Ammon Bundy, other armed protesters at Oregon wildlife refuge, indicted

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

What land of Lavoy Finicum's did BLM steal?

... and was this before or after he started living off government-sponsored charities?

From a mix of tabulations by Oregon Public Broadcasting and Finicum's own account, Finicum and his wife apparently get almost all or all of their income from being foster parents. His ranch in Chino Valley, Arizona is break even at best and appears to generate no income.

Now, foster parents, especially those who care for troubled children, are truly doing God's work. And they are entitled to compensation, both for the work involved in being a parent and for the substantial out of pocket expenses involved in raising children. But it seems at least ironic and perhaps more than ironic that this paragon of getting the government off our backs and radical, near-absolute individualism supports himself and his wife off state subsidies.

Source

Well according to him he bought the land in a private deal,the BLM created legislation allowing them to steal the land.....saying he is smooching off the government for funds to raise these foster kids is a non argument it has nothing to do with the land issue

BLM can't sell federal lands I guess you are unaware of this. Congress is the only one that can approve the sale of public lands. What happened in the case if the rancher is the federal government used to have a homesteading act. Meaning if you lived on the land and worked it you could buy it for next to nothing . That act was appealed by congress meaning to purchase federal lands you now have to buy them at market value and congress has to approve the sale. I see nothing wrong with the federal government selling hr land as apposed to giving it away. They also now charge for grazing on fed land. Again private land owners charge as well. There's no stealing land they are just upset the free ride ended making it difficult for them to live without federal subsidies. My opinion is far to many live off federal subsidies. We pay farmers not to grow food WTF.

a reply to: Swills

Just so you know, it's not appropriate or legal to protest this way. That should be obvious.

Under the Constitutions it is, if there is just cause. And there was.

Apparently you have never read the Constitutions or understand it's real intent.

The law of the land is the Constitutions.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Swills

Just so you know, it's not appropriate or legal to protest this way. That should be obvious.

Under the Constitutions it is, if there is just cause. And there was.

Apparently you have never read the Constitutions or understand it's real intent.

The law of the land is the Constitutions.

Can you quote the part of the Constitution that backs up your claim then?

a reply to: Informer1958

Freeloaders wanting a(nother) handout is hardly a just cause.
I've read The Constitution and understand it just fine. It doesn't say what these idiot moochers want it to.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

What land of Lavoy Finicum's did BLM steal?

... and was this before or after he started living off government-sponsored charities?

From a mix of tabulations by Oregon Public Broadcasting and Finicum's own account, Finicum and his wife apparently get almost all or all of their income from being foster parents. His ranch in Chino Valley, Arizona is break even at best and appears to generate no income.

Now, foster parents, especially those who care for troubled children, are truly doing God's work. And they are entitled to compensation, both for the work involved in being a parent and for the substantial out of pocket expenses involved in raising children. But it seems at least ironic and perhaps more than ironic that this paragon of getting the government off our backs and radical, near-absolute individualism supports himself and his wife off state subsidies.

Source

Well according to him he bought the land in a private deal,the BLM created legislation allowing them to steal the land.....saying he is smooching off the government for funds to raise these foster kids is a non argument it has nothing to do with the land issue

Wow. Can you quote where Finicum says this?

In the vid i posted above he talks about it....

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

What land of Lavoy Finicum's did BLM steal?

... and was this before or after he started living off government-sponsored charities?

From a mix of tabulations by Oregon Public Broadcasting and Finicum's own account, Finicum and his wife apparently get almost all or all of their income from being foster parents. His ranch in Chino Valley, Arizona is break even at best and appears to generate no income.

Now, foster parents, especially those who care for troubled children, are truly doing God's work. And they are entitled to compensation, both for the work involved in being a parent and for the substantial out of pocket expenses involved in raising children. But it seems at least ironic and perhaps more than ironic that this paragon of getting the government off our backs and radical, near-absolute individualism supports himself and his wife off state subsidies.

