem...The 10th amendment is still in effect as precedent from what I understand...I'll be back...

Oh, good Lord... if you somehow think the 10th Amendment protects the "rights" of a leaser/renter to claim the use of property owned by someone else beyond an actual contractual lease/rental agreement - and that said use "rights" then continue in perpetuity after transfer of the property to other owners, AND after the renter/leaser stops paying on said lease/contract - then whomever "taught" you Constitutional law needs to be bitch slapped.

"What you're advocating is that any tenant under a lease can subsequently try to force a new landowner/landlord to be beholden to that lease in perpetuity."

YES..Until that Lease has expired. Which in Bundy's case it had not...UCC upholds like kind Contracts without question...Bundy never entered into agreement to pay the new Fed lease Fees. Here is where he was in the right.

All the DOI had to do was wait until his State Contract expired and was up for renewal. No...A show of force from the all powerful Central Government had to try and set an example of what happens when you use local rights to defend yourself.

Funny thing...Jefferson was a Federalist too. Go figure.

The articles of all that land within western states was addressed when the territories became states. They had to agree to rescind control of the land to the federales or they would not be given statehood.

So, under such duress, any contract nowadays is null and void.

This particular case has not been tested much.

That is an interesting point to consider.

However, would a voluntary application for statehood and a condition placed upon it that was voluntarily accepted would be a difficult argument to make as far as "duress". Hawaii's case for duress (literal occupation by an invading military, capture of the ruling family, subjugation by them, and then a forced "deal" for statehood) would be an argument for duress, but I'm not seeing how a territorial government petitioning for statehood and agreeing to terms set forth by the U.S. for acceptance as a state could be considered "duress".

Please explain, and you know I'm legitimately interested in your answer.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."

"The ebb and flow of Tenth Amendment Jurisprudence reflects the delicate constitutional balance created by the Founding Fathers. The states ratified the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation created a national government that was too weak to defend itself and could not raise or collect revenue. Although the federal Constitution created a much stronger centralized government, the Founders did not want the states to lose all of their power to the federal government, as the colonies had lost their powers to Parliament. The Tenth Amendment continues to be defined as courts and legislatures address the balance of federal and state power."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenth+Amendment

Where this becomes a two headed snake is who's name is on the deed, so many of these "ranchers" consider land that they lease is "their land", instead of "Americans land".

The pasture in the becoming of the video for granted, did that man buy and pay for that pasture that he hadn't "grazed" for six years or did he pay for the right to be allowed to graze his cows there?

Great; you can Google. That's a start. It still has NOTHING to do with the 10th conveying any "rights" to a renter/leaser. You've thus far gotten Constitutionally enumerated and guaranteed rights mixed up with contractual obligations, and conflated 10th Amendment restrictions on the government with restrictions/obligations on contractual parties.

You are absolutely right and this is even Stated in the Constitution of the State of Nevada. But this premise has been litigated and upheld that the 10 Amendment of the U.S. Constitution takes Precedent.

After ranching BLM for many years, and knowing the full gamut of ranchers that did likewise, I never actually ran across one that thought of the land as "theirs". (some were good guys. Some I couldn't stand. Most treated the land and managed it well.)

I have however shared the knowledge that when you pay for the grazing permit per animal unit and pay the annual lease, then you do indeed own the grazing rights.

Those grazing rights can be bought, sold, traded or bartered and have a real value very comparable to deeded land.

Citation?

Yes, but it is a contractual right; one that stems from the lease contract. That contract, like any lease contract, is subject to change. If the landowner wants to change the provisions of leasing their property, they have the real property right to do so. That, then, changes the contractual right under any such lease. A leaseholder can transfer their contractual right to another, and it does have value. However, they cannot force the owner of real property to continue to convey to them any contractual right beyond that desired by the property owner.

