150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

[mick silver]

take the time and read what ares posted people ...........................this may end bad for those 4 men left there

[palani]

http://2mbtdc.com/wp-content/uploads...-Alexandra.jpg

These people just don't know how lucky they are. Once you have had a gun held to your head and an offer to pull the trigger presented you can now honestly deal with the state under the terms VI ET ARMIS. Hopefully they had witnesses to the event but even if they didn't doesn't change the impact of engaging in contracts with the state VI ET ARMIS.

Use what you have to your own advantage unless you want to be enslaved.

[Ares]

http://2mbtdc.com/wp-content/uploads...-Alexandra.jpg

These people just don't know how lucky they are. Once you have had a gun held to your head and an offer to pull the trigger presented you can now honestly deal with the state under the terms VI ET ARMIS. Hopefully they had witnesses to the event but even if they didn't doesn't change the impact of engaging in contracts with the state VI ET ARMIS.

Use what you have to your own advantage unless you want to be enslaved.

How do you go about doing that to a perpetrator who refuses to give you his name? You can't drag a nobody into court. You need a name to attach the summons/complaint/claim too.

[mick silver]

I copy and pasted one of the places you had in post ares I wish I could of posted the videos , this stuff maybe removed later by the law men ,,,, Hammond Ranch sitting on precious metal, mineral, uranium, deposits which the BLM desperately wants

By ◊ -
January 4, 2016
120

Share on Facebook
Tweet on Twitter



https://www.intellihub.com/wp-conten...ft-300x200.jpg


Federal Government’s Modus operandi to seize Hammond Ranch and Bundy Ranch revealed

Update: The following article details in depth why the BLM targeted the Hammond family in the first place. This is a MUST read.
Key fact: Hammonds targeted because government wants to steal their land
(INTELLIHUB) — Renown Terra firma researcher dutchsinse conducted an investigation of both the Bundy Ranch in Nevada and the Hammond Ranch in Oregon.

“Let’s just call it what it is. Human greed is at stake here. Who is going to get the gold back there in the back country? Who is going to get the uranium?”

The video below is a must watch.
(Ad) Dark Days Ahead If We Don't Address These Issues -- Find Out Why



Additionally, “as it turns out,” dutchsinse said, the “history on Gold Butte [will] will blow your mind.”

“You have farmers, ranchers, that I would say have been going out and getting the gold.”

Dutch then goes on to prove there are massive yellowcake uranium deposits in the area.
Is it possible the group is facing off with the BLM over precious metals, minerals, resources n the area?

[mick silver]

Oregon The Secret They Don’t Want You To Know
BLM seems to have wanted the Hammond Ranch pretty darn bad but why? A corporation called Uranium One and a 1956 survey might just hold the answer!

Uranium One, a Canadian company mired in controversy over its proposed purchase by a Russian mining conglomerate, is divesting itself of its Colorado mining interests because of “all the politics and all the local sentiment” against uranium mining in the state, an executive told the Colorado Independent recently.
Prospects for a nuclear revival would start with mining uranium in Colorado.
“Nothing,” Uranium One vice president of conventional mining Norman Schwab said when asked what the company currently has going on in Colorado. “I had a lot of different properties in Colorado and we’re not into waiting for years for sentiment to change, so in terms of work in Colorado we’ve dropped the various properties and we’re focusing in Utah and Arizona and other states that are pro-mining. It’s as simple as that.”
http://i1.wp.com/tatsrevolution.com/...size=650%2C285
One of those more pro-mining Rocky Mountain states is neighboring Wyoming, where Uranium One is launching an in-situ mining project in the Powder River Basin. Republican lawmakers have objected to the purchase of Uranium One by Russian government-owned Atomredmetzoloto (ARMZ) for national security reasons.