Source

Well according to him he bought the land in a private deal,the BLM created legislation allowing them to steal the land.....saying he is smooching off the government for funds to raise these foster kids is a non argument it has nothing to do with the land issue

BLM can't sell federal lands I guess you are unaware of this. Congress is the only one that can approve the sale of public lands. What happened in the case if the rancher is the federal government used to have a homesteading act. Meaning if you lived on the land and worked it you could buy it for next to nothing . That act was appealed by congress meaning to purchase federal lands you now have to buy them at market value and congress has to approve the sale. I see nothing wrong with the federal government selling hr land as apposed to giving it away. They also now charge for grazing on fed land. Again private land owners charge as well. There's no stealing land they are just upset the free ride ended making it difficult for them to live without federal subsidies. My opinion is far to many live off federal subsidies. We pay farmers not to grow food WTF.

SO what he is saying is right in the sense government changed the law to acquire the land he not only has rights to but has worked his entire life.......kinda doesn't seem right to me.....Should we be allowing government to change laws to essentially steal ?

HE may be lying but what i get from his statements are they were running the lands without issue until the federal government stepped in and told them how things should be ran....

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

What land of Lavoy Finicum's did BLM steal?

... and was this before or after he started living off government-sponsored charities?

From a mix of tabulations by Oregon Public Broadcasting and Finicum's own account, Finicum and his wife apparently get almost all or all of their income from being foster parents. His ranch in Chino Valley, Arizona is break even at best and appears to generate no income.

Now, foster parents, especially those who care for troubled children, are truly doing God's work. And they are entitled to compensation, both for the work involved in being a parent and for the substantial out of pocket expenses involved in raising children. But it seems at least ironic and perhaps more than ironic that this paragon of getting the government off our backs and radical, near-absolute individualism supports himself and his wife off state subsidies.

Source

Well according to him he bought the land in a private deal,the BLM created legislation allowing them to steal the land.....saying he is smooching off the government for funds to raise these foster kids is a non argument it has nothing to do with the land issue

Wow. Can you quote where Finicum says this?

In the vid i posted above he talks about it....

At exaclty what time stamp?

he talks about it for a while start at 12 mins or so and you will get the idea

a reply to: Gryphon66

Article VI Clause 2

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Says so right there in the contract that the States ratified. Pretty explicit isn't it?
See where it says that the laws made "in Pursuance thereof", which means they have to meet the requirements of the document in order to be valid. They must follow the plan laid out by the Constitution.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
he talks about it for a while start at 12 mins or so and you will get the idea

Yes, I did get the idea. You're mistaken. Finicum is yammering about his theory of land use rights.

He is also mistaken. He mistakenly followed the warped teachings of a religious bigot (W. Cleon Skousen) and was used heinously as a sacrifice by the Bundys (Cliven admits the fact.) Sour ce

BLM hasn't stolen any property from the Hammons or the Bundys or the Finicums, or "legislated" [sic] anything away.

The Federal government owns Federal lands. The Federal government has the power to do so under the US Constitution.

a reply to: Gryphon66

BLM hasn't stolen any property from anyone, or "legislated" [sic] anything away.

According to this constitutional lawyer yes they have ....

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Chris Ann (or Krisanne) Hall quit her job as an Assistant State Attorney in Florida, after lying to media at the time and said she'd been fired because of her political beliefs, etc. etc .So urce

She is a "Constitutional attorney" much the way that other Sovereign nutjobs are "Constitutional judges and sheriffs." That is to say, in their own minds.

She's making the same nonsense claim vis a vis the Enclave Clause COTUS Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 that all these nutjobs do.

Here's the primary flaw one of logic. The United States owned these lands before Oregon was a State. They ceded these lands to the original ranchers and what not whose descendants are now arguing that the United States can't own land. Their own claim tot he land is based on the US's claim.

