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.

 

Oregon protest leader Ammon Bundy is arrested, says source

page: 67
58
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Multiple sources state that the SWAT team was composed of Oregon troopers. (as provided)

Do you have a source that states that the SWAT team was FBI?

Nevermind, from the news releases of Oregon State Police:



Officer Involved Shooting Investigation Underway In Harney County - 01/26/16
On January 26, 2016 at approximately 4:30PM, Oregon State Police Troopers were involved in an officer involved shooting during the arrest of several individuals near Burns.

The Deschutes County Major Incident Team will be assisting the Oregon State Police and the Harney County District Attorney's Office with the investigation. The investigation will be conducted in compliance with Senate Bill 111 which outlines protocols to be followed when deadly physical force is used.

As released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, one adult male suspect is deceased and one other adult male suspect received non-life threatening injuries. No law enforcement personnel were injured.

The incident occurred on Highway 395, about 20 miles north of Burns. Highway 395 is expected to be closed for an extended amount of time for the investigation to be conducted.

There will be no further information released until tomorrow. Please refer to an official release by the Federal Bureau of Investigation:

Arrests Made in the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge: Joint Statement by the FBI and OSP - 01/26/16
At approximately 4:25 p.m. (PST) on Tuesday, January 26, 2016, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Oregon State Police (OSP) began an enforcement action to bring into custody a number of individuals associated with the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. During that arrest, there were shots fired.

One individual who was a subject of a federal probable cause arrest is deceased. We will not be releasing any information about that person pending identification by the medical examiner's office.

One individual suffered non-life threatening injuries and was transported to a local hospital for treatment. He was arrested and is currently in custody.


News Releases - Oregon State Police - flashalert.net

Also, to further substantiate this source:



Oregon State Police news releases are distributed via email to media and subscribing public through the FlashAlert Newswire Internet service. The FlashAlert Newswire system gives you access to emergency messages, breaking news, and news releases.


Oregon State Police - News Releases

edit on 1-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: mutha-frikin NOTED




posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

So, no evidence that the "eyewitnesses" are providing factual information then? Fine.

I've never claimed "to know."

It seems you don't "know" either.



Well, I do know a few things. But like everyone here, I wasn't there. I saw the same video everyone else saw and based on my own observations, it appeared to be a hit.

I can break it down in simple terms as to why I came to that conclusion.

- During the occupation of the Federal Wildlife Building, no direct threats were made towards any Federal Officials by the Bundy Group. No Federal Officials were specifically targeted or mentioned in any real time media videos.

- Finicum did say that if he was attacked, he would rather die than spend the rest of his life in prison. This could be interpreted as "Live Free or Die" which is the motto on New Hampshire non-commercial State License Plates, and was adopted as the State motto in 1945. This was not a direct threat to any Federal Officials. If this was construed as a threat, then everyone in the State of New Hampshire with that license plate is a terrorist, and the FBI is well within their rights to shoot anyone that has a bumper sticker or license plate expressing these sentiments.

- The Post Office was able to deliver this militia group a bag of D%%ks and a 55 gallon drum of personal lube. The postal employee is considered a Federal Government employee, and did their duty without having been maimed, threatened or even killed by this milita - so they were not impeding any Federal Officials from their duties.

- This conflict with the Federal Government is an old one - and is not the first of its kind. It is a continuance of the sagebrush rebellion. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution makes it very clear that the Federal Government cannot control as much land as they currently do. Have you seen a map of outlining how much land in the US is controlled by the Federal Government? In the Western States, it is almost half of all territory. This is Unconstitutional ... period.

- The Federal Government does not have a history of being honest with The People of the United States. Books have been written about this, facts and articles are on display in our National Museums proving this ... too much information is already available and at your disposal for me to get into a lengthy explanation here. The FBI has framed people, they have a sordid history of doing this to those they perceive as a threat to National Security (Dr. Martin Luther King was one such individual).

- It can only be logically concluded that anyone that would dare expose Federal crimes to the general public, would be "dragged through the gutter" and "silenced". LaVoy Finicum was an extremely vocal man in this regard. I believe he was targeted for this reason (and, as previously mentioned, the FBI has a sordid history of doing this).