Take, for example, a hunting lease. X owns property. X leases property to Y for a term of years and for a set fee, and within that X retains the right to change the terms of the lease while Y, so long as they pay the lease fee, has the right to transfer their contractual right to another. During that lease, Y can sell his rights under the contract to Z; Z then is subject to payment of fees to X and the contractual obligations and benefits of the lease. X can also rescind the lease subject to any penalty clauses within the lease, or change the provisions accordingly. Y can then opt out, not renew, or agree to the new provisions. Y CANNOT, however, force X to guarantee Y the same rights and privileges in perpetuity under an old lease should X decide to change the provisions, and Y CANNOT force X to allow Y to continue practices previously conducted under the lease should Y stop paying the lease fees.

That's the situation with the Bundys and others. They have a contractual lease agreement with the landowner (Feds). The landowner has, and can under the law, change provisions of that lease. The Bundys have decided that they are not bound by the law because they don't like the new lease terms, so not only are they refusing to pay the lease fees but they are insisting that they can continue to operate ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY outside of a lease agreement, just because they used to be able to operate that way under an old lease.

Contract agreements supersede all other rights under UCC and Maritime Law. Like I said...if you sign to give up your First Born just try to keep a Judge from making you uphold this Contract you signed. Not going to happen, even if you are the Mother of that Child...Seriously...I have actually been on the other side of this exact type of Contract with a Child we adopted. There wasn't even an exchange of argument. "Did you sign this?"..."Yes"..."Then we are done here...the Child goes with who you gave it too."

The point? Don't sign nothing you are not ready to actually agree to because the Judge is going to award it without question. Fact.

Contractual agreements are subject to the terms of the CONTRACT. Can you prove that the lease contract granted an in perpetuity use right to the Bundys and disallowed the landowner the right to transfer the land or change management protocols? No, you can't because the lease did not state that. The grazing leases have provisions in them reserving the rights of the property owner to transfer ownership of the property, change management and use protocols, and fee agreements, among other points. The Bundys signed those leases with the reserved right provisions to the landowners, and THEY (the Bundys) are now the ones that don't want to abide by the enforceable provisions of the contracts THEY voluntarily signed.

Your reductio ad absurdum argument holds no water because it doesn't actually get into the LAW on the matter; that is, the terms of the contracts in question. In fact, it undermines and destroys your own position because of the same points: the law in question is the law governing the actual provisions of the contracts in question.

Absolutely...Just like Mineral Rights or Water Rights if you form an incorporated "Mining District Inc." or "Water District Inc." that might also be on Fed lands or even on/under your next door neighbor's Property

The Commercial loopholes are endless in these cases.

Bugout4x4,

I'm happy to continue this discussion, and do so in a civil manner (fair enough?). Perhaps it would be a good place to start if you could state your full position on this; starting with the Constitution, going through the various steps to and including the lease agreements, citing cases as appropriate along the way, and then sum things up. Yes, it will take some time and effort, but if you've got a clear, cogent, and concise argument to make on this issue with the information and legal basis to back it up, it'd be worth it.

From there, it'll be easier for me (and anyone else) to follow your argument and critique as appropriate.

Make sense?

Bug out:

You keep bringing up the UCC and "commercial loopholes". Neither of which have anything to do with this. Commercial law doesn't apply to real property or leases of real property not even to grazing leases. Commercial law deals with the sales of movable goods. Also the UCC isn't binding law anywhere. All it is is a position taken by the ALI, a bunch of law professors of what they think a model commercial code should be

Contractual agreements are subject to the terms of the CONTRACT. Can you prove that the lease contract granted an in perpetuity use right to the Bundys and disallowed the landowner the right to transfer the land or change management protocols? No, you can't because the lease did not state that. The grazing leases have provisions in them reserving the rights of the property owner to transfer ownership of the property, change management and use protocols, and fee agreements, among other points. The Bundys signed those leases with the reserved right provisions to the landowners, and THEY (the Bundys) are now the ones that don't want to abide by the enforceable provisions of the contracts THEY voluntarily signed.

Your [i]reductio ad abs

Ever hear of a Rancher by the Name of Wayne Hage? This is a case where a federal judge ruled in favor of the Rancher's Estate and Property Rights and against the BLM's attempted abuses of power pior to the Bundy ordeal.