Second the flaw of what the Constitution says, "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." ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 2

Third, the matter has been addressed in multiple Supreme Court decisions, particularly Kleppe v. New Mexico.



Her statement carries no more authority than anyone else's.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So you are saying she is a nut job and not worth listening too ?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Gryphon66

So you are saying she is a nut job and not worth listening too ?

I'm saying she is incorrect.

Follow the logic through with me here.

Where did the "State of Oregon" arise from? Property owned by the United States as an treaty agreement with Great Britain and originally held as a Territory (note the Constitutional language). When Oregon became a State, the lands that were not ceded to the State or to other citizens remained the property of the United States.

A member of the Paiute tribe might have a better claim, but these citizen's "rights" descend from the ownership of the United States itself.

IF the US can't own land, they can't.

a reply to: Gryphon66
You are absolutely right. Article I Sec. 8 para 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;—

This is the first Article of the contract. It clearly restricts the purchase of lands by the Congress for the purchase of the Seat of Government to ten Miles square. This acquisition can only occur by purchasing those ten square miles from the legislature of the States. It further requires that the purchases for military and navigational purposes shall occur in the same manner, cessation by States or purchase with the consent of the State legislature.

Further into the contract, Article IV Sec 3 para 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.

A Territory as referenced here means land held in trust for the citizens of the US until they make up their minds as to whether they wish to become a state or become independent. The US does not own a Territory because a territory is an administrative division of property. The US does not hold deeds for Territories but they may make needed Rules and Regulations whilst the people of the Territory decide their fate.
The Property to which this refers has already been limited in Article I Sec 8 para 17 to 10 square miles along with property for military and navigational functions.

If you have a contract and the first article of the contract lays out restrictions, those restrictions apply throughout the contract for the duration of the contract. If you wish to change those restrictions, you must re-negotiate the contract. The Constitution has not been re-negotiated in this regard. Judges have issued opinions. Congress has passed laws but they cannot change the Constitution so the ownership of any land not being utilized for the purposes stated in Article I is un-Constitutional---outside the Supreme law of the land.

originally posted by: diggindirt

A Territory as referenced here means land held in trust for the citizens of the US until they make up their minds as to whether they wish to become a state or become independent.

Cite the legal basis of this claim.

originally posted by: diggindirt

The US does not own a Territory because a territory is an administrative division of property.

The property becomes a Territory by Act of the United States the Oregon Bill of 1848. The United States may only act on its own property. Spain ceded all property claims in North America to the United States in the Transcontinental Treaty. Great Britain ceded its claim in the treaty signed June 18, 1846, source: The Oregon Territory



Oregon became a State under ACTS of Congress Admitting Oregon to the Union. From this Act specfiically:

Provided, That the foregoing propositions, hereinbefore offered, are on the condition that the people of Oregon shall provide by an ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of the United States, that said State shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil within the same by the United States, or with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in said soil to bona fide purchasers thereof; and that in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents. Sixth. And that the said State shall never tax the lands or the property of the United States in said State: Provided, however, That in case any of the lands herein granted to the State of Oregon have heretofore been confirmed to the Territory of Oregon for the purposes specified in this act, the amount so confirmed shall be deducted from the quantity specified in this act.

a reply to: Gryphon66

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

A part of a country separated from the rest and subject to a particular jurisdiction. The term territory has various meanings in different contexts. Generally, the term refers to a particular or indeterminate geographical area. In a legal context, territory usually denotes a geographical area that has been acquired by a particular country but has not been recognized as a full participant in that country's affairs. In the United States, Guam is one example of a territory. Though it is considered a part of the United States and is governed by the U.S. Congress, Guam does not have full rights of statehood, such as full representation in Congress or full coverage under the U.S. Constitution.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Territories of the United States
Portions of the United States that are not within the limits of any state and have not been admitted as states. The United States holds three territories: American Samoa and Guam in the Pacific Ocean and the U.S. Virgin Islands in the Caribbean Sea. Although they are governed by the United States, the territories do not have statehood status, and this lesser legal and political status sets them apart from the rest of the United States. The three U.S. territories are not the only U.S. government land holdings without statehood status. These various lands fall under the broad description of insular political communities affiliated with the United States. Puerto Rico in the Caribbean and the Northern Mariana Islands in the Pacific Ocean belong to the United States and have the status of commonwealth, a legal and political status that is above a territory but still below a state.

