150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

[monty]

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.

[monty]

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

[monty]

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



http://youtu.be/yczCQXr9lGE

[monty]

"EXCLUSIVE" Jake Ryan's mother tells His story



http://youtu.be/skDEb35eWf0

[monty]

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

[monty]

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.

[Cebu_4_2]

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?

[monty]

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

[monty]

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

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

[monty]

Leo Stratton post inteview with Bundy wives




http://youtu.be/owSxJNAHXcE