150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

[monty]

United States says Bill of Rights doesn't apply to Malheur Reserve. In the event they can prove the Oregon Legislature ceded jurisdiction to the United States then it is true because the reserve would come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. But I do not believe the feds had the consent of the Oregon Legislature. In that case the US is treated as another property owner. They have stepped down from their sovereign position and entered into a business contract same as any other corporation.


Local | News | An Occupation In Eastern Oregon

Prosecutors: Bill Of Rights Shouldn't Cover Malheur Occupiers' Actions

by Conrad Wilson Follow and Ryan Haas OPB | July 29, 2016 9:15 p.m. | Updated: July 30, 2016 9:21 a.m.

---

http://www.opb.org/images/upload/c_l...921_ygv0qe.jpgThose who want the armed militants to leave Eastern Oregon's Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Oregon, keep ripping down a sign the occupiers keeps putting back up.
Kris Millgate/Tight Line Media

Federal prosecutors in Oregon filed a trial brief Friday outlining their case against the occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

The story prosecutors tell is one that shows a premeditated takeover of the refuge that had all the ingredients to escalate into a violent firefight.

Prosecutors write that evidence teams recovered more than 20,000 rounds of ammunition, more than 1,000 spent shell casings and dozens of firearms. They note the total cost of the occupation was more than $6 million.
“There was also a massive amount of trash and personal property scattered throughout the Refuge,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight wrote.

While 26 defendants were originally charged with conspiracy to impede federal workers after the 41-day occupation ended, several people have taken plea deals or asked for a later trial date in the case.
RELATED COVERAGE

http://www.opb.org/images/upload/c_f...hot_jcjflr.jpg
Trial For 8 Malheur Occupation Defendants To Begin On Valentine's Day


Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, Pete Santilli, David Fry, Jeff Banta, Kenneth Medenbach and Neil Wampler are scheduled to begin their trial Sept. 7.

Knight stated that those Malheur defendants were “inspired” by the 2014 armed standoff in Bunkerville, Nevada, between the Bureau of Land Management and ranchers led by Cliven Bundy, the father of Ammon and Ryan Bundy.

“Defendants described the occupied Refuge as the ‘second freest place on earth,’ after the Bundy Ranch,” Knight wrote.

In the filings, Knight also wrote why various possible defenses should be outright rejected by the Court. He argued the occupiers cannot justify their actions by citing First and Second Amendment rights.
“To the extent defendants claim that they were exercising their First Amendment right to free expression by — and while — carrying guns, this Court should reject that claim outright,” Knight wrote in the brief. “Taking a gun into a government office is not First Amendment protected activity.”

FULL COVERAGE

http://www.opb.org/images/upload/c_f...586_e6diax.jpg
An Occupation In Eastern Oregon

Ongoing coverage of the federal case against the people involved in the 41-day armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and how life has changed in Harney County, Oregon.

Knight stated that Ammon Bundy, the occupation’s “primary” leader, and Payne traveled to Burns two months before the occupation began and threatened Harney County Sheriff David Ward with “‘extreme civil unrest in the community.’”

Knight wrote that on Jan. 2, Ammon Bundy led a convoy from Burns to the Refuge to “‘make a hard stand.’”
Bundy stated that he and fellow occupiers initially took over the refuge to protest the imprisonment of Harney County ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond. The Hammonds were convicted of arson on federal lands.
Government attorneys said the protest quickly escalated into an armed occupation.

“In an effort to fortify their hold on the Refuge, defendants also set up military style teams to enforce security,” Knight wrote. “They placed armed guards in a tower on the property, armed guards at the front and rear gates, and armed teams patrolling different parts of the Refuge.”

Prosecutors allege the defendants planed to stay for years after digging in at the refuge. Defendants took over the kitchen, got personal mail delivered, broke into safes, attempted to access employee computers, slept in the bunkhouse and stole gas stored in a tank at the refuge, according to Knight.

RELATED COVERAGE

http://www.opb.org/images/upload/c_f...eur_y2akcc.jpg
PHOTOS: The Mess Occupiers Left At Malheur National Wildlife Refuge


After defendant Cox was arrested, Knight said she told investigators “the weapons would have been used to stop the federal government from entering the property.”

Knight wrote that First Amendment rights do not cover the occupation because “their speech incited illegal activity.”

“The First Amendment affords no defense to words or actions that incite imminent criminal activity and it cannot shield a defendant from criminal liability when the words or actions are themselves integral to the crime,” Knight stated in the brief.

He also argued that defendants in the case can’t argue their possession of firearms at the refuge is protected free speech because the occupation was not about gun rights.

In a similar argument, Knight stated that Second Amendment rights don’t protect the defendants who took weapons to the refuge.

“The Second Amendment secures lawful use or possession of a firearm but the Amendment does not protect use or possession connected with criminal activity,” he wrote.

RELATED COVERAGE

http://www.opb.org/images/upload/c_f...111_vrborf.jpgMalheur Video Evidence Exceeds 250 Days Of Nonstop Viewing


Knight said that self-defense arguments for firearm possession also shouldn’t be allowed in the trial because the defendants took weapons to the refuge before law enforcement was on scene.

