150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

Chris Bries update @ 22 minutes. Lazaro is on @ 16 minutes

• TEE SHIRTS
• GEN. WASHINGTON'S VISION
• MORE...

This project was inspired by and is dedicated to the memory of Lavoy Finicum.

Last Stand For Freedom A new radio show and documentary film series about the Liberty movement. We will be talking to the men and women that are the center of the movement.

Last Stand For Freedom Radio Episode 002. April 27th at 1:00 pm/PST

[iframe] <width="100%" height="160" src="http://percolate.blogtalkradio.com/OffsitePlayer?hostId=981677&episodeId=8750021" frameborder="0">[/iframe]

Chris Briels comes on @ 22 minutes:
(I can't embed the player)
http://www.laststandforfreedom.net
http://percolate.blogtalkradio.com/OffsitePlayer?hostId=981677&episodeId=8750021" frameborder="0"

April 27th on Last Stand For Freedom Radio tune in for an update from former Fire Chief Chris Briels of Burns, Oregon, and some practical preparedness tips for patriots and all Americans on how to bug in or out, what do you need to do to keep you and yours safe in most all situations, keep your body and mind ready, what really is happening out there on how it is more than land grabbing from farmers, ranchers or people with large plots of land...how it will effect you in the suburbs too, no, don't be paranoid, be educated and prepared from Gillis and another special friend.

FBI searching for backpack in Harney County Oregon.


https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...c6cc7a98acc439


The Oath with SSG Moe

1 hr ·

URGENT!!!

Why is the FBI going around Harney County asking if people have "SEEN THE BACKPACK?
Where is the backpack?

What is in that backpack that is so important?

Is that backpack the one that has all the DIRT against the criminals in badges who are pretending to be public servants, OR is that backpack one that was lost by a public servant attempting to hide information that would incriminate themselves but they can't destroy it? Possibly information in the HRT cover up investigation?

WHAT IS IN THAT BACKPACK that is so very important that the ABC Agencies would send so many employees in to find?

Do you know how much this goose chase is costing taxpayers?

We are being given notice that the FBI is still terrorising citizens and residents of Harney County Oregon.
They are going to houses AND businesses!!

Is this going to continue for the entire time the Political Prisoners are in jail and being incarcerated unlawfully?
What is this about?

The only people in this whole process who have EVER harassed the Harney County citizens and the Americans who support freedom are the corrupt agents who are not following the Oath they swore to uphold and protect..
I would urge anybody with any information to turn it over to Arnold Law firm or Sheriff Palmer..

Thank you to The Cowboy and the Lady for bringing this to our attention!

~Chastity
43°49'30.48" N 118°58'20.08" W L-V never forgotten

https://www.facebook.com/TheOathwithSSGMoe/




https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.n...60dc54c09e0e03





Share






Jessica Stryker, Doris West, Barbara Berg and 9 others like this.



14 shares
Comments

John B. Wells Caravan to Midnight . . . The Finicum family 1 1/2 hours

http://youtu.be/yczCQXr9lGE

http://youtu.be/yczCQXr9lGE

"EXCLUSIVE" Jake Ryan's mother tells His story

http://youtu.be/skDEb35eWf0

http://youtu.be/skDEb35eWf0

I have wondered about this because United States v. Oregon 295 1(1935) said Malheur owned 81,786 acres. Today they claim in excess of 186,000 acres.

2 hrs ·
HAVE THE FEDS BEEN LYING ABOUT OWNING THE LAND AT THE MALHAUER REFUGE?????

This is information from Dr. Angus McIntosh
.
Thank you to a follower, Charmaign, for sharing this with us. Thank you to The Cowboy and the Lady for sharing.

DID THIS CASE SET TRUTH IN STONE THAT THE LAND WAS THE RANCHERS AND NOT FEDERAL?

An example of prior existing rights is the Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge. In 1908 President Roosevelt, established by presidential proclamation a Bird Reserve (subject to prior existing rights). Thirty four years later the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in United States v. Otley, 127 F2d 988 (1942), that not only did the prior existing ranchers living adjacent to Malhuer Lake have the absolute right to graze and cut hay within the reserve, but actually owned half of Malhuer Lake itself.

In 1942 the government paid for the right to construct roads, phone lines, plant trees, build fire towers, and build water control dams and structures. For the next thirty years these ranchers continued to graze cattle and cut hay.

This all changed with a change in management at the Reserve/Refuge in the 1970's.

I'm curious as to exactly what was in the original 1942 purchase agreements.

What rights were reserved in those agreements? Why is this new generation of Feds trying to force out the Hammonds by ignoring 18 USC 1857 that exempts “allotment owners” from the criminal arson provisions?

The biggest question I have, is why do the people of Harney County believe anything the Federal employees tell them when there is a proven history of them lying to ranchers about prior existing rights (U.S.
v Otley, 1942)?

"Did I mention to you folks interested in the Malhuer Refuge Protest and subsequent Government assault, that in 1942 the Ninth Circuit ruled that most of the land withdrawn by President Teddy in 1908 and at least half of Malhuer Lake did not belong to the US in the first place?

The Court said it belonged to the prior established ranchers.

The government had to condemn and buy the rancher's out under a 1933 conservation law, that only allowed for the construction of "projects".

In that case it was 95 miles of roads, the construction of fire-lookouts, the planting of trees, and the building of certain water control structures. Under that act the ranchers still owned the improvements, grazing and hay/forage rights. There is a genuine question of fact as to whether or not the land upon which the so-called "occupied federal buildings" stand actually belongs to the government.

Its my understanding the so-called "occupied buildings" were actually one of the old ranch headquarters, If that is the case the property still belongs to the original ranchers heirs (since the US cannot acquire property by adverse possession). The 1942 case is United States v Otley. Very interesting reading and available on the Justia website. HE FURTHER COMMENTS: Here is a comment that Angus has under his post.

"Actually they kept on ranching and grazing for over 30 years after that 1942 decision. It wasn't until about the time that Congress passed FLPMA that the Refuge managers started flooding out the ranchers. The original ranchers were all gone by then and the new ones simply assumed the Feds were acting lawfully."

APPEARANCE AND BRIEF OF APPELLEES AND CROSS APPELLANTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER AND DIRECTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

https://law.resource.org/…/…/gov.uscourts.ca9.09696.b.03.pdf

READ US ARGUMENT: https://law.resource.org/…/…/gov.uscourts.ca9.09696.b.04.pdf

WATER BOUNDARIES: https://books.google.com/books…

https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-otley-3#!

COURT QUESTIONS ITS OWN JURISDICTION!: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-otley-2

MORE THOUGHTS BY DR. ANGUS MACINTOSH

Here is the first one.

AGRICULTURE April 11, 2016
From Preference Rights to Grazing Allotments:
Why Ranchers Own their Allotments

By Angus McIntosh PhD

Director Natural Resource Law & Policy Research

Land And Water USA Foundation

There are a lot of US Supreme Court decisions on the subject of “pioneer rights”, or settlers' rights of “possession” or “occupancy” and “use”.

The case that specifically refers to "pioneer rights" is Lamb v Davenport, 85 US 307 (1873).

Arguello v United States, 59 US 539 (1855), refers to a “cattle range” held in possession for 50 years (from prior to the Mexican cession to the US) as sufficient evidence of ownership.

Essentially, pioneer rights are equivalent to"possessory" or "occupancy" rights that typically have the sanction of State or Territoriallegislation, or; local laws, customs and decisions of the courts; or “aboriginal” title” or“possessory” or “occupancy” rights dating from a time prior to US acquisition through “treaty”(ie. Gudalupe-Hidalgo, 1848, or the Oregon-Northwest Treaty with Great Britain, 1846).

This same possessory or occupancy right of “actual settlers” gives the settler a “color of title” which has been referred to as the "preference" right. The preference is the preferred right to acquire the government's “legal title” when the land occupied or in the possession and use of the pioneer is eventually opened to settlement.
(See Frisbie v Whitney, 76 US 187 (1869)).
This pioneer right of possession and preference gives the occupant the right to sell hisMimprovements as well as his possessory title, and such ownership will "relate back" to the first pioneer's date of settlement. This is important when you talk about establishing senior water rights and "land use rights" that predate later wildlife, fish, or environmental statutes.

The Supreme Court has held that this pioneer/possessory right or title is good against all the world, accept the United States as the actual legal title owner. However, once the United States Congress by positive legislation recognizes, confirms, or sanctions a “use”, or grants a right or title, then it is no longer a mere preference or possession. Once recognized or granted to a settler by an Act of Congress, that right could not be defeated by an employee of the Executive Branch (i.e. Interior or Agriculture) who failed to perform their duty to survey and record the settler's claim, (Shaw v Kellogg, 170 US 312 (1898).

Regarding stock raising by bona fide settlers on “public lands” prior to passage of the Grazing Act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat 481), stock grazing was merely at the sufferance or tacit consent of Congress under a color of title based on State/Territorial “range” laws. While this “possessory/ preference” right was good against all others, it was not good against the United States as legal title owner until validated by, or properly initiated under, an Act of Congress (Frisbie v Whitney, 76 US 187 (1869) and The Yosemite Valley Case, 82 US 77 (1872)). However, after passage of the Grazing Act of 1875, Congress validated the right of settlers to “graze” cattle, horses and other stock animals (even to the point of “destroying grass and trees”), on any land open to settlement under the homestead, preemption, or mineral land laws.