...

Finally, land used as a military base is considered a form of territory. These areas are inhabited almost exclusively by military personnel. They are governed largely by military laws, and not by the political structures in place for commonwealths and territories. The United States has military bases at various locations around the world, including Okinawa, Japan, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
A precise definition of territories and territorial law in the United States is difficult to fashion. The U.S. government has long been in the habit of determining policy as it goes along. The United States was established through a defensive effort against British forces and then through alternately defensive and offensive battles against Native Americans. From this chaotic beginning, the United States has struggled to fashion a coherent policy on the acquisition and possession of land.
The U.S. Constitution does not state exactly how the United States may acquire land. Instead, the Constitution essentially delegates the power to decide the matter to Congress. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1, of the Constitution provides that "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed … by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress." The same section of the Constitution gives Congress the "Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."Under International Law the United States and other nation-states may acquire additional territory in several ways, including occupation of territory that is not already a part of a state; conquest, where allowed by the international community; cession of land by another nation in a treaty; and accretion, or the growth of new land within a nation's existing boundaries.

I hope this is the correct thread to post this latest information. It concerns possible ethics violations by the attorneys representing Ammon Bundy.
Ethical Questions...

So, back in early January, two lawyers drove out to Malheur and gave Bundy and the other illegal occupiers pro bono legal advice, along with a list of possible laws they had broken.

Once arrested, Ammon retained these two to represent him. It looks a bit like ambulance chasing by the lawyers.

What is creepier, is that it is quite possible, they advised Ammon to let the rank and file wannabes do the overtly illegal activities. Such as, using the federal government computers, vehicles, bulldoze a new road, destroy fences.

Another question hanging over the case is whether attorneys advised militant leaders to pin certain crimes on younger militants and new recruits.

Before he was arrested, Ryan Bundy said attorneys gave him and other occupation leaders lists of laws to steer clear of breaking.

Ammon Bundy also said that attorneys had inventoried potential legal violations, and had given the militant leaders a list of laws they believed were being broken.

Ryan Bundy was asked about his brother’s comments, and acknowledged militant leaders would not engage in those visible crimes, because younger militants and newer recruits were less likely to be prosecuted.

Hmmm, the Bundys are even sleazier than I had previously thought, if true.

I wonder if this same counsel will be representing the younger Cliven Lance Bundy? He went to prison Wednesday for 2 to 8 years for felony burglary and firearm charges, after flunking out of a mandated drug reform program. link to source

Cliven Bundy must be so proud...3 Bundy boys behind bars at once.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The source which you cite claiming that the property belonged to the US actually says

The Oregon Bill of 1848, officially titled when approved, "An Act to Establish the Territorial Government of Oregon,"[1] was an act of Congress to turn Oregon into an official U.S. Territory. The bill was passed on August 14, 1848. It was enacted by the 30th United States Congress, and signed by President James K. Polk. The bill came into question several years after the Oregon Treaty. For two years following that treaty, the United States paid little attention to it until news of the Whitman massacre reached Congress. This provided the impetus to formally establish the Territorial Government of Oregon. The Act created a territory that encompassed present-day Idaho, Oregon, and Washington; as well as parts of Montana and Wyoming.

See, it says "An Act to Establish the Territorial Government of Oregon," meaning that they needed formal governance of the land mass gained through treaties. They were within the limits of the Constitution by doing so since Article IV Sec 3 para 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.