There is considerable political angst that uranium mined in Wyoming could wind up in Iran because ARMZ supplies that neighboring and highly unfriendly nation. Uranium One’s Schwab, a South African based in the company’s Denver office, said it’s fear-mongering to suggest highly regulated uranium will wind up in a rogue state. It’s the unregulated stuff people should worry about, he said.
“It’s like gun ownership, for instance,” Schwab said. “In South Africa, the only people who own guns now are the criminals, because the people who try to do it legally are prohibited. It’s just impossible.”
The Denver Post Wednesday reported Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak addressed the political issue during a Denver visit on Tuesday: “Do you mind some investment? It is a normal commercial operation — not something that is operating on any political guidance.”
In a statement to the Colorado Independent, Colorado Sen. Mark Udall, a proponent of reviving the nation’s moribund nuclear power industry, said the ARMZ sale needs to be watched closely.
“With the increasing interest in strategic minerals, it’s definitely valid and responsible to ask serious questions about who has the right to extract, own and develop them, and I’m continuing to study the situation involving Uranium One,” Udall said. “I also understand that the proposal must be cleared by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investments.”
U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner also must sign off on the sale, and he will have to do so under a cloud of suspicion dating to the Cold War and the fact that a deal supplying American nuclear plants with uranium from old Russian nuclear weapons is set to expire in 2013. Despite a virtual freeze on new nuclear plants since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the U.S. still gets 20 percent of its electricity from aging nuclear plants.
More than 90 percent of the uranium used in U.S. nuclear plants is imported, and under the expiring weapons program, up to a third of that supply comes from Russia. Colorado is a former uranium-mining hotbed that produced uranium for some of the first atomic weapons, and in some depressed areas of the state an industry revival is viewed favorably. But there is mounting environmental and political pressure to clean up the industry’s toxic legacy and limit future operations.
Uranium One’s Schwab sees that as a mistake.
“If you think oil is bad, uranium is in the exact same picture where you import all your uranium and you’re going to be held hostage to that when in 2013 the agreement with the Russians ends,” he said. “Then, where do you get your uranium from?”
Jeff Parsons, senior attorney for the Western Mining Action Project, says Colorado is poised to get all of the environmental problems associated with the “dirty front end [mining]” of any nuclear power revival and few of the benefits.
“The increase of foreign companies taking over mining interests in the United States is part of a trend over the last 20 years or so,” Parsons said. “We’ve seen more and more foreign mining companies in Colorado and across the West.”
Uranium is a “locatable mineral” under the 1872 Mining Law that was meant to speed the settlement of the West, and as such it is not subject to any sort of royalty payment similar to what the oil and gas industry must pay to drill on federal lands.
“What’s happened in the last 20 years is the growth in multi-national foreign companies taking over these deposits is they get a better deal in the United States than they get in any other country,” Parsons said.
Next: Why hasn’t the 1872 Mining Law been reformed to compel companies to pay royalties for extracting hard-rock minerals from federal lands?
Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story misidentified the nonprofit environmental law firm that Jeff Parsons works for. His is a senior attorney with the Western Mining Action Project in Lyons.

---

Page 1 / 23
Zoom 100%
wp-pdf.comhttp://tatsrevolution.com/2016/01/15/oregon-the-secret-they-dont-want-you-to-know/

[mick silver]

lots more at site .......http://tatsrevolution.com/2016/01/15...ou-to-know/The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has purchased two private parcels of land surrounded by the Agua Fria National Monument, and it’s working on one more.