Of course this was often necessary in order to improve pasture or plant crops. By the Act of July 26, 1866 (14 Stat 2530) Congress had already recognized, sanctioned and confirmed ranch settler's stockwater rights and stocktrail (“highway”) right-of-ways. Therefore, when land in the actual possession of a bona fide settler as a “range” was later incorporated into a federal military reservation, the ranch settler not only owned stockwater rights and stock trail ROWs, but, had the “preference” right over all others to be “granted the privilege” to continue “grazing cattle, horses, sheep and other stock animals” (Act of 1884, 23 Stat 103).

Additionally, when the reservation was no longer needed for military purposes, any actual settler (if still in possession) had the preference right to acquire title through the homestead laws or by purchase (Act of 1884, supra).

A short list of key decisions pertaining to this principle of “preference/possessory rights” related to “range” rights would be:

Arguello v US, 59 US 539 (1855)
50 yrs possession of cattle range under color of title gives title good against the United States government.

Frisbie v Whitney, 76 US 187 (1869) Possession and improvement gives a settler a preference right to acquire title, which right land department officers are bound to protect.

Lamb v Davenport, 85 US 307 (1872)
Possessory rights and improvements could be sold even before any act of congress was passed allowing for disposal of that land. Atherton v Fowler, 96 US 513 (1877) Possession of an enclosed range and improvement of the forage was sufficient to establish possession and defeat later homestead claimants even if the enclosed land far exceeded the amount allowed under the homestead laws. The first settler was entitled to compensation as owner of the forage cut and removed by a second fraudulent claimant even if the legal title to
the underlying land was still in the US.

Hosmer v Wallace, 97 US 575 (1879)
Where a settler was in possession or occupancy of thousands of acres as a stock ranch the land was segregated from appropriation by later settlers.

Griffith v Godey,113 US 89 (1885)
A settler in possession of thousands of acres of a cattle range, controlled by his ownership of water rights in key springs and of a homestead was the owner of a property right in the range.

Wilson v. Everett, 139 U.S. 616 (1891)
An expansive cattle range on the Republican river and its tributaries covering portions of Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas was a possessory private property interest subject to recovery of damages.

Cameron v United States, 148 US 301 (1893),
Possession and improvement of thousands of acres as a cattle range gave color of title or a claim that removed the land from the class of “public lands” and therefore the enclosure of
such was not a violation of the Unlawful Occupancy act of 1885.


Lonergan v. Buford, 148 US 581 (1893),
An expansive cattle range together with all water rights, fences and improvements thereon covering portions of Utah and Idaho was possessory private property capable of sale and subject to contract enforcement.

Swan Land and Cattle Co. v Frank, 148 US 603 (1893),
A large cattle range in Wyoming together with water rights, and improvements were possessory property rights subject to actions at law for recovery.

Catholic Bishop v Gibbon, 158 US 155 (1895)
By treaty possessory rights of settlers in British Oregon shall be respected;

Grayson v Lynch, 163 US 468 (1896)
A cattle range suitable for pasturage, watering, and raising cattle in New Mexico was a property right such that the owner could recover for damages caused by diseased cattle being driven across his range.

Tarpey v Madsen, 178 US 215 (1900) Possession implies improvement and settlement with intent to acquire title when land is opened for disposal, but cabins, corrals improvements for hunting, trapping, etc also allowed

Ward v Sherman, 192 U.S.168 (1904) A large cattle range, cattle then on the range, and the desert wells were all private property subject to sale and mortgage.

Bacon v Walker, 204 US 311 & Bown v Walling, 204 US 320 (1907)
Idaho range laws recognizing settler's right to exclusively graze lands within two miles of their homestead did not infringe on United States' underlying title.
St Paul M&M R Co v Donohue, 210 US 21 (1908)
All public lands were opened to settlement and entry after 1880 and a settlers' improvements were sufficient notice of his claim to defeat later claimants.

Northern Pacific R Co v Trodick, 221 US 208 (1911) Until a local land office was established and a survey conducted the rights of settlers in possession of public lands could not be defeated by either subsequent withdrawal or grants to third parties.

Curtin v Benson, 222 US 78 (1911)
Where a settler owned seven scattered parcels of land connected with 1866 Act right-of-ways, intermingled with 23,000 acres of range rights, before the United States included thatland into a national park, the possessory range owner did not afterwards have to acquire a permit prior to using his property rights.

Under the Forest Reserve/Homestead Acts of 1891/1897 (26 Stat 1102/30 Stat 33) all land withdrawn as Forest Reserves that was occupied by “actual settlers” (possessory range rights), and was valuable for “agriculture" (stockraising), not only had “preference” rights attached to them, but also had a network of easements, water rights, Right Of Ways, and improvements that belonged to the bona fide settlers (Act of July 26, 1866 (14 Stat 253), Livestock Reservoir Site Act, 0f 1897 (29 Stat 484), and cases cited above).

The Act of 1880 had opened all the land in the West to settlement, and had recognized settlers' improvements and possession were sufficient to put any later claimants on notice that the land was already occupied (Cox v Hart, 260 US 427 (1922).

The free homestead Act of 1900, (31 Stat. 179), opened all agricultural public lands acquired by treaty to settlement and entry free of charge (except for filing fees).

In1902 Congress enacted the Reclamation Act (32 Stat 388), which altered the policy of granting specific acreage amounts of Desert Land (i.e.160, 320, 640, etc.) and adopted the “Unit policy” which instead granted to a homestead entryman an “amount of land sufficient for the support of a family”.

The same policy was followed when Congress enacted the Forest Homestead Act of June 11,1906 (34 Stat. 233, 35 Stat. 554) which included a “preference” right for actual settlers to enter any number of 160 acre tracts up to the amount of their actual settlement.

In1910, Congress authorized the granting of “allotments” to Indians “occupying, living on, or having improvements on” land within National Forests “more valuable for agricultural or grazing purposes than for timber” (36 Stat 863).

This was the law as it existed in 1912 when Congress amended the 1880 Act For Relief of Settlers (37 Stat. 267) and recognized a “preference right” of settlers to an ”additional entry” under the “enlarged homestead provisions” of the Desert Land Laws to claim an amount of land to the extent of their occupancy and possession as long as their boundaries were plainly marked.
h
In1916 (after 17 years of debate) Congress finally passed the only homestead Act specific to livestock production, the Stock Raising Homestead Act. The intent of the SRHA was to make a permanent disposal of all the remaining approximately 600 million acres in the West "chiefly valuable for grazing and raising forage crops".(Stock-Raising Homesteads, 1916. House Rep. No.35. 64Th Cong., 1st Sess.)

Section 10 of the SRHA provided for the withdrawal of 600 million acres under the 1910, Pickett Act for "classification" so the range could be surveyed, and allotted as “additional entries” under Section 8. Where an entryman had paid the required fees, made the required improvement and cultivation, and the size of the unit was determined and the plat returned, the entryman had done all required and the equitable title was vested in the entryman (Irwin v. Wright, 258 US 215 (1922)).

By an Act for the Relief of Settlers of March 4, 1923 (42 Stat 1445) Congress allowed settlers under previous homestead acts to convert their “original” or base property entries to either Desert Land (Enlarged) Homestead entries or to Stock-Raising Homestead Act entries in order to change their required “proofs” to $1.25/acre “improvements”.
See also the Act of June 6, 1924 amending the SRHA (43 Stat 469).

Both the Desert Land (Enlarged) Homestead Acts and the Stock-Raising Homestead Act also allowed “preferential” or “preference” right “additional entries” to the extent of the settler's actual possession (where his boundaries were clearly marked), of an amount of land “sufficient for the support of a family”

The Pickett Act in conformance with Section 10 of the SRHA provided authority for the creation of grazing Districts outside of National Forests, and the President began creating Grazing Districts in 1928. The Taylor Grazing Act provided for administration of Grazing Districts and provided a formalized process for establishing them. The TGA did not affect valid existing rights, and allowed for ranchers to complete their improvement requirements under section 8 of the SRHA.

This classification, adjudication and surveying was accomplished between 1916 and 1950. The SRHA Act was the grant from Congress, the survey of the ranges into allotments the recording of the maps, improvement of the additional entry to an amount equal to $1.25 per acre, and return of the maps to the ranchers in possession was all that was required by the statute, (see Sellas v Kirk, 200F.2d 217 cert. Denied 345 US 940 (1953).

See also Shaw v Kellogg, 170 US 312 (1898).

Some bureaucrats would have people believe that somehow the Federal Land Management and Policy Act (FLPMA) of 1976 somehow changed 130 years of Congressional grants and property rights. FLPMA itself contains 2 pages of “savings provisions” intended to “grandfather” in place all prior existing rights. FLPMA specifically states “All actions by the Secretary [of Interior] concerned under this Act are subject to valid existing rights”. If it was true that FLPMA was intended to extinguish all of ranchers (and anyone else's) property rights, then Congress the next year would not have provided for the protection of ranchers' property rights under the Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1977. (91 Stat. 524, Sec. 714, 715 and 717).

An example of prior existing rights is the Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge. In 1908 President Roosevelt, established by presidential proclamation a Bird Reserve (subject to prior existing rights).

Thirty four years later the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in United States v. Otley, 127 F2d 988 (1942), that not only did the prior existing ranchers living adjacent to Malhuer Lake have the absolute right to graze and cut hay within the reserve, but actually owned half of Malhuer Lake itself.

In 1942 the government paid for the right to construct roads, phonelines, plant trees, build fire towers, and build water control dams and structures. For the next thirty years these ranchers continued to graze cattle and cut hay. This all changed with a change in management at the Reserve/Refuge in the 1970's.
I'm curious as to exactly what was in the original 1942 purchase agreements.

What rights were reserved in those agreements? Why is this new generation of Feds trying to force out the Hammonds by ignoring 18 USC 1855 that exempts “allotment owners” from the criminal arson provisions?