A Federal Judge had already ruled on these Bundy issues.

Hage v. United States

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/final-judgment-award-the-estate-of-wayne-70273/

Now do you remember what actually started the Bundy issue? They destroyed his Water Reservoir in the name of an Endangered Species.

Unfortunately we no longer have a Common Law Justice System. Everything Civil, even Children in a Divorce, are viewed and Judged upon just like Commercial Assets. So UCC or not this is how it is all handled in the current system.

It sucks but it is truly the reality of how the System now works.

Actually I very much appreciate your view on this. These things need to be brought to light because you know the Mass Media isn't going to share the whole truth about these issues.

I will make a presentation for you in the next couple days to support my stance on this. Like I said, I have myself been on the other end of this being part of a Ranching Family that was Ranching before the BLM was even born.

My Family started Ranching in 1912. My Grandkids are the 6th generation now.

Rule #1 when stopped by the police: stay in the car, keep hands visible, no fast moves, obey the cops directions.

This thing is much bigger than the Road Block. Unfortunately that is what they want us to focus on to distract from the much larger problems at hand. And it is working out quite well...

Take your time. I'll be quite interested in what you put up.

Sir, with all due respect, that Hage decision you cited is only the trial decision in what has been a very long, drawn out battle and the trial decision has been partially vacated and partially remanded on appeal. In short, the citation you provided is not binding law any more so than would be the trial court decisions ruling against the 2A in the original [i]Heller and McDonald cases.

See here for a synopsis on the Hage cases - synopsis on Hage litigation , and here for the most recent decision from the Appeals Court on the Hage litigation - link to January 2016 decision

And the enviro wackos are sitting back laughing while the 2 strongest groups on public land are fighting each other.

Hage, and some others such as Goss in NM have had mixed victories, but usually in District courts. Federal courts are not friendly.

It all boils down to this:

It used to be that the ranch owned the grazing rights. And that's what they were. Grazing rights. And BLM, USFS, and ranchers all got along because the old management was conservation minded, and the ranchers were too.

Then things changed. The Feds changed the rules. It became "Grazing Permits", not rights.

The old people in positions of management with BLM or USFS retired and were replaced by radical, environmental minded liberals.

All of a sudden, things aren't friendly anymore.

Then you throw in politics like "Save the tortoises", or some like minded endangered animal, combined with crooked politics of profit like with Reid in NV, and someone gets crewed out of lifetime of work. Sometimes generations of it.

Most of what we see today is a spinoff of very simple problems brought on by a change of rules. Always in favor of the feds.

When dealing with these issues, it is insane.

Rules created and enforced by feds, and judged by feds in federal courts. In other words, the whole game is structured so that nobody CAN win but the feds.

It's easy to see where things can run off the tracks when dealing with a kangaroo court.

More people need to understand this.

ahh....tortoise fencing!! thanks for the reminder (laugh).

Best part of our recent school chaperon trip to Havasupi -- miles and miles of 10" high fencing in the middle of the desert.

I have to admit it took me a couple days to figure it out -- what are these ? trash-catchers?

then I saw the signs - "please don't help the tortoises cross the fence!"

we laughed for a long time (car full of teenagers). never did see a tortoise though...

a lot of citations, in this powerpoint. the author (now deceased) was a very environmental law school prof at ASU.

So statements of his OPINION in the powerpoint should be taken with a grain of salt. But I expect the citations are probably good. This powerpoint predates the recent overturning of the Hage case by the circuit court.

http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/.../slspublic/The%20Wayne%20Hage%20Case.pdf


Sycamore

down around Cedar? Or Vegas?

Sycamore

mostly vegas - my memory is they were really think around the Valley of Fire area

http://www.capitalpress.com/Livesto...criticize-cattle-hunt-club-facebook-page

So in this case where are we, did he own the land in question , or did he lease the land in question.