The BLM bought 80 acres of the Cross Y Ranch, including one 40-acre parcel located a mile west of the ranch headquarters and another 40-acre parcel located three miles north of the headquarters. The monument is located in southeast Yavapai County. The purchases prevent possible development of the parcels.
“We are thrilled to have the additional habitat and very grateful to our partners, especially the original landowner who chose to have his land become part of the National Conservation Lands, and The Conservation Fund, which made this possible,” said Rem Hawes, manager of the BLM’s Hassayampa Field Office.
The landowner sold the parcels to The Conservation Fund in 2012, and the BLM has been working to buy it ever since. The BLM paid the appraised value of $80,000 using Land and Water Conservation Act money.
“The Cross Y Ranch includes substantial water rights, nearly one mile of the Agua Fria River, wildlife migratory corridors, cultural resources, and opportunities for public access to monument lands,” said Mike Ford, director of the Conservation Fund’s Southwest Regional Office. The organization can move faster than the federal government, so it buys land to temporarily protect it until federal agencies can complete their purchase processes.
The lands are located within the Perry Mesa Archaeological District that is on the National Register of Historic Places.
The purchases also protect desert grasslands that provide habitat for pronghorn antelope and other species, officials noted.
The Conservation Fund already has purchased another 600 acres of the Cross Y Ranch to help facilitate the BLM’s future purchase of this tract, too. It surrounds the 100-acre ranch headquarters property. The BLM hopes to get Land and Water Conservation Fund money to buy this parcel in fiscal year 2017. It includes a second of the Agua Fria River.
The BLM is interested in buying a couple other private inholdings within the monument, Hawes said, although it’s not pursuing those purchases at this time. They include the 80-acre Box Bar Ranch and the 25-acre Indian Creek parcel that’s also part of the Box Bar.
While the Richinbar Mine also is on private land within the monument, the BLM isn’t interested in buying it because it was heavily mined from the late 1880s to the 1920s and has numerous physical hazards, Hawes said. The land also might contain mining-related waste, he added.
A few years ago, the Arizona Game and Fish Department bought the Horseshoe Ranch that’s surrounded by the monument, so that land already is protected from development.
If federal law allowed the BLM to buy adjacent lands, BLM officials also would be interested in buying another 1,280 acres of land southeast of the Cross Y Ranch, Hawes said.