The biggest question I have is why do the people of Harney County believe anything the Federal employees tell them when there is a proven history of them lying to ranchers about prior existing rights (U.S. v Otley, 1942)?


UNITED STATES v. OTLEY, 116 F.2d 958 (9th Cir. 1940)
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.·116 F.2d 958 (9th Cir. 1940)UNITED STATES v. OTLEYShareSavePDF CreatingPDFUNITED STATES v. OTLEY et al. No. 9696. Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. January 20, 1940. Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon; James…
casetext.com





https://www.facebook.com/TheOathwith...2%3A%22O%22%7D




8 Likes2 Comments3 Shares

Share

https://www.facebook.com/GrantCountySheriffsupport/

Sheriff Glenn Palmer is asking for donations for his legal defence against the progressive jack asses in Oregon. They are investigating the wrong people, Governor Brown, FBI, Oregon State police, Judge Steven Grasty and his son in law Sheriff David Ward come to mind.


https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...a12009e2432e20


Non Grant County Citizens in Support of Sheriff Glenn Palmer

April 22 at 3:46pm ·






From Jodie Fleck
Family, Friends and Supporters of Glenn Palmer, we are pleased to announce we have the legal expense trust fund in place and ready to receive your contributions.

Contributions may be made in person at Old West Federal Credit Union where you may make a direct contribution to the trust fund, or you may mail me your contribution. Also I can receive the contribution in person. (Please do not give Glenn or Rose Ann your contribution)

Please make checks payable to: Glenn E. Palmer Legal Expense Trust Fund

They can be mailed to:
Glenn E. Palmer Legal Expense Trust Fund
Jodie Fleck, Trustee
44000 SE Shotgun Road
Post, Oregon 97752

Notice: (insert fast radio voice here)
Sheriff Glenn Palmer established the Glenn E. Palmer Legal Expense Trust Fund by receiving written authorization of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.

Under Oregon law, any person may contribute moneys and in-kind assistance to Sheriff Palmer's Trust Fund (with the exception of a principal campaign committee).

Contributions will be used to defray legal expenses incurred by Sheriff Palmer in defending himself in an investigation brought by the Oregon Department of Justice and the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training, which investigation specifically relates to and arises from the course and scope of Sheriff Palmer's duties as a public official.

Contributions to Sheriff Palmer's Trust Fund will not be used for any personal use. More information about Sheriff Palmer's Trust Fund is available from the Trustee.

Contributions may be received by the Trustee in person, by mail, or by deposit to the Trust Fund's account at Old West Federal Credit Union.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

https://www.facebook.com/GrantCountySheriffsupport/

Sheriff Glenn Palmer is asking for donations for his legal defence against the progressive jack asses in Oregon.

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...a12009e2432e20


Non Grant County Citizens in Support of Sheriff Glenn Palmer

April 22 at 3:46pm ·






From Jodie Fleck
Family, Friends and Supporters of Glenn Palmer, we are pleased to announce we have the legal expense trust fund in place and ready to receive your contributions.

Contributions may be made in person at Old West Federal Credit Union where you may make a direct contribution to the trust fund, or you may mail me your contribution. Also I can receive the contribution in person. (Please do not give Glenn or Rose Ann your contribution)

Please make checks payable to: Glenn E. Palmer Legal Expense Trust Fund

They can be mailed to:
Glenn E. Palmer Legal Expense Trust Fund
Jodie Fleck, Trustee
44000 SE Shotgun Road
Post, Oregon 97752

Notice: (insert fast radio voice here)
Sheriff Glenn Palmer established the Glenn E. Palmer Legal Expense Trust Fund by receiving written authorization of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.

Under Oregon law, any person may contribute moneys and in-kind assistance to Sheriff Palmer's Trust Fund (with the exception of a principal campaign committee).

Contributions will be used to defray legal expenses incurred by Sheriff Palmer in defending himself in an investigation brought by the Oregon Department of Justice and the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training, which investigation specifically relates to and arises from the course and scope of Sheriff Palmer's duties as a public official.

Contributions to Sheriff Palmer's Trust Fund will not be used for any personal use. More information about Sheriff Palmer's Trust Fund is available from the Trustee.

Contributions may be received by the Trustee in person, by mail, or by deposit to the Trust Fund's account at Old West Federal Credit Union.

---

If he is the sheriff and law of the land why does he need donations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cebu_4_2

If he is the sheriff and law of the land why does he need donations?

---

Maybe he has to hire a lawyer to defend against the Oregon State Ethics guys.

Really they should be investigating Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton. Sheriff Palmer is the only one obeying and enforcing the law in the communist state of Oregon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cebu_4_2

If he is the sheriff and law of the land why does he need donations?

---

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...422e7b8b21cbb1

Leo Stratton post inteview with Bundy wives

http://youtu.be/owSxJNAHXcE


http://youtu.be/owSxJNAHXcE

Attention Patriots: How you can help.

http://youtu.be/TjZH-e2c4Vo

http://youtu.be/TjZH-e2c4Vo

Lawmaker: It’s Okay To Aim Guns At Cops If They Aim At You First
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/fiore/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mick silver

Lawmaker: It’s Okay To Aim Guns At Cops If They Aim At You First
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/fiore/

---

Yep. This is classed 'suicide by cop'.

The basic rule of a gunfight is THE ONE WHO AIMS FIRST WINS. If you ask for an affidavit from the other party first likely you will not be there to read it.

The Nevada Assemblywoman previously made headlines when she helped arrange the end of the occupation of a BLM building near Burns, Oregon — which culminated in a standoff between law enforcement and armed but peaceful ranchers and militia members.
LaVoy Finnicum, one of the BLM protesters, was shot and killed by law enforcement following a pursuit near Burns, when he exited the vehicle he had been driving in order to draw almost inevitable gunfire away from the passengers.
Known for her vehement support of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, Fiore asserted last year college women should arm themselves to prevent or thwart being raped — because everyone has “the right to defend him or herself from sexual assault.”
“If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them,” Fiore told the New York Times. “The sexual assaults that are occurring would go down once these sexual predators get a bullet in the head.”

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/fio...5YHz2y4BP6w.99

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by palani

Yep. This is classed 'suicide by cop'.

The basic rule of a gunfight is THE ONE WHO AIMS FIRST WINS. If you ask for an affidavit from the other party first likely you will not be there to read it.

---

Claude Dallas survived a potential "suicide by game warden". A friend of mine ran in to him a few years ago when he got out of prison. He said he just wanted to live quietly and be left alone.

There's a story here at this link. I've read other stories on it and you have to read them all and make up your own mind on who was right or wrong. This one gives a positive account of Bill Pogue and doesn't mention he was thought to be bully that pushed people around. I tend to think Claude Dallas was justified in defending himself but he made a mistake when he finished them off with a .22 rifle. If it hadn't been for that the jury probably would have found him not guilty.

https://thebluereview.org/claude-dal...th-comes-life/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed

Claude Dallas survived a potential "suicide by game warden". A friend of mine ran in to him a few years ago when he got out of prison. He said he just wanted to live quietly and be left alone.

There's a story here at this link. I've read other stories on it and you have to read them all and make up your own mind on who was right or wrong. This one gives a positive account of Bill Pogue and doesn't mention he was thought to be bully that pushed people around. I tend to think Claude Dallas was justified in defending himself but he made a mistake when he finished them off with a .22 rifle. If it hadn't been for that the jury probably would have found him not guilty.

https://thebluereview.org/claude-dal...th-comes-life/

---

That was quite a deal. If you can find a copy, read Give a Boy a Gun. It is the Claude Dallas story. I always belived Bill Pogue got what was coming to him. Dallas defended himself. Yes, he would have been found not guilty if he hadn't used the .22.

I read the book "Outlaw" by Jeff Long on Claude Dallas's story along with other accounts of what happened. I've still got it here somewhere.

This is a review of it on amazon by someone who says they knew him.



"Jeff Long has written a most interesting story of the last old west type shootout that may ever occur in this country. It is true. Dallas was a guy who came from Virginia and wanted to be a cowboy. He went west and became what he had always wanted to be, and he was good at it. He had a superb work ethic. Along the way, he acquired some of the trappings of a real cowboy. He had a Winchester rifle with an octagonal barrel. He was a good shot, both with the rifle and pistols. Over time, when he was living in Nevada, he spent his winters trapping coyotes and cats, with an occasional mountain lion thrown in. His last winter season he was trapping right along the Nevada/Idaho line and ran into a couple of Fish and Game officers from Idaho. One of them, Bill Pogue, the senior of the two, had a bit of an attitude problem, according to Jim Stevens, a friend of Dallas's who had brought him supplies. Pogue and Dallas were like kitchen matches and gasoline. Pogue was most likely playing it hard and Dallas most likely was stubborn. The confrontation erupted in gunfire and Dallas, deadly quick, dropped both Pogue and his backup, Conley Elms. He finished them off, trapper style, with a gunshot behind the ear with a .22 rifle. I know Claude Dallas. The book pretty much portrays Dallas in a true light. Crowded, like he was that day, he would not back down. Later, when he was on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list, he was captured without a fight and without any firearms. I've liked this book well enough to own it and to read it several times. Jeff Long's work is first rate all the way through. Though this book is no longer in print, it is a book to own.".

http://www.amazon.com/Outlaw-True-Story-Claude-Dallas/product-reviews/0688041655/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy =recent#R24HSGDMQVRUAV

http://www.nationalstandbymeforliber...20FEB%2015.jpg


http://www.nationalstandbymeforliber...09243813_n.jpg

Stand to defend the Constitution.

http://youtu.be/6duswGEkkuI

http://youtu.be/6duswGEkkuI

http://www.nationalstandbymeforliber...0designjpg.jpg

^ I got a horse I was riding today that looks just like the one Lavoy is riding in this photo.

