It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: Armed militia occupies forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call ‘US patriots’ to arms

page: 36
87
<< 33  34  35   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   
www.oregonlive.com...-photo



LaVoy Finicum, a prominent member of the Bundy crew, had just finished a speech about the sign when a convoy pulled up. Members of the Pacific Patriots Network, a consortium of groups from Oregon, Washington and Idaho, emerged from their cars and trucks carrying rifles and sidearms and clad in military attire and bulletproof vests. Their leader, Brandon Curtiss, said the group came to "de-escalate" the situation by providing security for those inside and outside the compound.


More info on the new group arriving to de escalate the situation.

Whatever that means.




posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
So why is there a stand-off?



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: SurrenderingIsBack

There is a lot of info, the long and short of it was two ranchers got charged with arson and served some time that was under the mandatory sentence for it.
At the time they were charged, arson on federal property carried a min 5 year sentence, and a judge recently ruled they needed to serve that. It was under an anti-terrorism act, but they were never charged as terrorist.
The people going to jail did not call for this stand off, they turned them self's in willingly and commented they did not want this.

Now there is plenty of he said she said about rather it was federal land and if this is double jeopardy and other issues but for all that you would have to read the whole thread and make your decision.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Thank you my friend - i gave you a star for your politeness in your explanation



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Indeed! The Bundy group rode into town, taking over without being asked, refusing to go away when asked, and now another group rides into town without being asked, apparently challenging the Bundys raison d'etre. I love the drama, the Bundys, who were not invited, are being confronted by a visitor they didn't invite. The Uninvited Redux. Or High Plains Grifters.

What happened in Las Vegas should have stayed in Las Vegas.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
And now rides in a fellow Sovereign Citizen ...

Self-appointed 'judge' arrives in Burns to ask local residents to charge government officials with crimes


There is no evidence to date that a legal determination by a self-styled judge associated with the sovereign citizen movement would have any effect, other than to excite people already allied with that fringe view.

Hundreds of people who have used similar sovereign citizen arguments to justify failing to pay federal income taxes, getting drivers licenses or other government requirements have never prevailed in any court.


Look, Clark County in Nevada where the Bundys are from has a population of 2,000,000. Harney County where they are now in Oregon has a population around 8,000. If the Bundy, Sovereign Citizen, so-much-for-well-regulated-militia groups want to really help the people of Burns, then leave them alone to settle their local disputes. They don't want your "help". Stop using them! Stop trying to be their Big Brother.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 01:55 AM
link   
I disagree with everyone here who was calling for the blood or summary execution of these guys. Well we got some blood now, so I hope you guys are happy. Taking a federal building in the middle of nowhere to make their point. Wow. That's just soooo terroristey. A building they took without one person being killed, injured, coerced, or even threatened. Admirable really, in my opinion. To think that the Hammond sentencing is what the trigger for this event was.

In my opinion, the Hammond issue was much done about nothing. Send these guys to prison for five years for fires during which no one was injured or killed, no homes were destroyed, no endangered species' survival was affected, no widespread fires were birthed...I'm not sure why they should have been prosecuted in the first place.

I sorta don't blame the other ranchers for feeling so aggrieved by the BLM's heavy handedness in this situation. Proscribed burns are a part of their livelihood. They could easily see themselves tricked into this type of situation by underhanded behavior from that same agency without stretching their imaginations at all, really. The guy said he made a phone call and the agent on staff said yeah go ahead with the burn, then he gets railroaded because he didn't actually make sure to get a written permit. An i not dotted, a t not crossed, and there goes his freedom and livelihood, with a little help from a flawed bureaucratic system that grinds people up in its gears every now and then...I personally think its horrible!!!


Of course when you take the underlying motivators behind this resentencing into account, the whole situation starts to make more sense. There's a lot of resource under those hills. So they railroad a family, a decision that may well cost them their ranch. Of course they're just one of the last few holdouts that the BLM hasn't managed to intimidate, flood, burn, or otherwise trick off of the range that's in their sights. Disgusting!


When I look at this situation from the ranchers' point of view, I just have a hard time blaming them for taking a stand on this.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: SurrenderingIsBack

There is a lot of info, the long and short of it was two ranchers got charged with arson and served some time that was under the mandatory sentence for it.
At the time they were charged, arson on federal property carried a min 5 year sentence, and a judge recently ruled they needed to serve that. It was under an anti-terrorism act, but they were never charged as terrorist.
The people going to jail did not call for this stand off, they turned them self's in willingly and commented they did not want this.

Now there is plenty of he said she said about rather it was federal land and if this is double jeopardy and other issues but for all that you would have to read the whole thread and make your decision.


Didnt they set fire to their own property (land) to save their farm from bruning Down from a much larger fire that had started from lighting?

WHat i have also heard is that the governemt came on their property without asking, and started a fire for the exact same reason....to stop a whild fire. But the government was never charged for that?
THe fire that the government started almost boxed in People who were fighting the whild fire as well. Putting Peoples lives at risk.

There was also despuit about the fencing Law as well. Where the government claimed that that Law did not apply to them, only to the citicens/farmers/ranchers.
Here is a speach made by the individual who help wirte the Law. www.oregonlive.com...


Then, a couple of years ago, I learned that, despite the fact we created the first cow-free wilderness in the United States under this law, and said clearly in this law that it would be the responsibility of the government to put up fencing to keep the cows out, as part of the agreement, the Bureau of Land Management said: No, we are not going to follow that law. And they told the ranchers they had to build the fence.


If this is all true i do understand that these People are complaining.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66
Thank you for posting that link. I had heard a part of that speech on radio but hadn't found any references to it in the news. Who would know better of the troubles these folks have suffered than the Representative to which they've addressed their grievances?

How well I know this attitude by federal agencies:




See, the bureaucracy wants to interpret the laws we write in ways they want, and in this case they were wrong, not once, but twice.

Then, a couple of years ago, I learned that, despite the fact we created the first cow-free wilderness in the United States under this law, and said clearly in this law that it would be the responsibility of the government to put up fencing to keep the cows out, as part of the agreement, the Bureau of Land Management said: No, we are not going to follow that law. And they told the ranchers they had to build the fence.

I networked with my Democrat colleague from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, who was part of writing this law. I said: Peter, you remember that, right? He said: Yeah, I didn't like it, but that was the case. BLM still wouldn't listen. So we continued to push it and they argued back.

Well, it turns out there had been a second rancher who brought this to my attention who they were telling had to do the same thing, build a fence, when the government was supposed to under the law I wrote. The arrogance of the agency was such that they said: We don't agree with you.

Now, there aren't many times, Mr. Speaker, in this job when you can say I know what the intent of the law was, but in this case I could because I wrote the law, I knew the intent.


While working as an archaeologist I encountered this attitude from federal authorities on many occasions when they "didn't agree" with the findings of our surveys or "didn't agree" with the need for a survey under federal statutes. I even had one tell me in a public meeting, "We are the federal government, the statutes are set up for private concerns. We are not required to follow those laws." Let me tell you that statement got a big round of jeers and boos from the hundreds assembled at that meeting! Being honest with the public that way also got him transferred from that post.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt


Listen to what this X SWAT have to say about the event. www.oathkeepers.org...


For People who thought that a random roadblock or Barricading si not leathal force..... It is.



630.05 VEHICLE PURSUITS:

d. Barricading: Barricading is considered deadly physical force and subject to DIR 1010.10.

nacole.org...

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Thought I should reply to this thread to update and add that seven of the prime defendants from the MNWR standoff have been acquitted as of October 2016.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Nice update.

Thank you.




top topics



 
87
<< 33  34  35   >>

log in

join