---

WHAT’S WILDERNESS WORTH?
For more than a century, the people who run America’s extractive industries—logging, mining, and fossil-fuel drilling—have offered one answer. Conservationists and the environmental movement have offered another. Developers have touted job creation and the connection between industrial exploitation and economic vitality. Environmentalists have grounded their appeals in ecological science and the value of wilderness to the human soul. Always at odds, locked in ideological opposition, the two sides, it seems, have long been speaking different languages.
http://i0.wp.com/tatsrevolution.com/...size=600%2C761
Currently, with tens of millions of acres on the line and developers enjoying a stiff political tailwind blowing out of Washington, D.C., the mutual incomprehension has become nearly absolute. The environment reflects the red-state/blue-state divide and plays out in vitriolic debate.
Amid all the noise, both sides are failing to hear the whisper of a bold development that could break the deadlock and revolutionize sustainable environmental policy: the arrival of wilderness economics, a dollars-and-cents way to attach a fair and reliable estimate to the seemingly uncountable value of preserving wild spaces and pristine natural resources.
The lyrical phrases of John Muir, Aldo Leopold, and David Brower never came with dollar signs attached. They couldn’t. In bill and coin, nobody in those days could say what wilderness was worth. Now we can. Studies of rivers and lakes reveal that healthy watersheds provide millions of dollars’ worth of water filtration, just one of many such natural services critical for healthy communities. Researchers digging into the economy of the West are finding that forests often have a higher cash value standing than they have as cut timber. Small towns born as logging outposts now thrive as recreation gateways.
“Fifteen years ago we knew intuitively that cutting down these forests didn’t make sense,” says Bob Freimark, Pacific Northwest director of the Wilderness Society. “We couldn’t point to any economic studies to back us up. But not anymore.”
This new economic paradigm couldn’t arrive at a more crucial time. The failure of environmentalists to sell their agenda to voters has run headlong into an administration that’s put energy development at the top of its list and is making it easier than ever to siphon private resources from public land. While mainstream media have focused on hot spots like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Bush administration officials have quietly opened millions of acres of wilderness-quality land in the lower 48 to developers. Much of the 58.5 million acres of roadless national forest preserved by the Clinton administration will soon lose its protection. In Wyoming, ranchers who’ve wisely tended their land for generations are watching energy companies ruin their soil and water in a natural-gas free-for-all. In Utah and Colorado, nearly 150,000 acres of wildland—including previously protected sections of Desolation Canyon, as well as spectacular tracts of Sagebrush Pillows and the Dolores River Canyon—have been leased for drilling in the past 14 months. Tens of thousands more will likely follow.
President George W. Bush and his supporters defend these actions in the name of energy security and jobs. But set against the West’s new economic reality—a long-term shift away from extractive industries and toward recreation, tourism, the service sector, and information technology—the aggressive drive to cut and drill without factoring in long-term effects on the value of public wildland isn’t just environmentally unfriendly; it’s economically unsound. Converting the natural wealth contained in the nation’s pristine forests, deserts, canyons, and mesas into a one-time hit of corporate profit is a swindle of the first order, one that should outrage anyone, Republican or Democrat, who favors combining sound business practices with smart environmental stewardship.
Fortunately, the new way of thinking, if embraced by both sides, could lead to an era of compromise, in which decisions about extraction and preservation are based on assessments of long-term value, and of how that value might or might not be sacrificed for short-term gains.
If that happens, we’ll owe thanks to people like John Loomis, 52, an economics professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at Colorado State University in Fort Collins and one of the pioneer thinkers in wilderness valuation. Loomis has written dozens of papers showing that mining, logging, drilling, and grazing are rarely the most economically beneficial uses of public land. His personal revelation came 28 years ago, in 1977, shortly after the young Cal State Northridge graduate took a job with the federal government’s Bureau of Land Management, which put him to work in the slickrock canyons around Moab.
“My second week on the job,” Loomis recalls, “the Forest Service held a public hearing. About three-quarters of the people there said they didn’t want any wilderness in Utah, period. And I thought, Now wait a minute. Surely there’s some economic value in wilderness.” Along with a handful of like-minded colleagues scattered around the West, Loomis would spend the next quarter-century proving that there is.
$72 AN ACRE
Wilderness economics may not be the last word in the conservation argument, but it’s taken on considerable weight, given the alacrity and scale with which the White House is rolling back wilderness protection. If the current wilderness land grab had an emblematic moment, it was the morning of November 24, 2003. I was on hand that day when the federal government—dramatically reversing long-standing precedent—took a chunk of protected land (acreage that the BLM itself had identified as having “wilderness characteristics,” and that was part of the proposed 9.5-million-acre Red Rock Wilderness) and auctioned it off to oil and gas developers.
“Parcel number 26 is the next one we’re offering,” the auctioneer called out to the 22 land men—agents for oil and gas companies—who had assembled inside a BLM conference room in Salt Lake City. “Minimum bid: two dollars to start.”
Auctions like this are, in themselves, nothing new. Since the 1920s, private companies have acquired the right to drill on public land for as little as $2 an acre. Currently there are 94,000 wells on public property and Indian reservations, producing 11 percent of America’s natural gas and 5 percent of our oil.
But Parcel 26 was different. Behind its sale lay nearly three years of legal maneuvering at the top levels of the Interior Department. After chafing under two terms of President Bill Clinton’s conservationist policies, industry executives and Bush appointees came into office determined to ramp up the industrial use of public land. In their way stood two things: Clinton’s Roadless Area Conservation Rule, adopted by the Forest Service in January 2001, and the de facto wilderness protections installed on BLM land in 1999 by then–Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt.