We had a buckskin mare that looked like that one when we were growing up. She liked to try to buck a little. One day my younger brother and I were riding her bareback. I was on behind, she started to crowhop a little, I slid of her rump and knocked my brother of balace. He fell off and the old mare was still trying to buck when she stepped on his arm in the elbow joint. I don't know why it didn't break his arm, but it didn't do any more than bruise him a little.

The same old mare threw my sister off. She wouldn't get on a horse again for years after that.

Michael Emery, TVOI, Voice of Idaho pickend up by FBI

http://youtu.be/OWlU3w5PFeM

http://youtu.be/OWlU3w5PFeM

I don't do fedbook, I found the llinks under a jewtube video:7


The Oath with SSG Moe shared The Cowboy and the Lady's photo.

29 mins ·

URGENT!! IN JOHN DAY OREGON WHILE SHERIFF PALMER OUT OF TOWN!!. MIKE EMERY ARRESTED AT 5:30 AM RAID AT GUNPOINT BY FBI. His house has been cleaned out! All his computers and documents taken, believed to be held in Deschutes County!!! Did he get to close by outing Les Zeitz? What is there to hide that is so critical the FEDS would kidnap Mike Emery, private citizen and reporter for TVOI NEWS!!

(https://www.facebook.com/TheVoiceofIdaho/?fref=ts)
NO WARRANTS! PHONES TAKEN FROM HE AND HIS WIFE BOTH. IS LES ZEITZ A PAID UNDERCOVER FBI INFORMANT? EMERY uncovered things and reported about Zeitz this week and remember last week Zeitz was thrown out of Sheriff Palmers by the court bailiff!!
What information do they think Emery has??? Mike hit a nerve and it is a big one called Zeitz!!! Seems many locals who used to respect and believe in Zeitz are now hiding in embarrassment knowing him. Becky is safe at this time but she has no way of contacting anyone. THIS IS HORRIBLE.The committee of correspondence has been doing their due diligence and getting the truth out. COULD EMERY HAVE BEEN IN POSSESSION OF THAT BACK PACK?

READ: https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-c...48146468588405





https://fbcdn-photos-c-a.akamaihd.ne...4afc9790214348



The Cowboy and the Lady1 hr ·
URGENT!! IN JOHN DAY OREGON WHILE SHERIFF PALMER OUT OF TOWN!!. MIKE EMERY ARRESTED AT 5:30 AM RAID AT GUNPOINT BY FBI. His house has been cleaned out! All his ...
See More

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...2f294368c3bbcc


LaVoy Finicum's Stand For Freedom #LibertyRisingshared a post.

Yesterday at 4:42pm ·

Please everyone please look at this


https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...c6c6baf681ccf9Sarah Redd BuckYesterday at 1:01pm ·
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO SHARE CONSISTENTLY FROM NOW UNTIL TRIAL

The judge is trying to make it so that none of the public can be in attendance inside the courtroom during trial in Oregon. This is not ok and we need to make sure we spread this far and wide. There are many reasons why this is not ok, but one important factor and one I am able to discuss publicly is that the jury needs to be able to see and be aware of how many American citizens support these political prisoners. They need to see our numbers and understand that the decision they are deciding on is very critical and important to many of us and that their role should not be taken lightly or persuaded in any way.

The public should not only be allowed in the courtroom but they should also be able to accommodate us all in a larger facility and/or courtroom. They need to know that this is important to us as Americans and that we will not be ok with any other circumstance. The current courtroom will not be large enough. They were the ones who pushed for ALL of the political prisoners to all be tried together at one time to accommodate their schedules so in return they should be able to be accommodating to us considering the number of defendants they wanted grouped together.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/...inicum-murder/



Arizona Lawmakers Call On Oregon Governor To Investigate Finicum Murder

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/...ian-sewell.png
Lavoy Finicum and Adrian Sewell
This week, Arizona State Representative Bob Thorpe spearheaded an effort in which Oregon Governor Kate Brown and U.S. Representative Greg Walden were called on to “ensure a full, complete and transparent investigation into the shooting death of Arizona rancher LaVoy Finicum. Thorpe’s letter to Brown and Walden was co-signed by 12 fellow legislators.


As noted in Thorpe’s letter, both Governor Brown and Rep. Walden “have expressed concerns about the actions of officials concerning the traffic stop and shooting death of our unarmed Arizona rancher, Mr. LaVoy Finicum.” The letter asks for an investigation into “how United States citizens, who merely exercise their Constitutional 1st Amendment rights of free speech and to peaceably assemble, are treated now and in the future.”


Finicum was shot in the back 3 times and killed during a January 26 traffic stop while authorities were trying to arrest the rancher and others involved in the occupation of an Oregon wildlife refuge.
Finicum’s wife, Jeanette, questioned the government’s handling of the case and findings of an investigation into the shooting. She questioned the “selective evidence.” She also rejected the claim by the FBI that said Finicum “was shot after reaching for a gun…” “The FBI’s aerial video was of poor quality, edited and provided no audio,” stated the widow. “Our family asserts that he was shot with both hands up, he was not reaching for anything at the time of the first shot. He was walking with his hands in the air, a symbol of surrender. When he reached down to his left hip he was reacting to the pain of having been shot.”

http://youtu.be/Nw9sfuFGghY



The letter reads:


Dear Governor Brown and Representative Greg Walden:


Recently, it was reported in the media that both of you have expressed concerns about the actions of officials concerning the traffic stop and shooting death of our unarmed Arizona rancher, Mr. LaVoy Finicum.

Governor Brown, you released a statement in which you called into question the actions of federal agents, and described the report as “troubling, and properly the subject of an ongoing investigation.” Representative Walden, you stated that you were left “bewildered by the role of the FBI agents.”


As representatives of the citizens and State of Arizona, we share your concerns and urge you to ensure a full, complete and transparent investigation into how United States citizens, who merely exercise their Constitutional 1st Amendment rights of free speech and to peaceably assemble, are treated now and in the future.


After gunning-down and killing the unarmed Finicum, the federal government now has the audacity to label Finicum, and the citizens who peacefully assembled along with him, as domestic terrorists. In a recent radio interview in Tucson, Arizona, Finicum’s daughter Tierra described her father as follows:


“The kind of narrative that is going through our country is that he [Finicum] was domestic terrorist, gun slinging and violent man. That is not my dad.. He is a principled man. He is a gentle and diligent person. I often think of Steven R. Covey; not because they were both bald but because they lived by true principles. ‘Early to bed, early to rise.’ He studied great works of literature. He studied the scriptures, words of God and he wanted to be on the right side of God at all times. He was my dad. I’m sure lots of girls would say that their dad was the best man they know, but that is my dad, and I want to be just like him.”


Many Arizonans knew, morn and miss LaVoy Finicum, and I am confident that he was not under any circumstances a terrorist. According to the people who knew him, Finicum was incapable of spreading fear and harming America, which is the very definition of a domestic terrorist. In fact, by all accounts Finicum was someone who only intended to spread an understanding of the needs of the people living within the west, and to point out how the western states, that have hundreds of millions of acres of untaxed federally-controlled land within their boundaries, have not been treated equally in comparison to eastern states.


Our nation was founded by men who not only questioned the arbitrary and capricious actions of unreasonable authority, but who also stood up against that authority, and in so doing, forged a Constitutional Republic. Finicum’s actions are insignificant in comparison to those of Adams, Madison, Jefferson and Washington. If our nation’s founders lived today, would they be vilified and labeled as domestic terrorists, merely for political reasons?


The people of the State of Arizona cannot allow the demonization of patriotic Americans, from all walks of life, simply because they question authority. We call upon the State of Oregon and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to uphold their legal responsibility to fully and transparently investigate this tragedy, and to vindicate those who have been wrongly accused.


Respectfully, Arizona State Representative Bob Thorpe

Cc: Director of the FBI

Was the machine gun a plant? The owner said it was missing the barrel. There is a barrel in the box in the FBI photo.

http://www.flashalertnewswire.net/im...May_6_2016.pdf

http://youtu.be/zi710kj3G6M

http://youtu.be/zi710kj3G6M

Valley Forge Network on Mike Emry arrest

http://youtu.be/spjnqLe99oQ

http://youtu.be/spjnqLe99oQ

Happy Mothers Day and more on Mike Emery's arrest. Strange . . . . . . . . . .

http://youtu.be/IV3rnYj4-PU

http://youtu.be/IV3rnYj4-PU

Lazarro onGovernment corruprion in Oregon. From April 6

http://youtu.be/chsuKAHprL0

http://youtu.be/chsuKAHprL0

The story with the machine gun doesn't add up to me. I think there's more to it than has been told. From the interview it sounds like he'd been in the business of building parts for guns and getting them working again so if that Browning didn't have a barrel he could of found, or built one for it.

I'm wondering if the the owner of the gun didn't loan it to him with the understanding that if he got caught with it he'd be on his own.

I think the government intends to keep imprisoning anyone who shows any resistance to what they're doing. They want to crush any resistance to the communist take over of this country as they did in Ukraine between 1929 and 1933.