“There is no evidence in this case that defendants needed to arm themselves for self-defense or that they even knew the scope of the law enforcement presence,” Knight wrote. “The Court should reject any defense effort to insert this ill-founded theory into the trial.”

When the trial begins, Knight said he and his colleagues plan to prove that

• two or more people agreed to prevent federal employees from doing their jobs by using “force, intimidation or threat”;
• some defendants knowingly took firearms into a federal facility with the intent to use those weapons in commission of a crime;
• Kenneth Medenbach illegally took a Ford F350 truck from the refuge for his own use; and
• Ryan Bundy knowingly stole more than $1,000 worth of government property from the refuge for his own use.

As a basis for those arguments, Knight asked the court to accept as indisputable fact that the refuge is federal property, that the Hammonds were sentenced for arson and that U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service employees are federal officers.

In a separate court filing Friday, the government filed its exhibit list for the trial. The list includes photos of the occupiers, audio recordings, video and surveillance footage, thousands of rounds of ammunition and dozens of firearms.


http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns...egon-evidence/

[monty]

Is Malheur Reserve Article I Section 8 Clause 17 property?? Highly unlikely!!!


The Cowboy and the Lady


HAVE THE FEDS BEEN LYING ABOUT OWNING THE LAND AT THE MALHEUR REFUGE? THE PEOPLE “OTLEY TO KNOW”

MAY 7 · PUBLIC


HAVE THE FEDS BEEN LYING ABOUT OWNING THE LAND AT THE MALHEUR REFUGE??

We have created this article in order to share the information given to us by those who have done some research into the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. OTLEY case from the early 1940’s. The Malheur land has been in the crosshairs of controversy in so many stories and cases that one may want to do some research and thinking about any and all “stories” spewed from the mouths of ABC agencies/agents. It is seeming to us that the majority of words in declarations of land ownership are anything but the truth fed to the Americans today. Read this and think, read the links and uncover what stinks!

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...4c8eaaabd02f40
"Oh, did we say WE owned the land? Sorry about that, we meant, "WE ARE STEALING YOUR LAND" says the BLM to the ranchers.

This is information from Dr Angus McIntosh. Thank you to a follower, Charmaign Edwards, for sharing this with us. DID THIS CASE SET TRUTH IN STONE THAT THE LAND WAS THE RANCHERS AND NOT FEDERAL?

An example of prior existing rights is the Malheur 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 Malheur Lake have the absolute right to graze and cut hay within the reserve, but actually owned half of Malheur 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 Malheur 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 Malheur 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 are further comments offered by Dr. Angus McIntosh.
"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."

Much more at the link:


https://m.facebook.com/notes/the-cow...8146468588405/

[Dogman]

Give an inch, they will take all the marbles in time, mostly because "they" write the dam rules !

Try and fight, then you are just a pissant giving the middle finger of hope, defiance and personal blessings while standing up to a flamethrower!

As Waco, and ruby ridge plus other examples have taught and proven.

Just saying being pragmatic!

Sadly "they" will take out of your dead hands if needed!

They still win!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forum runner

[midnight rambler]

Give an inch, they will take all the marbles in time, mostly because "they" write the dam rules !

Try and fight, then you are just a pissant giving the middle finger of hope, defiance and personal blessings while standing up to a flamethrower!

As Waco, and ruby ridge plus other examples have taught and proven.

Just saying being pragmatic!

Sadly "they" will take out of your dead hands if needed!

They still win!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forum runner

You do a poor job of concealing your status as a corporate state apologist.

[monty]

Give an inch, they will take all the marbles in time, mostly because "they" write the dam rules !

Try and fight, then you are just a pissant giving the middle finger of hope, defiance and personal blessings while standing up to a flamethrower!

As Waco, and ruby ridge plus other examples have taught and proven.

Just saying being pragmatic!

Sadly "they" will take out of your dead hands if needed!

They still win!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forum runner

Ruby Ridge 20 years ago this month.

Even if the government is wrong which is 99% of their cases they keep the ranchers tied up in court until they are bankrupt. Look at the my brothers inlaws, the Hage family, almost 40 years of fightin the USFS and BLM.

My friend Joe Fallini has had his share of legal troubles with them too.

Years ago I was working the evening shift in the Kenworth shop in Reno. A cattle hauler came in for some minor repair. I could tell the driver was a rancher the minute he climbed down from the cab. I told him he didn't look like a truck driver, he looked like a rancher. He told me his family had been ranchers in Montana and after many years of litigation with the feds they had to sell to pay the legal bills. He told me they had never lost a case, but were driven into poverty.

[Dogman]

You do a poor job of concealing your status as a corporate state apologist.

Kormrad when it comes to you I really do not give a flying hoo hoo what you think.

Enjoy your day !

[Dogman]

Ruby Ridge 20 years ago this month.

Even if the government is wrong which is 99% of their cases they keep the ranchers tied up in court until they are bankrupt. Look at the my brothers inlaws, the Hage family, almost 40 years of fightin the USFS and BLM.