Maybe some of you are just jealous that you didn't inherit a 10,000 acre ranch and/or grazing rights and are "stuck" living in town working a pencil pushing job.

And NO, I haven't inherited that either.

Actually we all inherited more than that and that's what's being discussed. I'm enjoying reading some well reasoned posts.

Well, that synopsis is a bit telling.

Then again, one might argue, looking at the court that passed judgement, that it was a "bunch of liberal judges in San Francisco" that made the determinations, vacating rulings and such.

4 ager, you seem to be "up" on these things (thanks). Do we know if this going to the full 9th or even to SCOTUS? Or do the "Defendants-Appellees" still have more time to file an appeal of the decision?

I'm not a lawyer, but I find this all highly interesting, especially links like the Congressional Research Service one.

I too was wondering who reads these links.

Geno

Valsdad,

The SCOTUS has turned down appeals in that series of cases before; they aren't taking any of it. I am NO fan of the 9th, but their most recent decision (as of last month) is what stands in the Hage cases at this point. It's going back to be reheard and reconsidered (again). At this point, that's where it stands and all that is known.

That said, the trial judge in question has been, shall we say, "seriously criticized" by the appeals courts for years. He's been found to be: "dilatory"; "arrogant"; seeking an "assumption of power by one individual [] not acceptable in our judicial system"; and having "well established and inappropriately strong" feelings and bias against out of state attorneys.

The Appeals Court in the January decision was castigating in it's opinion of him as a trial judge - their degree of openness in overall opinion, in the printed decision, is striking. Their opinion on him is summarized this way: Judge Jones's rulings in the case were "plainly" and "clearly" contrary to law; that he had "grossly abused the power of contempt"; that he had "harbored animus" against federal agencies; that his "bias" was a "matter of public record"; and that he had engaged in "improper treatment of government officials" in a previous case. The Court of Appeals stated that it had "expressed concern about Judge Jones' conduct in several other recent cases." Wikipedia article with links to case citations These are several different and unrelated cases with different reviewing panels of Appellate Court judges, all castigating the same trial judge in writing, in their opinions, for his unprofessional behavior and opinions. That is simply incredible.

There is a level of decorum still present within the judicial. An open and public rebuke of a trial judge like that just doesn't happen except in extreme instances. Going even further, when a case is remanded from the Appeals Court to the trial court, it goes back to the original presiding judge, unless something extraordinary occurs. In this case, the Appeals Court remanded and specifically ordered the case to go to another judge. That's almost unheard of in any case NOT involving a conflict of interest. They have now done that with this judge at least twice within the last six months on two completely separate and unrelated cases; that's unheard of. Ditto that to the open, public, in-decision rebukes several times over by different Appeals Court panels on this same judge's opinions. It is clear that the Appeals Court no longer trusts the trial judge to be exactly what a trial judge is supposed to be most of all - unbiased.

Again, I'm no fan of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There are some loons on that bench (though, there is at least one great judge on it as well). However, you don't have an Appeals Court openly questioning and criticizing a trial court judge's actions and bias, in multiple cases, without merit and certainly not in the actual decisions on cases. With this trial judge, the Appeals Court is essentially saying that it no longer trusts his decisions on the merits of the case and on law, and they have done so several times over. That's simply extraordinary.

Reading it this morning Counselor, but I have to tell you I like this Judge. He is willing to buck the notion that "Government is always Right".

4,

thanks, I thought that might be the story. It's what I was alluding to in my statement about the link being "telling".

When I saw the panel's comments about the judge I knew something was up. Not very common at all to have a sitting justice criticized in public, in a decision like that, and have his case sent back to another person for reconsideration. It's not a case of "Judge, get your s--t together and smarten up in these rulings and we'll send them back to you". More like "sir, your work here is done, someone else will take over now".

Thanks for the clarification.

Geno

Bugout,

You have brought up lots of good points here.

However, your statement here seems to be that you support an "Activist Judge".

I'm not sure, but because he doesn't believe the "Government is always Right" does that mean he can rule against the law as written?