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...e1425aa5513a22

Arnold Law Firm

1 hr ·

MOTION TO DISMISS: Adverse Possession & Ammon Bundy's Constitutional Challenge

Contrasted with shallow and uninformed media portrayals and government hyperbole, Ammon is not an “extremist” and is not a member of any militia, patriot group, or political land protest organization. With this motion, the hyperbole stops now. Mr. Bundy is not a militia member or a so-called “sovereign citizen,” and he does not hold anti-government views. Ammon is a well-established and well-respected family man, entrepreneur, and politically active United States citizen who identifies as a federalist, and as pertaining to the Constitution of the United States, he is an originalist. It is from Ammon’s understanding of federalism and his genuine belief in originalism, coupled with his own personal life experiences, that he, like a growing body of significant thinkers across the United States, has challenged the federal government’s overreach, speaking out against its attendant injustices, and rallying attention to the core question of federal land ownership and related abuses. This topic is a red-hot issue, especially in the western United States. Like the central issues highlighted by this case, it is increasingly poignant, particularly to those citizens whose lives and livelihoods are directly and regularly effected by the unapologetic hubris and illicit disdain from now militarized and intolerant federal employees of, inter alia, the BLM, the USFWS, and the FBI.

Ammon Bundy’s peaceful protest at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge was an act of civil disobedience and a calculated legal maneuver through adverse possession (43 U.S. Code § 1068 - "Lands held in adverse possession”). The protest was in part designed to force the federal government into court to address the constitutionality of its federal land management policy. The very legal issue that Mr. Bundy sought to clarify – which remains unresolved from a constitutional basis – provides the foundation for the criminal prosecution of Mr. Bundy. He contends that the constitutional challenge to the federal government’s jurisdiction over the land in question must be resolved before proceeding with the prosecution of Ammon Bundy – if indeed any grounds remain upon which to mount a legitimate prosecution.

However, instead of arguing the issue in a civil courtroom through an ejectment proceeding – where such a debate belongs – Mr. Bundy finds himself before a federal criminal court as a prisoner. Ammon and the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom may not have prevailed in their adverse possession claim. But, that was for a civil court to decide. If the government would have acted with a remote degree of competence, it would have challenged the adverse possession, with an ejectment or eviction claim. Then Ammon would have responded – in court, and the court would have heard our defense based upon, inter alia, 43 U.S. Code § 1068 - "Lands held in adverse possession"; and other relevant federal law, which taken together, unquestionably provides legitimacy to the protester's attempt.

The western states are not treated equally by the federal government. Washington D.C. controls approximately 50% of the land in the 11 coterminous western states. The management of the land is not only out of step with the priorities and economies of the local state and municipal governments -- it is also out of line with the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

The legality of this position is a matter for open debate because it has never properly been challenged in a court of law. While it may seem absurd that such a gaping constitutional question remains in 2016, consider that it is an issue primarily concerning the people of the western states, and specifically those living in remote and lightly populated areas. It has simply taken a very long time for those marginalized people who are adversely affected by the unconstitutional policies to mount a viable opposition.

The State of Utah, where the federal government controls 61.7% of the land, found that mounting a legal challenge to the currently federal land policy would cost more than $13 million -- a price tag beyond the reach of the citizens most aggrieved.
Ammon Bundy, who has personal experience with the federal government’s aggressive and forceful enforcement of their unconstitutional land management policy, deliberately and thoughtfully intervened where there was growing and disorganized unrest regarding the unusual and aggressive prosecution of the Hammond family in Oregon. His solution was to stage a lawful and coordinated adverse occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.

Ammon’s intent with the occupation was to force the issue into a civil court where he could properly challenge the constitutionality of the government's position. However, the government’s response was to ambush the leaders with overwhelming force and in the process killed LaVoy Finicum.

Ammon Bundy argues that the criminal charges against Ammon Bundy and the other protesters should be dropped on the basis that the federal government does not have clear Constitutional rights to land where the occupation was held. Moreover, it is time to address the disparity of the federal land policy between the eastern and western states, and to resolve the long unanswered question of whether the federal government has the Constitutional right to own and manage the majority of land within any single state.
**********

The United States government disproportionately claims ownership of approximately 50% of all the land in the 11 coterminous western States, as well as more than 60 percent of Alaska, while claiming only 4% of the land in all the rest of the country and 39 States combined. Most relevant to this case, the United States claims permanent ownership of 81.1% of the land inside the boundaries of Nevada, 66.5% inside Utah, 61.7% inside Idaho and 53% inside Oregon.

Does the Constitution of the United States, via the “Property Clause” of Article IV, Section 3, permit the federal government’s permanent ownership and exclusive jurisdiction over public lands? If not, it also prevents the government from exercising jurisdiction here, and this case must be dismissed.

Ammon Bundy is aware of the many federal court decisions and modern public discussions on this issue – and the core purpose of the Malheur protest was to raise, within that discussion, the primary legal question at hand - based upon a significant distinction. The issue is presented here is not whether Congress has the plenary power to manage and regulate public lands, or decide to sell some or withhold others from sale. There is no question, within the constraints of the Constitution, Congress has plenary power to manage and regulate the property it lawfully owns. This power was established and the legal question settled long ago. What the Supreme Court has never addressed however, is whether Congress can forever retain the majority of the land within a State, and in this case specifically, whether the Constitution permits the federal government’s purported ownership of and jurisdiction over the land and property occupied by Mr. Bundy and the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, beginning on January 2, 2016.

In analyzing the Enclave and Property Clauses, prior courts have erroneously begun with the premise that, because the lands were assumed to be public land, then the Property Clause provided broad authority to the Federal Government to regulate it. Defendants urge this Court to begin with a different premise — that these lands were unconstitutionally acquired and/or unconstitutionally maintained by the Federal Government, and are not therefore simply “public lands” without question. The Property Clause rules that the Government is empowered to make are only those that are “needful,” and the only land upon which those rules can be made are lands Constitutionally acquired, owned, and maintained under Article I. Although courts have presumed that the Property Clause allows the Federal Government to retain land, that position is simply untenable in light of the history and structure of the relevant Constitutional provisions.

Raising this question – and reaching the point of this motion - has been no small challenge for Mr. Bundy and his colleagues. In 2015, the legislature for the State of Utah commissioned a legal analysis to investigate and report on the plausibility of contesting the federal government’s continued assertion of ownership and title to western lands. Significantly, after concluding that there was a legitimate legal basis for challenging the constitutionality of federal land ownership, the study also concluded that bringing it to federal court would require an estimated budget of $13,819,000.00. Clearly, with this price tag, individual citizens like the Hammonds and Mr. Bundy could never realistically bring the challenge, despite their undisputed right to petition their government for redress.

At the height of the Hammond controversy, Ammon Bundy identified an alternative way to raise the legal challenge.

Out of the spontaneous protest milieu in Harney County, Oregon, on January 2, 2016, Ammon arranged a meeting that would transform the circumstances from a random, worrisome

and obviously volatile group of dissenters, into an organized, purposeful, and lawful protest aimed at visibly and more effectively petitioning the government for redress. At this impromptu meeting, and in the presence of local law enforcement, Ammon openly advocated a specific plan to organize and “continue the protest.” Ryan Bundy verbally offered a “second” to the proposed plan, and LaVoy Finicum spoke in support of it. Neither of these men had previously heard of, let alone participated in the formation of Ammon’s plan. Prior to this, Ammon was not the leader of any group related to the Hammond protests.

Following the meeting, Ammon and his just organized Citizens for Constitutional Freedom embarked upon this newly organized protest, an earnest effort to set-up and maintain a lawful adverse possession claim – on purportedly federal lands. The lands and property had been generally known as the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and were directly related to the Hammond controversy, and that evening, the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom began the process of carrying out the ubiquitous requirements for a lawful adverse possession claim.

After notifying the local Sheriff's office, they secured their claim; including land, property and vacant buildings and openly took control and management of the same. Consistent with the purpose of the protest, they notoriously renamed the area, “The Harney County Resource Center.” They contacted the utility company to take over responsibility for utilities and services, and began working the property, and maintaining the perimeter, controlling ingress and egress. Ammon and his fellow protesters then invited the public to visit their claim. They carried out cleaning, upkeep and maintenance, and they welcomed over a thousand visitors including elected officials, and prominent political leaders. Further, USFWS staff was granted access, and no one from the federal government ever made direct contact demanding that the attempted adverse possession end.

Ammon and the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom may not have prevailed in their adverse possession claim. But, that was for a civil court to decide. If the government would have acted with a remote degree of competence, it would have challenged the adverse possession, with an ejectment or eviction claim. Then Ammon would have responded -- in court, and the court would have heard our defense based upon, inter alia, 43 U.S. Code § 1068 - "Lands held in adverse possession"; and other relevant federal law, which taken together, unquestionably provides legitimacy to the protester's attempt.

But that was not the government’s response.

Despite no overt acts of force or violence by Mr. Bundy or the Malheur occupation itself, the federal government ambushed and used overwhelming force to arrest Mr. Bundy, and in the process killed his friend and fellow activist and protestor, LaVoy Finicum. Thus, while the executive branch of the federal government has used its unmatched muscle and might to forcefully end the Malheur occupation, it did not end the protest. The use of force, cannot answer the present question.

By virtue of their attempted adverse possession of purportedly federal property, Mr. Bundy and the Citizens of Constitutional Freedom now have secured the legal standing they sought, to raise this issue in federal court. They did not have $13M to buy their place in court today, but they did pay a significant price. As the court is well aware, it has cost Mr. Bundy and approximately two-dozen members of the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom more than 100 days of their liberty, under extremely harsh conditions, and most poignantly, it has cost the blood of a well-loved rancher, family man, and deeply principled patriot of the United States.

For 150 years, the federal government maintained a policy of disposing of public lands. The result was that State governments had complete jurisdiction over nearly all the territory within their borders, giving those States that same opportunity for settlement, development, preservation and conservation of parks and recreation areas, and the promotion of culture and commerce that the original States received.