The roadless rule halted the taxpayer-subsidized construction of new roads on the most pristine 58.5 million acres of national forest. (There are currently 436,000 miles of roads on the nation’s 192 million acres of national forests and grasslands.) Because the rule came late in Clinton’s term, President Bush—just minutes after taking the oath of office in January 2001—was able to temporarily freeze its implementation. By the end of 2004, the White House had eliminated roadless protection for much of Alaska’s 17-million-acre Tongass National Forest and had rewritten the rule in a way that all but ensured that roadless protections would never take effect in the nation’s other national forests.
Opening up protected BLM wildlands to oil and gas developers has proven trickier. The BLM oversees 261 million acres, almost all of which is in the West. Most of that land is open to oil and gas drilling, but 6.5 million acres are protected as congressionally authorized wilderness areas, and 15.5 million are held as wilderness study areas (WSA), meaning the land is off limits to development pending further evaluation.
Based on state-by-state inventories conducted over the past two decades, environmental groups claim that the BLM manages an additional 12 million acres of wilderness-quality land not protected in either WSAs or formal wilderness areas, including several million in Utah. In 1996, prompted by conservationists, Bruce Babbitt told BLM managers to re-inventory the agency’s Utah holdings. And if you find that it’s wilderness, he told them, manage it as wilderness. The process took three years, but in 1999 the BLM acknowledged that it held more than 2.6 million additional acres of wilderness-quality land and gave it protected status.
The Bush administration, with Babbitt’s successor, Gale Norton, leading the charge, was determined to reverse that policy. From 2001 to 2003, Norton and Interior officials secretly negotiated a deal with Utah state officials—including then-governor Mike Leavitt, who later became Bush’s EPA administrator—to remove the wilderness restrictions.
Norton’s April 11, 2003, announcement stunned wilderness advocates. Not only had the deal wiped out the BLM’s 2.6 million acres of “managed wilderness” in Utah; it also prohibited the BLM from expanding its WSA inventory. In any state. Ever.
Seven months later, on November 24, 2003, the first of the previously protected BLM parcels was put up for lease in Salt Lake City. After the auction, I caught up with the man who had placed the winning bid to lease Parcel 26 and two other pieces of Desolation Canyon. (In about five minutes he’d leased 4,700 acres for $340,000.) His name was Joe Thames, and he was there on behalf of Baseline Minerals Inc., a minerals-brokerage firm based in Denver. Because land men like Thames often represent third-party buyers, I asked whom he’d purchased the lease for.
“I’m not able to disclose that,” he said. I asked why there was so much interest in the Desolation Canyon property.
“I’d rather not say.” With that, Thames turned and left. Three pieces of Utah wilderness disappeared with him.
Joe Thames’s money wasn’t theoretical; he wrote a check to the American taxpayers for $340,000. But is that the whole story? If Baseline Minerals builds a natural-gas well and runs a road into Desolation Canyon (when this issue went to press, no development had yet taken place on this land), the development could threaten the $1.5 million annual revenue generated by the rafting industry on Desolation’s Green River. Moreover, this land couldn’t qualify for full wilderness protection.
Is that worth $340,000? Or did the BLM just sell a piece of Utah’s economic future far too cheaply?
THE SILENT ENGINE
To some, it might seem pretty cut-and-dried: the value of leaving beautiful but “worthless” wilderness alone versus the potential for jobs, profits, and the prospect of reducing America’s dependence on foreign sources of energy. Oil companies might mess up the landscape, but that’s forgotten come payday. Wilderness advocates don’t cut checks, and a man can’t feed his family on scenery.
That’s the old line, anyway, but it’s not as convincing anymore. A reversal of that conventional wisdom began taking shape in the early nineties, following the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska’s Prince William Sound. Shortly after the disaster, economists working for the state of Alaska calculated a fair estimate, in dollars, of the spill’s damage. They used a number of then-controversial methods like “contingent valuation,” which relies on polling data to estimate what the average citizen would pay to keep, say, Glacier National Park protected from destruction. Using such measures, the economists came up with a damage estimate: $3 billion.
Many of the theories, methods, and benchmarks used to produce the Valdez estimate didn’t just emerge overnight. They were part of a 30-year-old work in progress by economists based in various academic outposts in the West—among them, Loomis, at Colorado State; Thomas Power, at the University of Montana; Gundars Rudzitis, at the University of Idaho; Gretchen Daily, at Stanford; and Ed Whitelaw, at the University of Oregon. Though the Valdez brought some publicity to what these thinkers were doing, their ideas didn’t significantly influence national policy until 1999, when President Clinton first proposed the roadless rule.
“The timber industry launched an economic salvo against the roadless rule early on,” recalls Ken Rait, a wilderness activist and former director of the Heritage Forests Campaign, a Washington, D.C.–based coalition of environmental groups that lobbied in favor of the rule. “They said it would condemn the future of rural economies. We knew they were flat-out wrong. So we brought John Loomis on to look into it.”
Building on previous research that calculated everything from the spending average of wilderness visitors ($30 a day) to the value of roadless areas for scientific research (about $5 million a year), Loomis and Robert Richardson, a doctoral student at CSU, produced a study with impressive numbers. They found that wilderness pays primarily in three ways: direct income from recreational use and as a quality-of-life benefit to lure new businesses and residents; passive-use value (what it’s worth to maintain the opportunity to visit wilderness, or to pass that opportunity on to future generations); and “ecosystem services,” natural processes like the air- and water-purification functions of an undisturbed forest.