See where it says, "dispose of and make needful Rules and Regulations..." What it doesn't say is significant as well, doesn't say "Hold and use as they see fit" but to dispose of and make needful Rules and Regulations. Those rules and regulations must be "Pursuant" to the Constitution as outlined earlier---must follow the blueprint set out in the Constitution.

Your final quote is the agreement that the land already owned by the US government, military bases, would not be taxed nor would the State interfere with its disposal but specified that a percentage of the net proceeds of lands sold by the US would return to the State to be used for public roads.

Article I of the Oregon Constitution cited by you above gives the boundaries:

Section 1. Announcement of admission; boundaries of state; jurisdiction of river cases.
That Oregon be, and she is hereby, received into the Union on an equal footing with the other States in all respects whatever, with the following boundaries: In order that the boundaries of the State may be known and established, it is hereby ordained and declared that the State of Oregon shall be bounded as follows, to wit: Beginning one marine league at sea due west from the point where the forty-second parallel of north latitude intersects the same; thence northerly, at the same distance from the line of the coast, lying west and opposite the State, including all islands within the jurisdiction of the United States, to a point due west and opposite the middle of the north ship channel of the Columbia River; thence easterly, to and up the middle channel of said river, and, where it is divided by islands, up the middle of the widest channel thereof, to a point near Fort Walla-Walla, where the forty-sixth parallel of north latitude crosses said river; thence east, on said parallel, to the middle of the main channel of the Shoshones or Snake River; thence up the middle of the main channel of said river, to the mouth of the Owyhee River; thence due south, to the parallel of latitude forty-two degrees north; thence west, along said parallel, to the place of beginning, including jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases upon the Columbia River and Snake River, concurrently with States and Territories of which those rivers form a boundary in common with this State. [11 Stat. 383 (1859)]

In that boundary description do you see any parcels excepted for the Federal Government's use? See the mention of Fort WallaWalla? (See here: established in 1856 but not formally commissioned until 1859 in anticipation of Oregon's statehood. en.wikipedia.org...) That is one of the military installations owned by the Federal Government---already established when Oregon was a Territory.

Section 4, part of which is included in your quote, pertains to what Oregon citizens want to do with the land and lays out the division of land to the State for public purposes such as state government, public schools and salt springs. Where in that Section do you find any provisions for ownership by the Federal Government other than those specifically set forth in the US Constitution?
Of course the US Government owned military installations In Oregon Territory for the protection of the Territory. This clause says that the state can't interfere with Congress selling off that land.

Fifth. That five per centum of the net proceeds of sales of all public lands lying within said State, which shall be sold by Congress after the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to said State for the purpose of making public roads and internal improvements, as the legislature shall direct: Provided, That the foregoing propositions, hereinbefore offered, are on the condition that the people of Oregon shall provide by an ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of the United States, that said State shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil within the same by the United States, or with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in said soil to bona fide purchasers thereof; and that in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents.
Sixth. And that the said State shall never tax the lands or the property of the United States in said State: Provided, however, That in case any of the lands herein granted to the State of Oregon have heretofore been confirmed to the Territory of Oregon for the purposes specified in this act, the amount so confirmed shall be deducted from the quantity specified in this act,”

It also provides that the Federal Government can continue to sell/grant land under the Homestead principles. (see here:en.wikipedia.org...) after admission of Oregon to the Union. The Donation Land Claim Act of 1850 (en.wikipedia.org...) provided for free land until the cut-off date of 1854 and purchased land thereafter. The relevant clauses in the Oregon Constitution, adopted in 1859, simply provide for a smooth transition from Territory to State and assure that land purchased under Territory Rules and Regulations would continue to belong to the settlers/purchasers. The State could not interfere with Federal laws enacted prior to its admission to the Union.

You can't just pull out quotes from these documents and claim to prove some point. You have to know the background and circumstances of the contract. The boundaries outlined in the First Section are clear are they not?

Where are the clauses or sections that grant any land within those boundaries to be held and controlled by the Federal Government for purposes other than outlined in the US Constitution?