But, west of the 104°W Merdian circumstances changed. The federal government has treated States west of that line unequally. It has allowed those States dominion over only a small percentage of the land within their borders and under an even more expansive modern view of federal land ownership, Western States cannot fully advance commerce. They cannot develop the tax base necessary to fund schools, build roads, finance higher education. They cannot build transit and communications systems common in eastern States because privately owned lands are broken up by intervening federal lands that States cannot condemn for such public improvements. A Western State like Oregon cannot control its own destiny.

Defendant Ammon Bundy organized his fellow citizens in protest of the expansive and unsupported interpretation of the Constitution that purports to allow the federal government to own and control more territory, and exercise jurisdiction over more land in the Western States, than the States themselves. The discrete question raised has not been ruled upon by the Ninth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court.
Ammon Bundy is asking this Court to rule on this issue now.
*******************

An individual has a direct interest in objecting to laws that upset the constitutional balance between the National Government and the States when the enforcement of those laws causes injury that is concrete, particular, and redressable.” Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211, 221-22, 131 S. Ct. 2355, 2364 (2011). Defendant Ammon Bundy organized his fellow citizens in protest of the expansive and unsupported interpretation of the Constitution that purports to allow the federal government to own and control more territory, and exercise jurisdiction over more land in the Western States, than the States themselves. The discrete question raised has not been ruled upon by the Ninth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court.

The presumptions based upon the expansive application of the Property Clause are unjustified by the text of the Constitution, unsupported by the history and related Founding era understanding, and directly destructive to the principles of federalism. The Hammonds are a classic case where federal bureaucracies won the day, and the Hammonds have been to prison – twice. During the Malheur protest and occupation, U.S. Representative Greg Walden addressed this exact consequence on the floor of Congress, when on January 5, 2016, he explained that even he had sponsored and passed key legislation to limit the BLM, and despite the legislation passing, the bureaucrats simply refuse to be governed. Commenting on his floor speech Congressman Walden said, “I got up there and 17 years of working with farmers and ranchers and folks in eastern Oregon just poured out […] it was an artesian well of emotion." What else could be the response, when federalism is allowed to fail under unproven claims of federal land ownership that increasingly amounts to tyranny. This is what Justice Roberts warned about when he cited James Madison in Federalist No. 45. “The Framers thus ensured that powers which ‘in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people’ were held by governments more local and more accountable than a distant federal bureaucracy.” The Federalist No. 45, at 293.

Defendant finally brings this motion as the culminating act of civic activism. , not just his – but all of those thousands of individual citizens who protested, visited and supported the attempted adverse possession and related work at the “Harney County Resource Center.” Sometimes civic activity in a free society can be uncomfortable for the government – it is usually then that institutions like this Court should pay special attention. There is no other way that federalism can ultimately preserve liberty, allowing “those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power.” Bond, supra, at 221-22.

The current claims by the federal government, to the ownership and exclusive jurisdiction over public lands within the States – including the specific land at issue here – are plainly prohibited by the Constitution of the United States. The court should therefore dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and thereby ensure that federalism still “protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions.” Id.

While the protesters in this case are charged with crimes in Oregon, and there is undoubtedly a federal district of Oregon, the ownership of this land is critical to determining whether the protesters can even be charged with committing federal crimes. Defendants assert this case should be dismissed and reserves the right to supplement this record as well as argue at an appropriate time for evidence and jury instructions consistent with the lack of lawful duties alleged in the Indictment.

Read full motion here: http://snip.ly/motion-to-dismiss

https://www.facebook.com/arnoldlawfirm/posts/10153414204561637

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed

The story with the machine gun doesn't add up to me. I think there's more to it than has been told. From the interview it sounds like he'd been in the business of building parts for guns and getting them working again so if that Browning didn't have a barrel he could of found, or built one for it.

I'm wondering if the the owner of the gun didn't loan it to him with the understanding that if he got caught with it he'd be on his own.

I think the government intends to keep imprisoning anyone who shows any resistance to what they're doing. They want to crush any resistance to the communist take over of this country as they did in Ukraine between 1929 and 1933.

---

This one hour interview with a Sacha Stone from England was released a few days ago.

http://youtu.be/KfcaIsAdW2c

https://youtu.be/KfcaIsAdW2c

Malheur Refuge, interview with released prisoner Daryl Thorn and Lazaro. Poor audio, about one hour and forty minutes.

http://youtu.be/l39370xMa6g

http://youtu.be/l39370xMa6g

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthre...l=1#post832382

Info Wars debunks this article in the following video

The rise of militias: Patriot candidates are now getting elected in Oregon




Like Trump, the Patriot Movement’s surge is due partly to fear and the perceived indifference of political leaders to places that didn’t recover from the 2008 cras
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/99d7a...sm=12&fit=max&

Duane Ehmer rides his horse Hellboy at the Malheur national refuge on the sixth day of the occupation. Photograph: Rob Kerr/AFP/Getty Imageshttps://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-...sm=12&fit=max&

Jason Wilson in Josephine County, Oregon

@jason_a_w

Tuesday 10 May 2016 11.00 BSTLast modified on Wednesday 11 May 2016 22.12 BST

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Share on Pinterest
  
• Share on LinkedIn
  
• Share on Google+
  

Shares

7,809


Comments

1,485

Save for later



Joseph Rice’s manner is a long way from militia stereotypes. The Patriot Movement leader does not present as a crazed gun nut, nor as a blowhard white supremacist. He’s genial, folksy, and matter-of-fact in laying out his views. But talk to him for long enough, and time and again the Patriot Movement leader returns to what really drives him: land.

Rice is running for Josephine county commissioner in south-west Oregon, and believes that the federal government’s current role in land management is illegitimate and even tyrannical.
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/7d956...sm=12&fit=max&
Ammon Bundy is an 'originalist' just like Antonin Scalia, says defense




Read more



His campaign is well-advertised around the county and appears well-organised. His growing experience in organising Patriot groups and community watch organisations has polished his skills in retail politics. He’s clearly done a lot of work to make himself politically palatable to conservative rural voters.

He has positions on education (kids should finish high school), legalised marijuana (it presents an economic opportunity) and Donald Trump (“people are tired of career politicians, and they know the country’s in trouble”).
But county supremacy is what really drives him.

The doctrine of county supremacy embodies two key beliefs: that the county Sheriff is the highest law enforcement authority, and that the United States government has no right to public lands, which should properly be under local control. It derives from a peculiar reading of common law and the US Constitution, and it has underpinned western insurrections, from the Posse Comitatus to the Bundy Bunch.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ef4eb...sm=12&fit=max&


Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest

Joseph Rice, who advocates for community members who would take policing into their own hands. Photograph: Jason Wilson for the GuardianIt’s this notion that is once again becoming central to local politics in the Pacific north-west. Throughout the region, people whose ideas about land management broadly align with Rice and the now infamous Bundy clan are aiming for elected office in cities, counties and even the state houses.

Advertisement

Taking notice of the trend, progressive watchdog group Political Research Associates even pointed to “a wave of Patriot-affiliated candidates in Oregon”.

Rice talks proudly of his connection with the Oath Keepers – a group which recruits from serving and retired law enforcement officers and military personnel. The group asserts that the oath taken by soldier and police “is to the constitution, not to the politicians”, such that serving personnel are obliged to disobey unconstitutional orders.

He’s also proud of his role in founding the Pacific Patriots network, which aims to coordinate members of various patriot groups in the Pacific north-west.

Both groups, and Rice himself, were prominent actors in the standoff at the Malheur national wildlife refuge last January. On Rice’s account, “we acted as a buffer between the federal government and the refuge”.

In practice, this meant that they were a constant presence in and around Burns, Oregon, as the occupation unfolded. Their actions included everything from warning law enforcement officers against attempting a forceful resolution of the situation to forming an armed perimeter around the refuge.



Play VideoPlayMute




Current Time 0:00

/

Duration Time4:15

Loaded: 0%

Progress: 0%


Fullscreen




Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest

The Guardian spoke to the Oath Keepers in Ferguson last year: ‘The police have become tyrannical’While the Malheur occupiers are mostly in custody awaiting trial, the ideals that fuelled their protest are still very much at large.

Gradually, these ideas are taking hold in local Republican parties. While the nation has been transfixed by the Trump tilt in presidential politics, at the grassroots level in Oregon, candidates who have sympathies and connections with the Patriot movement have already successfully sought office under the GOP banner.


app


https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/pa...MggubhP4A_g2pg
Download the free Guardian app

Read the latest news from across the world and save articles to read across your devices and desktop.
Click here



Josephine County local elections are non-partisan, but Rice is clearly well-integrated with the GOP there, meeting reporters in their offices and running as a precinct committee person in the primary.

David Niewert, an author and journalist who has spent decades watching the right, says that as recently as 10 years ago, Rice’s message would have been unpalatable to most GOP voters. But the Tea Party movement established a conduit for more radical ideas “to flow right into the mainstream of the Republican party”.

GOP legislators have been floating these ideas in the Oregon state house. In Oregon’s third house district, Carl Wilson is seeking re-election. After an initial stint in the state house between 1998 and 2003, he successfully ran again in 2014. He has wasted no time in pushing an agenda that borrows, like the Bundys, from the so-called “land use movement”. Wilson also lent his support to the Sugar Pine Mine occupation, which was a dress rehearsal for Malheur.

Wilson – who did not respond to interview requests from the Guardian – proposed Oregon Bill HB3240, which sought to set up a taskforce to investigate the transfer of federal lands in Oregon to state ownership.
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/32d7e...sm=12&fit=max&
Oregon militia standoff: the 23 men and two women facing felony charges




Read more



The bill went nowhere in the Democrat-dominated state house, but Wilson’s stances have drawn a large number of donations. Notably, according to Oregon electoral filings, last year Koch Industries donated $2,500 to his campaign committee.