- I did not agree with the tactics deployed by the Bundy Occupiers. They broke the law by occupying a Federal Building. However, I do not see that as any justification for an immediate death sentence of their most vocal member.





-

-



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Are you witness to every comment made by every "Bundy Group" member during the occupation? If so, do you have a link to that comprehensive list?

Finicum resisted arrest, fled the scene, assaulted law enforcement with a deadly weapon, refused to comply with commands to submit.

Successful mail delivery does not prove that "no Federal employee was impeded from their duties." Come on.



COTUS, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And


Please demonstrate where this Clause states that the Federal Government is limited in what it can own/administrate.

In fact, this Clause clearly ESTABLISHES the right of the Federal Government to own and administer lands, particularly the Seat of Government (Washington DC).

I can't speak to your wide-ranging comments about the Government lying to the People. That certainly has happened. That doesn't prove anything about Finicum's death.

There has been no claim that I am aware of that the Bundy Occupation resulted in Finicum's death.

Again, he resisted arrest, fled the scene of arrest, assaulted law enforcement, etc. etc.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Have you seen a map of the land controlled by the Federal Government west of the Mississippi River and compared it to the land controlled by the Federal Government to the east of the Mississippi river?

Please look at a map that shows you this before you continue to read, if you have not. If you have, then continue reading.

Would you like to know the reason for the stark contrast? Why is nearly half of the territory to the West of the Mississippi River controlled by the Federal Government, but in the territory to the East of the Mississippi River that is controlled by the Federal Government, it is within the perimeters outlined by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution?

This clause is called the Enclave Clause. It was written to limit the Federal Government from controlling land within a State. It authorized Congress to purchase land within each State "for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings"

According to the United States Constitution, Congress does not have the authority to own and regulate the land they currently do.

The reason why they control so much territory in the West, has to do with when each territory entered into Statehood. the Federal government refused to relinquish control of these territories over to the State (which is required by the United States Constitution).

In other words, the Bundy's were not violating the law, the Federal Government is.

that, my friend, is the crux of the sagebrush rebellion. It is why the Bundy's took over a Federal Building.


edit on 1-2-2016 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Also, COTUS, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2



The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.


and the Oregon Treaty clearly established the ownership of "Oregon Territory" to the United States of America:



By 1843, increased American immigration on the Oregon Trail to the Territory made the border issue a burning one in Congress, where jingoists raised the slogan of “54 degrees 40 minutes or fight.” President James Polk, a supporter of Manifest Destiny with an eye also on the Mexican Southwest and California, was eager to settle the boundary of the Oregon Territory and proposed a settlement on the 49 degree line to Great Britain. British Minister to Washington, Richard Pakenham, and Secretary of State James Buchanan, supported and encouraged by British Foreign Secretary Lord Aberdeen and Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, worked out a compromise. With some minor modifications, which reserved the whole of Vancouver Island to Canada, Great Britain agreed to Polk’s suggestion. The Senate ratified the treaty by a vote of 41-14 on June 18, 1846. A later controversy over the precise boundaries in the Juan de Fuca Strait was resolved by international arbitration in favor of the United States.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I happen to agree that the Federal Government should relinquish their control over the territories they regulate to each respective State.

It's the American way. It's the Constitutional way, it's the legal thing to do, it's the right thing to do.

They should stop bullying people off their land. It's evil, sick and twisted and just plain ol mean.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Also, COTUS, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2



The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.


and the Oregon Treaty clearly established the ownership of "Oregon Territory" to the United States of America:



By 1843, increased American immigration on the Oregon Trail to the Territory made the border issue a burning one in Congress, where jingoists raised the slogan of “54 degrees 40 minutes or fight.” President James Polk, a supporter of Manifest Destiny with an eye also on the Mexican Southwest and California, was eager to settle the boundary of the Oregon Territory and proposed a settlement on the 49 degree line to Great Britain. British Minister to Washington, Richard Pakenham, and Secretary of State James Buchanan, supported and encouraged by British Foreign Secretary Lord Aberdeen and Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, worked out a compromise. With some minor modifications, which reserved the whole of Vancouver Island to Canada, Great Britain agreed to Polk’s suggestion. The Senate ratified the treaty by a vote of 41-14 on June 18, 1846. A later controversy over the precise boundaries in the Juan de Fuca Strait was resolved by international arbitration in favor of the United States.