My understanding, limited as it may be, is that our three part system is designed to have the legislative branch (Congress, which we elect) write the law, the executive branch carry out the law, and the judicial branch to interpret questions on the application of the law and the Constitutionality of the law.

As a nation of laws, is it not necessary for Congress to re-write the law if it is Constitutional but not liked?

Geno

Good morning. I am still working on the original argument I raised with our resident Councilor here but I am finding some interesting history behind this case. There are some Timeline contradictions in the argument they used here as to Legal Action Filings, Permit Applications and the Statute of limitations Claim. Even when reading this Summary one can make note of the dates and it appears that the Hage Estate did indeed try to take action in a timely manor. Also when they were accused of "Grazing without a Permit and Trespassing" the whole issue appears to have been in litigation. There is much much more to the real story in how this all came about to begin with.

I was reading this as you posted this reply. It is an account of what happened as Stated by Margaret Hage Gabbard. As a personal witness to exact like kind actions coming from the BLM I believe her account without question. It appears there was an agenda with purpose from the start. Almost a true Conspiracy from what I see so far. They were "Prodded" into this.

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/Dec_2002/restoring.htm

Like a Casino, the Deck is Stacked, and if a Patron starts to win a bit the Pit Boss changes out the Dealer, pulls the Deck, and sits a new Stacked Deck on the Table. This is what happened here. The problem with this? We the People and Patrons are the true owners of the Casino in the first place not the Pit Boss.

Still digging...

And this...They took away his Permit rights and handed it along his "Legal Water Rights" to a different Rancher.

"However, during the pendency of the trespass case, the agencies pursued remedies outside the jurisdiction of the Court, leading to a referral to the U.S. Attorney for obstruction of justice and findings of contempt of court. Specifically, the BLM invited others, including Mr. Gary Snow of Fallon, to apply for grazing permits on allotments where the Hages previously had permits; the BLM testified they knew Snow’s cattle would use Hage waters; the BLM and USFS both applied to the State of Nevada for stock watering rights over Hage waters, even though neither agency owns cattle, for the “purpose of obtaining rights for third parties other than Hage in order to interfere with Hage’s rights”; and they attempted to intimidate witnesses in the trespass case by issuing trespass notices and demands for payments against persons who had cattle pastured at Pine Creek Ranch, despite having been notified that Hage was responsible for these cattle.

Judge Jones reasoned the trespass notices and demands for payment were meant “to pressure other parties not to do business with the Hages, and even to discourage or punish testimony in the present case.” The Court noted such demands for payment were even issued to “witnesses soon after they testified in this case.”

Tonopah BLM Manager, Tom Seley and Forest Ranger, Steve Williams were both found to be in contempt of court, and were referred to the U.S. Attorney for possible prosecution for criminal obstruction of justice. Noting that Seley and Williams knew of ongoing litigation between the parties in this court and the CFC, they “took actions to interfere with the defense of the present trespass action by intimidating witnesses.” A written order is pending from the separate August 2012 contempt hearing.

The Court stated, “In summary, the government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also their vested water rights. This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm” to support permanent injunctive relief."

http://citizenreviewonline.org/federal-court-finds/

I have found this in my own experiences...there is always a personal and Private "Good ol Boy" connection behind these BLM actions.

Take your time on the argument.

As to the case you cited, it's no binding law. It's a dead case and without any legal merit at this point, just like the trial court decisions in Heller and McDonald that tried to say that the Second Amendment was not an individual right. It simply doesn't exist, legally.

Further, the trial judge that you "like" is discredited in numerous appeals court rulings to a degree that I've never seen before. He simply isn't trusted and his rulings are biased to a degree that the higher courts won't back him at all. Whether you "like" him or not, he's not a valid arbiter of fact or law.

Curious question? Please explain how this decision to overrule was NOT Biased? Because it was in favor of the Government it gets a pass on Bias? Honestly I'm not sure I have ever read a case where a Justice was not Personally Biased in what Arguments, Testimony and Evidence were allow to affect a Case...Honestly...have you?