This kind of support in a sleepy Oregon district only makes sense when it is seen as a part of the right’s bottom-up strategy to push and legitimate the view that federal land management needs to be rolled back.

Those ideas get a hearing in Oregon’s rural counties because communities there are squeezed in a social and economic vice. In the last three decades, counties like Josephine have been hit with a series of shocks.

First, the timber industry declined, though only partly because of changes in federal land management practices. This led to diminished prosperity and a collapse in funding for public services. Federal timber payments declined 90% over the course of the 1990s. Later, the 2008 bust and recession hit rural Oregon hard, and many areas have yet to recover.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/c2d82...sm=12&fit=max&


Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Supporters hold signs during a rally in support of rancher Cliven Bundy. Photograph: John Locher/APSince 2012, when the last federal payments dried up, Josephine County has struggled to provide the basic elements of public order.

Advertisement

The budgets of the sheriff’s office, juvenile justice centre, adult jail and district attorney’s office have been cut by more than 65%. In 2012, they set free county prisoners they could no longer afford to house, and a sheriff’s department that had once boasted 30 deputies was reduced to six. Large sections of the county are still not effectively policed, especially after dark. State police highway patrolmen have been diverted to answer emergency calls.

Jessica Campbell, co-director of the progressive Rural Organizing Project, says that this has led to unacceptable outcomes, particularly for local women. In particular, she says it has made women more vulnerable to domestic violence, with perpetrators knowing that night-time 911 calls will be unlikely to get a response.

In 2012, a woman was raped in her home in Josephine County after she called 911, and was told no officers were available to help her. At the time, the county sherriff admitted that he did not have the resources to collate crime statistics.

While Rice plays down the issue of violent crime, Campbell says his position depends on “a whole lot of privilege”. Efforts to raise special levies for public safety have repeatedly failed at the ballot box, scuppered in part by anti-tax campaigns.
Finally, last March, the county declared a “public safety fiscal emergency”, starting the path to emergency state funding. For Rice, this is not only an unforgivable renunciation of county sovereignty, but “a perpetual marketing thing” that the county commissioners employ in order to claim more money.

He advocates beefed-up neighbourhood watch programmes and “resident deputies” – community members who would take policing into their own hands. In effect, self-organized, patriot-style organisation would fill the void left by permanently weakened county institutions.

In addition, he offers the economic panacea of reopening federal lands to extractive industries. It’s a message with undeniable appeal in parts of the country that feel abandoned, economically and politically.

Like Trump, the Patriot Movement’s surge is due in part to fear, pain and the perceived indifference of both economic winners and political leaders to the fate of communities that have never recovered from the 2008 crash. In places that need radical solutions, the only radical proposals they are hearing come from the right.

It remains to be seen whether this will translate into big successes on 17 May. Either way, until significant efforts are made to repair the wreckage in rural America, the patriot movement will continue to find an audience.

• This article was amended on 10 May 2016 to correct the designation of the Oregon state house’s third district and to clarify the nature of Carl Wilson’s campaign donations.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/10/patriot-movement-oregon-militias-donald-trump-election-2016

Rise of the Militia. Info Wars debunks the Guardian Article in the above post

http://youtu.be/zNZqOajxuNc

http://youtu.be/zNZqOajxuNc

FBI harrasing Harney County ranchers

http://trentloos.podomatic.com/entry...11_11_06-07_00

http://trentloos.podomatic.com/enclo...1_06-07_00.mp3

http://trentloos.podomatic.com/ts/de...0_11419720.jpg

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-sta...art_river_home



Recall petition filed against Harney County Judge Steve Grasty


http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...880-mmmain.jpg
In an interview with The Oregonian/OregonLive on January 25, 2016, Harney County Judge Steve Grasty spoke about the reasons he had cancelled a community meeting originally scheduled for later that night at the Harney County Senior Center. He also touched on other issues he and the county face as a result of the ongoing Ammon Bundy-lead occupation at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Grasty cancelled the meeting due to concerns about possible demonstrations and blocking of the center's entrance by armed protesters ahead of the meeting. Dave Killen/Staff

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...s/12431006.png
By Jim Ryan | The Oregonian/OregonLive
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on May 12, 2016 at 10:45 PM, updated May 13, 2016 at 1:39 PM


Stay connected to The Oregonian
×
http://www.oregonlive.com/static/common/img/blank.gif


http://www.oregonlive.com/static/common/img/blank.gif


http://www.oregonlive.com/static/common/img/blank.gif

1.1kshares

A recall petition has been filed against Harney County commissioner Steve Grasty in the aftermath of the 41-day takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge by armed militants earlier this year.

Petitioners say they gathered 566 signatures, the Oregon Secretary of State's Office reported Thursday. The valid signatures of 444 active registered Harney County voters are needed to force a recall election or compel his resignation. Grasty is the County Court judge -- not a judge in the traditional sense, but essentially chairman of the county commission.

If the petition is validated, Grasty will have to resign or submit a "statement of justification" that would be printed on the ballot. If Grasty chooses the latter, a recall election would be held within 35 days of the end of the resignation period.
But Grasty has no plans to step down.

"People elected me to a six-year term, and that's what I'll do unless they decide it should become less," he said late Thursday.
"I love this place," Grasty said. "I love these people. I'm humbled to serve them, and it's my intention to do it for the length of the term."

Grasty announced before the occupation that he didn't plan to seek re-election. He's served three terms, entering office in January 1999. His current term lasts until the end of the year.

Officials are working to verify the signatures, said Laura Terrill, chief of staff for the secretary of state.

Kim Rollins of Burns submitted the paperwork to launch the recall drive, according to the state agency. Rollins, who had been critical of Grasty in an Oregon Public Broadcasting report, declined to comment Thursday night.

Grasty had been adamant that Ammon Bundy and his supporters leave Harney County after they took over the refuge outside of Burns on Jan. 2 to protest federal land-use policies and the imprisonment of local ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son, Steven Hammond.

"Many of us are frustrated by state and federal regulation of land use. Some here are mightily angry about our economy which we cannot control," Grasty said in a statement in January when the occupation was about three weeks old. "Most of all, many of us are appalled by those who were neither invited nor welcomed, but who purport to speak for our county's residents."

The standoff ended with the arrests of Bundy and more than two dozen others and the death of occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy'' Finicum, who was shot by Oregon State Police during a confrontation at a roadblock between Burns and John Day.

— Jim Ryan

jryan@oregonian.com


503-221-8005; @Jimryan015

From Thom Davis and Rene Powers facebook The Cowboy and the Lady in Harney County Oregon

WAS SENATOR BOUQUIST OF DIST 12 IN THE DALLS OREGON“AIMING” TO STOP WHISTLE BLOWERS AT THE MALHEUR REFUGE? EMAILS SAY “YES”.(?)


THE COWBOY AND THE LADY·SUNDAY, MAY 15, 2016


By: Thom Davis & Rene’ Powers, The Cowboy And The Lady

The cases in Oregon and Nevada, surrounding BLM and Federal Tyranny which have caused American Whistle Blowers to be unlawfully incarcerated, are turning into a real sordid mix of intrigue and murder, union cards and talent slips, topped off with federal prosecutors faking evidence and entrapping innocent people for what seems to be the unjust enrichment of a few who are attempting to cover their steps. We seek to know the truth.

Once again a question was asked of us and we put the information out for you, men and women seeking answers, to help. The man known as Brian Boquist, Oregon Senator, has had stories of “secret squirrel” status written about him and what we do know is that somewhere between the lines the truth exists. Many have already said that they believe private mercenaries are being used in America by the UNITED STATES in aligning with the U.N. intent of military law, so we have to question all of these interesting facts.

THE EMAILS AND COMMUNICATIONS: http://www.bendbulletin.com/newsroo...

Boquist was involved in communications that were released regarding the investigation into the assassination of Lavoy Finicum and Malheur Refuge Whistle Blowers:

On Jan. 18, state Sen. Brian Boquist, R-Dallas, wrote to Brown. Writing that he and the governor agreed about little beyond law enforcement, he urged Brown to put pressure on the FBI to set up a security perimeter around the refuge to “freeze out the occupiers peacefully.”

Boquist wrote that local and state law enforcement resources were insufficient should the occupation continue.

“The Obama Administration appointees need to allow the FBI to take the necessary actions to force a peaceful resolution before county and state law enforcement emergency resources snap,” he wrote. “It is an unfortunate but necessary recommendation.”

Two days later, Brown wrote to President Barack Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch. In her letter to Lynch, Brown asked the FBI to bring the occupation to an end.

“The residents of Harney County are being intimidated in their own hometown by armed criminals who appear to be seeking occasions for confrontation,” Brown wrote.

“The harm being done to the innocent men, women and children of Harney County is real and manifest. With each passing day, tensions increase exponentially.”

TENSIONS? Tensions for who we ask?

The whistle blowers were not a threat to the people in town, so was it just the threat of exposing the truth that they had that led to all this? we say YES! It was the FEDERAL AGENTS AND PUBLIC SERVANTS threatening the people not the Whistle Blowers!

Listen here: TRUTH! http://trentloos.podomatic.com/en…/2016-05-12T11_11_06-07_00
Erin Maupin a local rancher took it upon herself to tell these stories of local residents who were put under terror. In no way shape or form did any of these individuals have anything to do with the occupation of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the FBI knew they were not yet repeatedly did the same thing.

FROM LAZARRO:
Please try to listen to these interviews because it is stunning to me that the government would attempt to harass, intimidate, and instill fear into the innocent ranchers.