You are kind of missing something there. Oregon is no longer a "territory", it is a "Sovereign State".

here is the wikipedia article on the sagebrush rebellion:

en.wikipedia.org...

It even has a map showing the stark contrast (east/west) of land controlled by the Federal Government.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Here is what is going on in Utah:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Yes, I've seen the maps you're referring to. What's your point?

You're conveniently ignoring history, and the different ways that the US acquired territory east and west of the Mississippi River.

I'm also aware of the Bundy/Skousen interpretation of the Enclave Clause. It's incorrect, mostly because the lands concerned were the property of the United States BEFORE the areas became States. Chicken-Egg. The US OWNED THE LAND THAT BECAME THE SEVERAL STATES ... BY US ENACTMENT OF LAW.


originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

According to the United States Constitution, Congress does not have the authority to own and regulate the land they currently do.


Prove it. Cite the Constitutional basis for your claim.


originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

The reason why they control so much territory in the West, has to do with when each territory entered into Statehood. the Federal government refused to relinquish control of these territories over to the State (which is required by the United States Constitution).


Feel free to prove that one too. Cite the Constitutional basis for your claim.

Several decisions by SCOTUS have addressed these claims; Here's the relevant portion of one of many in which this matter is SETTLED.

Ft. Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe


and, since the adoption of the Constitution, [the United States has] by cession from foreign countries, come into the ownership of a territory [ . . . ] between the Mississippi River and the Pacific Ocean, and out of these territories several States have been formed and admitted into the Union. The proprietorship of the United States in large tracts of land within these States has remained after their admission. There has been, therefore, no necessity for them to purchase or to condemn lands within those States, for forts, arsenals, and other public buildings, unless they had disposed of what they afterwards needed.


RE: Sagebrush "Rebellion" ... you say this as if there was some treaty or legislation or something that came of it. Can you name the legislation or court case that supports your claim?



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
I happen to agree that the Federal Government should relinquish their control over the territories they regulate to each respective State.

It's the American way. It's the Constitutional way, it's the legal thing to do, it's the right thing to do.

They should stop bullying people off their land. It's evil, sick and twisted and just plain ol mean.


Thank you. This is your opinion. Not fact, not law, not Constitutional proof.

No one is being "bullied" off "their land."

I'm not sure there's much reason for us to continue to discuss this.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
I happen to agree that the Federal Government should relinquish their control over the territories they regulate to each respective State.

It's the American way. It's the Constitutional way, it's the legal thing to do, it's the right thing to do.

They should stop bullying people off their land. It's evil, sick and twisted and just plain ol mean.


Thank you. This is your opinion. Not fact, not law, not Constitutional proof.

No one is being "bullied" off "their land."

I'm not sure there's much reason for us to continue to discuss this.



Apparently, you have not been paying attention (((sighs)))

Federal Law is not the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution is. As a result of this, yes, the Federal Government MOST CERTAINLY have been bullying people off of their land.

Since you like to mention court cases, here are two you should probably read (before you claim the Federal Government is not bullying people off of their land):

www.pbs.org...

Mind you, there are many, many court cases I can cite




posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

You are kind of missing something there. Oregon is no longer a "territory", it is a "Sovereign State".


*I'm* missing something??? LOL.

And how did Oregon become a State? By what mechanism? Was it an Act of the US Congress on February 14, 1859?

Why yes, yes it was.


edit on 1-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Oh good heavens ... you really should actually READ the Constitution you keep referring to ...

Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Clause 2, aka "The Supremacy Clause"



This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


ETA: I'm done for this evening. Instead of gesturing to these "many court cases" that you claim prove your points, quote from them if you wish. I'll address whatever you come up with tomorrow.
edit on 1-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

Since you like to mention court cases, here are two you should probably read (before you claim the Federal Government is not bullying people off of their land):


1830 is not 2016. The Cherokee? LOL. I'm 1/64 Creek (and Cherokee) ... perhaps I should go inform the Mayor of Atlanta that I actually own Peachtree Street and that they should all clear the hell out. Oh my god!