They wouldn't even allow argument against it.

"The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument as to Appellant and Wayne N. Hage. Fed. R. App."

This is probably one of the most biased denials of Due Process in favor of the Government I think I have read yet. Please humor me and put the shoe on the other foot for couple minutes and read it again. There really are some unjust discrepancies in their argument for this decision.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-16974.pdf

I have been very busy here with responsibilities but if you don't mind I am going to put our original discussion aside for a bit and try to stay with this particular action. Now that you shared this current decision I am locked in with curiosity and find myself breaking this one down in detail.

Without a Staff I can only concentrate on one Case at a time.

Seriously...the Timeline of actions they use in this concerning the Statute of Limitations is Inaccurate. They could have probably also successfully done this without twisting these facts. I contend that this was a wrong decision based on even their own reasoning and assertions.

I think they stepped on their own feet in this if we want to argue bias...

When the judges rulings were counter to established law and court procedure, and the multitude of other factors that the Appeals Court (on different cases, with different reviewing judges and panels) cited not only in their recent decision but in other decisions overruling that judge for the several egregious breaches of judiciary conduct, the bias is easily established. It's not about which party is preferentially treated by a biased ruling; it's that there was a preferential treatment that goes against the established rules, procedures, and case law.

The Appeals Court decision that you say is a denial of Due Process had nothing to do with Due Process at all. A denial of Due Process means that the aggrieved party had no opportunity to voice their case before a fair, unbiased arbiter. In the multitude of Hage cases, the Hages have had numerous opportunities to have their cases heard at the Administrative level, trial level, and several appellate levels. If anything, they've had substantial Due Process for their claims. The Appeals Court found that the trial judge was unduly biased and his rulings were counter to the rules of Civil Procedure (and entire area of law unto itself), court procedure, and standing law. Any judge that does that on any case, regardless of which party benefits or is harmed, will have their ruling overturned. This judge clearly does it on a regular basis.

In fact, the Appeals Court decision is yet another opportunity for Due Process. The case is being remanded to a different judge, one that hopefully will avoid bias toward/against either party and apply the established rules and standing law fairly on the facts presented. The Hages haven't lost; they simply have to present their case to a neutral (and not biased) arbiter. In other words, they (and the other party) actually get the Constitutional guarantee of Due Process.

Take your time on the discussion; there's no rush.

Part of the frustration is that you can't have much hope of success in litigation when all the rules are made by the feds, all the courts, judges and enforcement are feds as well.

And the feds have no cap limits on what they will spend to fight a case. Especially when it would set a precedent that's not in their favor, thus invoking more litigation from others.

Private citizens don't have that kind of money for litigation. They are ruined, and all is lost either way.

I just can't help but feel that "Something just ain't right" in how this came about so I am compelled to keep digging.

I will indeed have the integrity to admit I am wrong if I cannot find it.

Watch...I predict the new Judge will indeed be loyal and Biased in favor of .gov or they are going to keep doing this until they find one that is. Restacking the Deck until the House wins or bankrupts these folks.

In all this I have to question who is FUNDING all this? The Hages now have to come up with fees to fight it again. The Government has unlimited taxpayer's dollars to spend without worry or care.

Now this I truly have a problem with, .gov is going to keep spending my Tax Dollars on this until they break these folks and end up with everything they own. And I truly think this is the plan and agenda behind it from the beginning.

The Hages have been suing and fighting the Feds for more than two decades, and much of it over rehearings of cases in which neither side won on all issues. They've had many different judges on different cases, and thus far the ONLY judge that either side has had that was overturned like THAT on appeal is the one in this specific case. Both sides have had judgments overturned on appeal on various areas of law or on applications thereof, but only in this one instance is the ruling specifically due to the overwhelming bias of the judge involved. There hasn't been a stacking of the deck; there's only been the overturning of a judge who is, it seems, no longer fit to hear cases.