Here is a link to the testimony of a few of the ranchers who were stopped at the FBI roadblocks set up around Harney County. As I see it, from this testimony, the FBI or those posing as FBI, the Oregon State Police, and those in the chain of command, while operating in their private capacity have committed at a minimum, the following crimes by setting up and operating the road blocks:

Impersonating a Government Official, Misapprtiation of Public Funds, Theft Breach of Oath, Conspiracyto Deprive Rights, Deprivation of Rights, Kidnapping, Breach of the Peace, Contempt of the Constitution AND MORE!

https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-c...57206394349079

This man, Boquist, is an Oregon Senator who owns a “Special Security Company” for use of defense contractors, INTERNATION CHARTERS INCORPORATED OF OREGON (ICI). Was a company such as this one involved in the assassination of Lavoy Finicum, January 26 2016. We seek answers. Do you want to help?

We know Boquist served in the Army Special Forces as a Lieutenant Colonel. He is a man that should garner respect, yet it appears his involvement in the Malheur events lead to more questions of integrity. He is one more man left tainted in this journey through the Refuge until truth is given. Is Boquist participating in supplying private defense contractors in Burns Oregon?

The following links and information is offered for your Sunday reading (dis)pleasure we hope gets one interested in their freedoms enough to read, research and share:

http://www.davelewisashlandoregon.co...boquistici.htm
Boquist is a former career special forces lieutenant colonel who served in branches of the United States Army. He is a director with International Charter Incorporated, an international services company that specializes in a variety of support operations for private organizations and the United States government.

ICI has worked in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and South America. Additionally, ICI was involved in pre-deployment training of armed services members during OEF and OIF from 2006 to 2012.

Boquist is involved with several other business entities primarily in the agriculture and forestry industry.

He served as Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff of the Joint Combined Special Operations Task Force in Iraq in 2003–2004, receiving the Bronze Star Medal and recommendation for promotion for his service He has ownership interests in several businesses, including an ammunition factory in Baker City and a cattle and timber company in his Polk County home in Dallas, according to his disclosure forms filed with the state.

But Boquist's principal business, founded in the early 1990s, is International Charter Incorporated (ICI), a security contractor that provides aircraft and personnel to the Defense Department, the State Department, and non-governmental aid organizations working in hot zones around the world. ICI runs a military training complex in Wyoming, where it conducts live tactical exercises featuring rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and simulated truck bombs. The Wyoming branch of the company, founded in 2007, was awarded a subcontract for training U.S. Marines through another contractor, Defense Training Systems, an Alaska Native corporation. The subcontract, according to the lawsuit, is worth an estimated $2 million a year through April 2013.

As we do basic research we see that the website for International Charters Incorporated of Oregon is showing "under construction". Once questions arise and investigations are open we find much of the information we seek has been altered or taken down, but we seek to share and network as best we can. ·

People · Companies · Profiles · Company Profile Close Profile Add to List Print (503) 623-4426 (503) 623-7665 Fax www.icioregon.com

International Charter Incorporated of Oregon 17080 Butler Hill Rd. Dallas, Oregon 97338 United States map Share This Profile Company Background & Description

Revenue: $1 mil. - $5 mil. $3,000,000 Employees: 20 - 50 Company Description: ICI Security & Training provides a myriad of training and security services worldwide. Our Special Operations qualified instructors not only have years of military experience, but real-world civilian experience in some of the world's most difficult security environments.

At ICI's training facility, located in a remote area of Eastern Oregon, our clients train undisturbed and fully supported by ICI staff. The unique high-desert terrain and climate offers severe winter to warm weather training opportunities. US Army Special Forces Command, 1st & 10th Special Forces Groups, Washington State Army National Guard and Oregon State Army National Guard are just a few of our satisfied customers.



PUBLIC WAR, PRIVATE FIGHT, THE UNITED STATES AND PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANIES: https://books.google.com/books?id=-...
In this book, on page 4, the company Boquist owns is written about.

“ICI goes into foreign countries to assist in stopping tyrannical governments, so we accept that he contracts elsewhere to stop tyranny. Is he hypocritical in America and participating in tyranny? Why do we need the use of Defense Contractors on American land? Wasn't the intent to use these men to stop foreign usurpation in countries being overrun by tyranny?

It is interesting that we see this Defense Contractor company used in what appears to be, "against Americans"? This book discusses sovereignty questions as well, yes the word sovereignty is used and we doubt the writer is a Domestic Terrorist. In one quote it says,

"In an unstable environment, PMC's (private military contractors) are capable of becoming the law themselves".

(WHAT DID WE JUST READ? They are capable of becoming WHAT? the law themselves?)


https://www.createspace.com/3923427
Public War, Private Fight? The United States and Private Military Companies
Global War on Terrorism Occasional Paper 12

Authored by Deborah C. Kidwell, Combat Studies Institute

Like the other monographs in the Combat Studies Institute's Global War on Terrorism Occasional Paper series, Public War, Private Fight? The United States and Private Military Companies provides another case study for use by modern military leaders to help them prepare themselves and their soldiers for operations in the current conflict.

This work examines the widespread use of contractors by the military to help fill the massive and complex logistical requirements of a modern military force.

Ms. Kidwell examines the use of Private Military Companies (PMC) as far back as the American Revolution and follows their evolution through the War with Mexico, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and the first Gulf War.

She then analyzes the use of PMCs in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. Ms. Kidwell concludes that PMCs will be an increasingly important facet of US military operations for the foreseeable future; however, the use of contractors on the battlefield is not a panacea for all logistics problems. Logisticians, contractors, and military leaders who have responsibility for such operations in the current conflict against terror will gain useful insights to the advantages and disadvantages of these combat multipliers after reading this Occasional Paper.

The United States has long utilized private military contractors to augment regular military forces in support of its national foreign policy and security needs. Commonly referred to as Private Military Companies (PMCs), contractors employ and manage civilian personnel from the private sector in areas of active military operations. Frequently, regular troops become dependent on the services contractors provide-a situation that may negatively impact military effectiveness.

Since 1991, contractor support on and off the battlefield has become increasingly more visible, varied, and commonplace. Given the current manpower and resource limitations of the national military, the US will likely continue its extensive use of PMCs in support of military operations.

This work addresses historical precedents and trends in American logistics, the current scope of contractor involvement in support of regular military forces, and the challenges posed as traditional military institutions integrate increasing numbers of civilian workers and privately owned assets into the battle space. These problems increase the risk to US personnel and can induce budget overruns rather than savings, disrupt civil-military relations, and have detrimental consequences for the American economy and society.

The work concludes by proposing a useful rubric to evaluate this "new" American way of war. This work considers PMCs and their interdependence with regular and reserve military units in a broad sense. It derives from unclassified material widely available; understandably, these sources limit the analysis.

Lessons learned from the Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) and Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) theaters may alter findings. However, this study endeavors to frame the continuing dialog concerning the appropriate use of PMCs to support regular troops. It should stimulate further research and discussion by reviewing the history, theory, doctrine, and practice of employing private contractors on the battlefield. It is admittedly Army centric; however, in a joint environment and with a common acquisition framework provided by joint doctrine, the generalizations garnered from this analysis will be relevant to other service branches.

EXPOSE THE DECEPTION: http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Pmc... (we believe this was released in 2002)

A nearly two-year investigation by the Center for Public Integrity's International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (->) has identified at least 90 such companies, operating worldwide in 110 countries.

The ICI owned by Boquist is included in this investigation. *Another private, Oregon-based company, International Charter Incorporated of Oregon (ICI), managed in part by former U.S. Special Forces operatives. ICI is one of several companies contracted by the State Department to go into danger zones that are too risky or unsavory to commit conventional U.S. forces.

Even smaller companies like ICI of Oregon (with only 5 employees) are important. The company was incorporated in 1994 by Brian Boquist, a Special Forces lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve.

. Boquist, is a former executive of a subsidiary of Evergreen International Aviation, a private air freight company based in Oregon that has taken on sensitive missions for the U.S. government.

ICIs pilots fly in Russian helicopters and use Russian crew and developed a medical training program under U.S.-government auspices in southern Sudan.

At the end of 2002 the Senate Armed Services Committee has begun a review of the oversight of defense contractors in deployment missions worldwide. That report is due out in mid-2003. (See Ingram, Kevin) (See Krongard, Wally) At the Center for Public Integrity one can use a database to search for individual companies or regions. I.e. at "colombia", you can find 10 PMCs, which are active there.

Among them US originated companies like Eagle Aviation Services and Technology, Inc., AirScan, Inc., Aviation Development Corporation or DynCorp, Inc.

LIST OF PRIVATE MILITARY CONTRACTORS: ICI is listed http://www.privatemilitary.org/pmcs...

LIST OF OREGON LEGISLATORS: http://gov.oregonlive.com/legislato...

Does this information make you question what is going on in these cases even more?

We hope to make you think, research for yourself and answer these many questions.

Why is it that with every "player" (public servant) involved in the Oregon and Nevada cases that we research come up tainted?

Why is it that the SPECIAL AGENTS in charge for the agencies seem to have a past of investigations or lawsuits against them? Why is it that agents use sexual perversion, steroid filled aggression, vulgar language and abusive actions in the entrapment of good Americans?

Why are criminals given freedom in order to take the freedom from men working to stop tyranny against America?

And for the conclusion of questions we ask,

"WHY DO SO MANY OF THESE AGENTS INVOLVED IN THESE CASES APPEAR TO BE MILITARIZED AS IF THEY ARE PRIVATE DEFENSE CONTRACTORS, WHY?"

Thom & Rene’

follow the Cowboy and the Lady: Email: tr_thecowboyandthelady@yahoo.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/trthecowboyand1
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ThomRene2016/ .
#trthecowboyand1 #freedom #ammonbundy #constitution #politicalprisoners