My friend Joe Fallini has had his share of legal troubles with them too.

Years ago I was working the evening shift in the Kenworth shop in Reno. A cattle hauler came in for some minor repair. I could tell the driver was a rancher the minute he climbed down from the cab. I told him he didn't look like a truck driver, he looked like a rancher. He told me his family had been ranchers in Montana and after many years of litigation with the feds they had to sell to pay the legal bills. He told me they had never lost a case, but were driven into poverty.

Yep !

Monty totally understand and agree, even if you are right they will bankrupt you and you will still lose.

Revolution ?

One needs a majority to hold what is won, and if not , major shake and bake and mostly then return to the same..

Tho I would not complain if the gov rewinds , with a few tweeks back to the 1960's or so..

Minus the dam cold war as one of those tweeks..

[monty]

It is part and parcel of the communist manifesto

Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

[Dogman]

Communism , ?


Total has been tried, didn't work history wise!

I suggest more of a socialist trend, (my life observation but not necessarily my feelings)

seen that a pure capitalist system as lived in the past also failed!

Best guess is somewhere in the middle?

Attachment 8369

Wonder if rambutan has made it your way ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambutan

The climit you are living in is right for them, but bet the area has something close to it..





Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forum runner

[monty]

It is part and parcel of the communist manifesto

Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

Communism

TEN PLANKS OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO Could this be happening in America? If so, how? Our "elected representatives" have passed laws implementing these anti-freedom concepts. The communists have achieved a de facto FEDERAL SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT in America. In 1848 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote a book outlining a political ideology, titled "The Communist Manifesto". Marxism's basic theme is that the proletariat (the "exploited" working class of a capitalistic society) will suffer from alienation and will rise up against the "bourgeoisie" (the middle class) and overthrow the system of "capitalism." After a brief period of rule by "the dictatorship of the proletariat" the classless society of communism would emerge. In his Manifesto Marx described the following ten steps as necessary steps to be taken to destroy a free enterprise society!! Notice how many of these conditions, foreign to the principles that America was founded upon, have now, in 1997, been realized by the concerted efforts of socialist activists? Remember, government interference in your daily life and business is intrusion and deprivation of our liberties! First Plank: Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.(Zoning - Model ordinances proposed by Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover widely adopted. Supreme Court ruled "zoning" to be "constitutional" in 1921. Private owners of property required to get permission from government relative to the use of their property. Federally owned lands are leased for grazing, mining, timber usages, the fees being paid into the U.S. Treasury.) Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated incometax. (Corporate Tax Act of 1909. The 16th Amendment, allegedly ratified in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913, section 2, Income Tax. These laws have been purposely misapplied against American citizens to this day.) Third Plank: Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Partially accomplished by enactment of various state and federal "estate tax" laws taxing the "privilege" of transfering property after death and gift before death.) Fourth Plank: CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS.(The confiscation of property and persecution of those critical - "rebels" - of government policies and actions, frequently accomplished by prosecuting them in a courtroom drama on charges of violations of non-existing administrative or regulatory laws.) Fifth Plank: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913- -the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation.) Sixth Plank: Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.(Federal Radio Commission, 1927; Federal Communications Commission, 1934; Air Commerce Act of 1926; Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938; Federal Aviation Agency, 1958; becoming part of the Department of Transportation in 1966; Federal Highway Act of 1916 (federal funds made available to States for highway construction); Interstate Highway System, 1944 (funding began 1956); Interstate Commerce Commission given authority by Congress to regulate trucking and carriers on inland waterways, 1935-40; Department of Transportation, 1966.) Seventh Plank: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Depart-ment of Agriculture, 1862; Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 -- farmers will receive government aid if and only if they relinquish control of farming activities; Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 with the Hoover Dam completed in 1936.) Eighth Plank: Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture.(First labor unions, known as federations, appeared in 1820. National Labor Union established 1866. American Federation of Labor established 1886. Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 placed railways under federal regulation. Department of Labor, 1913. Labor-management negotiations sanctioned under Railway Labor Act of 1926. Civil Works Administration, 1933. National Labor Relations Act of 1935, stated purpose to free inter-state commerce from disruptive strikes by eliminating the cause of the strike. Works Progress Administration 1935. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, mandated 40-hour work week and time-and-a-half for overtime, set "minimum wage" scale. Civil Rights Act of 1964, effectively the equal liability of all to labor.) Ninth Plank: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.(Food processing companies, with the co-operation of the Farmers Home Administration foreclosures, are buying up farms and creating "conglomerates.") Tenth Plank: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. (Gradual shift from private education to publicly funded began in the Northern States, early 1800's. 1887: federal money (unconstitutionally) began funding specialized education. Smith-Lever Act of 1914, vocational education; Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and other relief acts of the 1930's. Federal school lunch program of 1935; National School Lunch Act of 1946. National Defense Education Act of 1958, a reaction to Russia's Sputnik satellite demonstration, provided grants to education's specialties. Federal school aid law passed, 1965, greatly enlarged federal role in education, "head-start" programs, textbooks, library books. (Research source: Encyclopedia Britannica.)

http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html