[mick silver]

b) Interagency Coordination. The following agencies shall work with the Initiative to identify existing resources and align policies and programs to achieve its goalsi) the Department of Defense;
(ii) the Department of Commerce;
(iii) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(iv) the Department of Health and Human Services;
(v) the Department of Labor;
(vi) the Department of Transportation;
(vii) the Department of Education; and
(viii) the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
(c) Reports. The Initiative shall submit, through the Chair of the CEQ, the following reports to the President:
(i) Report on America’s Great Outdoors. By November 15, 2010, the Initiative shall submit a report that includes the following:
(A) a review of successful and promising nonfederal conservation approaches;
(B) an analysis of existing Federal resources and programs that could be used to complement those approaches;
(C) proposed strategies and activities to achieve the goals of the Initiative; and
(D) an action plan to meet the goals of the Initiative.
The report should reflect the constraints in resources available in, and be consistent with, the Federal budget. It should recommend efficient and effective use of existing resources, as well as opportunities to leverage nonfederal public and private resources and nontraditional conservation programs.
(ii) Annual reports. By September 30, 2011, and September 30, 2012, the Initiative shall submit reports on its progress in implementing the action plan developed pursuant to subsection (c)(i)(D) of this section.
Sec. 3. General Provisions.
(a) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of any necessary appropriations.
(b) This memorandum does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(c) The heads of executive departments and agencies shall assist and provide information to the Initiative, consistent with applicable law, as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Initiative. Each executive department and agency shall bear its own expenses of participating in the Initiative.
(d) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the functions of the Director of the OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(e) The Chair of the CEQ is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.http://tatsrevolution.com/2016/01/15...t-you-to-know/

[mick silver]

Special Agent in Charge of Oregon Occupation Greg Bretzing Linked to National Security Breach, Fraud and Corruption in Salt Lake City

by Red Smith · January 29, 2016

Information Courtesy of KSL-TV
https://shastalantern.net/wp-content...016/01/KSL.jpe
https://shastalantern.net/wp-content.../Bretzing1.jpeSpecial Agent in Charge Bretzing