... and even as ludicrious as that idea is, I will STILL have a better claim to that land than the Bundys do to Federal land in Oregon (or Nevada.)

No no ... oddly enough, you do have a point of a sort, I will revise my statement since the obvious is being ignored ...

No one, in 2016, is being "bullied off their land."

If they are ... PROVE IT.


edit on 1-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

You are kind of missing something there. Oregon is no longer a "territory", it is a "Sovereign State".


*I'm* missing something??? LOL.

And how did Oregon become a State? By what mechanism? Was it an Act of the US Congress on February 14, 1859?

Why yes, yes it was.



you've been talking to yourself for a while now.

What does Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 specifically say about the limits of the Federal Government controlling land within the jurisdiction of the State?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

Since you like to mention court cases, here are two you should probably read (before you claim the Federal Government is not bullying people off of their land):


1830 is not 2016. The Cherokee? LOL. I'm 1/64 Creek (and Cherokee) ... perhaps I should go inform the Mayor of Atlanta that I actually own Peachtree Street and that they should all clear the hell out. Oh my god!

... and even as ludicrious as that idea is, I will STILL have a better claim to that land than the Bundys do to Federal land in Oregon (or Nevada.)

No no ... oddly enough, you do have a point of a sort, I will revise my statement since the obvious is being ignored ...

No one, in 2016, is being "bullied off their land."

If they are ... PROVE IT.



Perhaps you haven't heard of the Shoshone Sisters (I did say I can cite a lot more cases - I was just warming up and have been toying with you for pages and pages) .

If you are claiming the Federal Government does not have to uphold their end of a treaty or agreement, then that is "bullying" and is just downright mean and evil.

How does it make you feel to support the Nazi Gestapo? folks that would shoot an unarmed US Citizen on the side of the road in cold blood?

I am sure there is a part of you that has to justify this somehow ... I see no justification for it and I have a clear conscious.
edit on 2-2-2016 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Actually any agreement / treaty the US signs onto becomes part of the Federal body of law. This designation allows for the treaty to be changed by the US Congress and allows the US courts to deal with any judicial ramifications that arise. It also allows US citizens who are adversely affected by it the ability to deal with it in the US courts.

Agreements / treaties cannot grant / remove authority that the US Constitution defines. Agreement / treaties are subordinate to the US Constitution.
edit on 2-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Actually any agreement / treaty the US signs onto becomes part of the Federal body of law. This designation allows for the treaty to be changed by the US Congress and allows the US courts to deal with any judicial ramifications that arise. It also allows US citizens who are adversely affected by it the ability to deal with it in the US courts.

Agreements / treaties cannot grant / remove authority that the US Constitution defines. Agreement / treaties are subordinate to the US Constitution.


But the Native Tribes do not recognize Federal Law. They have their own governing bodies. The U.S. Government had an agreement with another sovereign nation, and broke it.

How do you justify that?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Native tribes do recognize Federal authority and is the reason for the Bureau of Indian Affairs existence. Its state law they are not subordinate to. The government has broken treaties and the various tribes have pursued their own remedies for redress of grievances. We need to be careful lumping all groups into one category.
edit on 2-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Native tribes do recognize Federal authority and is the reason for the Bureau of Indian Affairs existence. Its state law they are not subordinate to. The government has broken treaties and the various tribes have pursued their own remedies for redress of grievances. We need to be careful lumping all groups into one category.


I am not lumping all groups into one category - except the Federal Government. Nice try at the backhanded attempt to portray me as a racist. The Federal Government lumped all of the Native Americans into one category when they passed the Indian Removal Act. There is no current or former remedy for the Native Americans other than to "comply or die".

the Shoshone Sisters made a valid claim when they asked "Who the hell gave them our land?"

When the US Government was conducting thousands of atomic bomb tests, they told the Shoshone Sisters that their ranching was "harming the foliage".

that is what sane people call "bullying"
edit on 2-2-2016 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
58
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join