Absolutely...and as for Biased Judgments against Written Law... the U.S. Supreme Court does it all the Time. Using them for example of "unbiased" citations is truly a very poor source

Example..."Shall not be Infringed". They either cannot read Written English or they are indeed guilty of Bias.

The 2A case law is still evolving. There'd been DAMNED little 2A litigation until Heller that got to the SCOTUS. It's a process, and we're winning on that.

If you honestly think that using standing case law, the entire basis for Western legal theory and practice, is a "very poor source" for how law should be handled, then I really have to wonder exactly what theory of law you would support. Is American jurisprudence perfect? Of course not. However, there is not a better system in existence and throughout history has not been any better system developed.

Now you are making sense. Just because a case was Judged in favor of one party doesn't always make that Judgment the correct and truly just Judgment. We cannot assume that how a case turns out that it is not a mistake in Judgment.

There is only right or wrong in everything. Interpreting a wrong to make it appear to be right doesn't actually make it right based on just morality or fairness. Or vice versa.

Translation?

If you're saying that the ONE trial judge in the Hage cases that was overturned because of clear and evident bias and rulings against established procedure and case law was "right" because you happen to agree with his incorrect and unlawful (i.e., against the law - the thing that he is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of), then this is very much in opposition to Western jurisprudence because you are basing the determination of right/wrong on bias and not on the facts and a neutral application of the law. There are "systems of law" like that you are espousing that exist in the world today, but they are not well regarded.

As an initial matter- appellate courts rarely hold oral argument and even if they do, no new evidence is allowed. The purpose of the appellate court is to review the trial court's interpretation of the law and see if it was right. The facts are what the parties presented to the trial court. No do overs, or add-ons.
For a bit of history of appellate court see-
http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/tu_olmstead_jurisdiction.html

In the Hage case, no reason to hold oral argument, wasn't an issue of deciding which interpretation of the law applied. Rather the trial judge made up law that is not supported by past authority of congress and the US Supreme Court. The Statute of Limitations is not the crux of the case. Basically he conflated a drovers right to be appurtenant with the water rights.

Additional reading is the companion case on whether the fencing of the creek is a taking-http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/estate-of-e-wayne-hage-v-united-states/

Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro in Nevada on Tuesday assigned the Hage case to herself.

Thanks, I'll try to get to that later today when I get some "chores' done. All this fun and games stuff is not conducive to getting important s--t taken care of.

Geno

Seems the next county north (Grant) is not as welcoming as our Refuge occupiers and the Grant County sheriff initially lead us to believe.

Grant County citizens speaking out..

Still have a few well contained holdouts on our Refuge, but life if beginning to get back to normal in Burns.

Yup, the folks can feel it in John Day. It doesn't help that the county/community is economically stressed.

That's exactly what I would expect to find in a federal court system.

Which is exactly why nobody ever wins against the feds. Ever.

You can take Walmart to federal court and win. Same with whoever you want to drag through the process... except them.

Kinda sets the pace. No?

wonder when life will get back to normal for the Hammond family....??

[quote=sdgunslinger]wonder when life will get back to normal for the Hammond family.... [/quote

Never. The Feds were actually in negotiations with the Hammonds prior to the Bundy take over. The Bundys f'ked them royally on that, and said negotiations are "on hold".

Tell me again who actually benefited from the Bundy bunch fiasco?

Odd how the Feds actually lose on a regular basis. Is it a totally level table? Hell no. But, they do lose, often and regularly.

Odd how rancher signs a grazing permit as 1-ucc and then blames the government for not processing the application and spends 20 years fighting over that bad decision.

Looks like LE has moved in on the last four of the rebels without a clue. They are surrounded by armored vehicles.

A part of America dies every time this happens.

I feel for his family and the rest of us land owners.

Ranchers lives matter!

The guy ......was not ignorant.. mistaken maybe.If you own a 1/2 lot and deal with a HMO well you just won't understand.

Unfortunately, he lacked a basic understanding of administrative law, and this seemed to be the basis of his rage listening to the video. Pity to die because of that.