In 2011 KSL-TV out of Utah conducted a year-long investigation of the FBI Field Office in Salt Lake City regarding security violations. The alleged violations had been first reported by a special agent in Phoenix and alleged a leak of classified information that could threaten national security. Greg Bretzing, now out of the FBI’s Portland, OR. branch and current Special Agent in Charge of the Malhuer Occupation and LaVoy Finicum shooting was an Assistant Special Agent in Charge at the time of the investigation. The report prompted the Salt Lake City field office to begin re-evaluating its security procedures, according to sources inside the FBI. Security clearance procedures were reassessed to ensure each individual had the appropriate credentials and access.
The story detailed allegations of multiple violations of internal FBI policies, including lax oversight of classified documents stored inside the FBI’s Salt Lake City field office; violations of policies that govern the issuance and use of FBI credentials; the failure to enforce rules that restrict access to areas where classified documents are kept; and concerns that high-level FBI officials may have covered up a formal complaint of security violations. The FBI declined to officially comment on any of the allegations.
Nearly a dozen self-described whistleblowers — including those with strong ties to the FBI’s Salt Lake field office — have come forward to expose potentially serious security breaches, including the removal of classified documents from the office contrary to strict FBI protocol. The whistleblowers were interviewed as part of the yearlong investigation which was able to corroborate much of what each source reported by conducting individual interviews without the knowledge of other sources. The sources provided details of multiple violations of internal FBI policies, including lax oversight of highly classified documents stored inside the Salt Lake City office’s Secret Compartmented Information Facility; the failure to enforce rules that restrict access to areas where classified documents are kept; violations of policies that govern the issuance of FBI credentials; and concerns that high-level FBI officials may have covered up a formal complaint of security violations.
“The actions that Salt Lake City is taking definitely could jeopardize national security,” one FBI source said. “That’s a big problem. That’s a huge problem with catastrophic consequences.””[that] turned that place upside down,” an FBI source said “It [was] pandemonium.” “It’s a huge deal,” another FBI source said. “We’re talking about the pinnacle of law enforcement. And they’ve got corruption inside their own office.”Special Agent in Charge James McTighe and the two assistant special agents in charge, Ken Porter and Greg Bretzing, were said to be visibly concerned. Dan Ward, the special agent in charge of security, was reportedly just as worried.
These individuals spoke on the condition that their identities be protected. “There is a severe problem with the Salt Lake office,” one source told KSL. “None of them will come forward because they know the FBI will come after them with a vengeance.” “People are afraid,” another FBI source said. “People are afraid to say anything. This has been going on for years.”
Sources who worked in Salt Lake field say concerns about security were heightened when the FBI granted high-level credentials to certain non-FBI task force members. In a specific example, all cite the credentials provided to Utah State fraud investigator Shane Tiernan, when he was appointed to an FBI-led task force on health care and then the violent crimes task force. Those sources said Tiernan was given an FBI Secure Access Control System key card, known as a SACS badge. This type of badge is considered a high-level credential, usually allowing 24-hour access to the FBI field office. Sources say however, Tiernan frequently wore his FBI-issued SACS badge and allegedly was allowed to maintain his credentials even after he left public service.
“He had credentials after he was off the task force and during the time he was a civilian employee. He was in another state working as a civilian. When he returned to Utah, he still had those credentials, which is a direct violation of FBI policy,” said a former state investigator who worked with Tiernan. “Shane Tiernan knows about the improprieties of the FBI,” said one source knowledgeable of the FBI probe. “The FBI’s not going to do anything to him. The FBI will never besmirch his name because he’ll turn around and take down the supervisors that he knew.” One such alleged improper practice involves an agent “loaning” an FBI-issued automatic firearm to Tiernan for a period of one year, according to three separate sources who worked with Tiernan at the time.
In light of the controversy surrounding the shooting of LaVoy Finicum and considering the other allegations of impropriety, corruption and political incest and nepotism surrounding key individuals of the Government, Judge Ann Aiken, Judge Stephen Grasty, Sheriff Dave Ward, involved with the Malhuer Occupation, this revelation is troubling in the extreme.

Share
9.7k


29

• Next storyPacific Patriots Standing Down From Shielding Refuge Occupiers
• Previous storyPower Corrupts Absolutely: Ties that Bind Run Deep with Aiken Family in Hammond Case

[mick silver]

These individuals spoke on the condition that their identities be protected. “There is a severe problem with the Salt Lake office,” one source told KSL. “None of them will come forward because they know the FBI will come after them with a vengeance.” “People are afraid,” another FBI source said. “People are afraid to say anything. This has been going on for years.”

