150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

[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.

[monty]

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

[monty]

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.



https://youtu.be/KfcaIsAdW2c

[monty]

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



http://youtu.be/l39370xMa6g

[monty]

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

[monty]

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

[monty]

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



http://youtu.be/zNZqOajxuNc

[monty]

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

[monty]

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

[monty]

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