[mick silver]

Power Corrupts Absolutely: Ties that Bind Run Deep with Aiken Family in Hammond Case

by Red Smith · January 26, 2016

Ann Aiken, Chief Judge of the United States District Court of Oregon 9th Circuit, is no stranger to accusations of inappropriate relationships regarding her Courtroom. She is not a stranger to willfully failing to disclose those relationships and has even allegedly illegally ruled in her own favor to attempt to hide those relationships. In one recent complaint filing, a visiting out-of-circuit judge was requested by motion because the Defendants, including Ninth Circuit judges who are a member of the Oregon State Bar, had several political, business and social ties to Judge Aiken who was to be the presiding judge in the case. These ties constituted a very real potential conflict of interest against the Plaintiff’s interests. There are specific guidelines to be followed when requesting inter-circuit visiting judges and Judge Aiken refused to follow those requirements. Only the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court may decide such matters and Judge Aiken refused to follow those guidelines and the federal statute by ruling on these matters herself. Judge Aiken ruled on the motion against her in her own favor.
Already brought to light is Judge Aiken’s potential inappropriate working relationship with Hammond terrorism re-sentencing lead prosecutor Amanda Marshall. Prior to being appointed U.S. District Attorney Amanda Marshall worked for the Oregon Department of Justice in Child Advocacy Services, a State Agency overseen by the Child Advocacy Services Board, a Board Judge Aiken has been President of since 1998. Judge Aiken was the Chief Justice that oversaw Amanda Marshall’s Oath of Office and swearing in and in conclusion to that ceremony instructed Marshall to “now hit the ground running”.
Judge Aiken was also the presiding Judge in a 2006 case that overturned several key provisions of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 which she found violated the supremacy of the Federal Environmental Protection Act. A management plan that the Hammonds were key in helping construct. As well Judge Aiken’s decision weighed heavily based on affidavit testimony by Harney County Judge Stephen Grasty, whose actions have come into question and extreme scrutiny since the occupation began.
Now in question is Judge Aiken’s relationship with two brothers who have started a counter occupation movement labeled as G.O.H.O.M.E. (Getting Occupiers of Historic Oregon Malhuer Evicted). Started by brothers Zach and Jake Klonoski, the group seeks to raise funds and generate community sentiment to forcefully remove the Citizen Occupiers of the Malhuer Reserve. Zach Klonoski is a special assistant to Charlie Hales, Mayor of Portland and is listed by the City’s website as the Mayor’s right hand. Jake Klonoski is an Attorney Adviser Department of the Inspector General 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In order to re-sentence the Hammonds as terrorists the United States Government had to file an appeal Under 18 U.S. Code 3742 (B). According to the code; “…The Government may not further prosecute such appeal without the personal approval of the Attorney General, the Inspector General, or a deputy inspector general designated by the Inspector General.” The same Inspector General where Jake Klonoski is employed as a key Attorney Adviser. These appeals to sentences are extremely rare in their dispensation. However, as troubling as Jake Klonoski’s capacity to influence that appeal process is, considering his recent political stance against the Occupiers seeking to defend the Hammonds rights, it is does not hold a candle to the inappropriate relationship between the Klonoski Brothers and Judge Ann Aiken, whose former married name is Ann Aiken-Klonoski. Jake and Zach are in fact her sons.
Considering Judge Aiken’s working relationship with the lead prosecutor, her familial relationship with key members of the Inspector Generals office with the power to issue the rarely heard of sentencing appeal and her involvement in overturning a law the Hammonds were instrumental in crafting it is not outside the realm of logic to question Aiken’s fitness to serve as the presiding Judge in the re-sentencing matter. Taken in the light of complaints filed against Judge Aiken regarding her failure to disclose pertinent relationships and her capacity to circumvent the law in her own behalf, it is unconscionable that she presided over the Hammond case and as the situation now clearly reeks of nepotism, political incest and corruption the Hammond case clearly must be revisited by a new and impartial means outside of the tainted District Court. At this juncture it would seem that a Common Law Grand Jury constructed outside of the Oregon or Federal Courts is the only mechanism remaining that can be trusted to operate under the color of law.

Share
722


1

• Next storySpecial Agent in Charge of Oregon Occupation Greg Bretzing Linked to National Security Breach, Fraud and Corruption in Salt Lake City
• Previous storyHammond Judge Ann Aiken has History of Political Incest