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

originally posted by: Phage
About armed men occupying a federal building while calling on "patriots" to rally to their "cause?"

Am surprised no one has dug in and defined actual militia presence/absence in all of this.

I can 'guess' at why the Bundy boys are there. They're sore about the liens the feds put on their Daddy's land.

If (as I suspect) there's been no buy-in from an actual militia up there in Oregon, I might have to reconsider my opinion of what these folks stand for ... and what they won't.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Leonidas

My brain shuts down when I hear Sovereign Citizen.

If that crap worked, don't you think the smartest and wealthiest people in America would be doing it?

We have one of these losers in our family. I am in the glorious position of being on his permanent "Sh*t List" of people he never talks to because, at a Christmas dinner a few years ago, he was going on about illegal Income taxes and I couldn't resist:

I asked him if he had ever - in his entire life - ever made enough money to actually even have to pay any income taxes. Ever. (Seriously lazy slug chasing every get-rich-quick scheme and scam on the planet which doesn't sit well with a family of ranchers, war fighters, nurses and small business owners)

The silence has been golden.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Phage

From what I've looked, and I can only find case examples, that once the term imposed has begun it cannot be extended. In this case, if that is the standard, wouldn't it be too late to give them more time?

Apparently not.
But it is a separate issue having nothing to do with Bundy.

I didn't mention Bundy, drop Bundy.

I'm just seriously wondering how their writ will be played out. There are case examples of extended sentences being denied because imposed sentencing had begun, whether the extended sentence was deserved or not. I really think this will apply for these guys.

Either way I'm really curious to see how this plays out. If nothing else, it's got me to do a lot of legal research.

a reply to: Vector99
The topic is Bundy.

The Hammonds have gone back to prison.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99
The topic is Bundy.

The Hammonds have gone back to prison.

Actually there are many "topics" in this thread. The Hammonds are one of them. Nowhere in the thread title of "
BREAKING: Armed militia occupies forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call ‘US patriots’ to arms" is the name Bundy mentioned.

If you don't want to discuss what I asked, just don't answer.

a reply to: Vector99

If you don't want to discuss what I asked, just don't answer.

Stop directing question toward me and I won't.

I wouldn't, after all, want to be accused of dodging a question.

Nowhere in the thread title of "
BREAKING: Armed militia occupies forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call ‘US patriots’ to arms" is the name Bundy mentioned.

Nor is the name Hammond. But Bundy is indeed the leader of the militia group, is he not?

a reply to: Phage

Sorry for asking someone I figured could provide valuable insight, never again, my apologies.

a reply to: Olivine
Interesting quote

“This is just like that,” Bundy said. “My Mormonism plays a large part in what I do … the biggest part.”

www.opb.org...

In the name of his religion? Is he typical? Do all Mormons think like he does? Better keep a close eye on what's going on in those temples.

a reply to: Phage
Yes, the drought was a factor in the rise of the cost of beef, no doubt. The drought was also used as a reason to further restrict grazing. The "temporary" regulations imposed didn't apply only to drought-stricken areas. They applied to all BLM land, forcing ranchers to reduce the size of their herd, hunt down a lot of hay or rent more land.
Control is the issue here. Control of resources. Land, water and minerals.
Turns out that the Indian removal was so successful, they've dusted off the plan, tweaked it slightly taking the military out of the scene and inserting a horde of imperialistic bureaucrats.
Anyone who questions their actions is automatically labeled as anti-government.
Anyone who can point to a pattern of corruption and neglect by the agency gains the conspiracy theorist label.
Anyone who actively pursues the right to have grievances addressed is reported as "attempting to overthrow the government."

a reply to: diggindirt

Anyone who actively pursues the right to have grievances addressed is reported as "attempting to overthrow the government."

No. That would be those who call on armed "patriots" to flock to them. Turns out that people are smarter than that, in general.

a reply to: diggindirt

Exactly right. The BLM doesn't do anything with these funds to "restore" grazed lands. They collect it as a pay us tax.

Oh GTFO
no way...

a reply to: Phage
What is it with the gun phobia?
Aren't they claiming to be a militia? How could you have an un-armed militia? All the chatter about the "violence" has been shown to be false. Only talking heads thousands of miles away are alleging that guns were pointed at anyone. Nobody who is actually there is reporting any such behavior.
Apparently these guys didn't feel the need to draw their guns and threaten an empty building.
They didn't feel the need to set fire to the buildings in revenge for having their cattle burned alive either.

a reply to: diggindirt

What is it with the gun phobia?

No phobia. I like guns, but not in the hands of unstable people.

All the chatter about the "violence" has been shown to be false.

Well, yes. Because apparently there are more rational people in the country than Bundy counted on.

Apparently these guys didn't feel the need to draw their guns and threaten an empty building.

No, just to engage in breaking and entering federal property.

They didn't feel the need to set fire to the buildings in revenge for having their cattle burned alive either.

Bundy's cattle were burned alive?

a reply to: Vector99 That's a very interesting read you found there, something to ponder.

Basically i just wanted to ignore the whole story.

BUT it just turned to funny.

Now the Hammonds, the LDS Church the 3percenters and even members of the Bundy family came up that they do not support the Refuge squatting.
Even Alex Jones calls for a deescalation (!!!!!).

The protesters have many poblems to grow support. The biggest one obviously that even for the usual anti-gov nutters they seem to be too nuts.

Some would like to support the 'big fight against the gov' but they can't - because they did not get their gov welfare check and therefore can't pay the gas to fight the gov:Twitter

Even Fox 'News' is shaking their heads:



Last but not least a funny animation on yall qaida:
y'all qaida animation

a reply to: Phage
Nope, not even breaking and entering. They found the keys. Didn't even have to cut the lock. That was a false report as well apparently.

So they rolled up into the parking lot of a deserted federal office, found the keys and "took over" the empty building. Because there was nobody there, they didn't threaten to shoot anybody. They didn't point any of their arms at anybody.

I never understood the concept of "trespass" on public land. Our taxes bought it, our taxes go to maintain it---and yet we can be charged with trespass? Short of national security, I see no reason to prohibit nondestructive presence on public land.

When everything that generations have worked to build is taken from honest men, desperation often follows. The over-reaching arm of governmental agencies are actively pursuing those who refuse to become sheep and be sheared regularly by the corporate world.
It's all about resources. And the power to control them. The power to control ALL resources.

a reply to: diggindirt

They found the keys.

According to whom?

Nope, not even breaking and entering

You'd be ok with someone just coming into your house and walking around? Unauthorized entry is breaking and entering.

breaking and entering

n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime. 2) the criminal charge for the above.

dictionary.law.com...

I never understood the concept of "trespass" on public land.

Federal property is not public land.

originally posted by: svetlana84
Last but not least a funny animation on yall qaida:
y'all qaida animation

I prefer Wal-Martyrs..

a reply to: Phage
Two separate reports on radio tonight from the scene have said that they found keys to the building that they entered.
One was an ABC news report and I believe a reporter from Prison Planet was also reporting it.

My house is private property. The building they entered was built and is maintained by public money. How is it not public property? How can the public trespass on their own property?

I've no doubt that some attention-seeking federal prosecutor could come with a list of charges that would number in the dozens for each person who did not leave the property at sunset. But how would the public good be served by expending the time and money necessary to prosecute them? Who has been harmed?

It seems to me that msm and even Alex Jones were conned big time. Some silly videos and they actually believed there was a gun-waving, building-storming mob up there about to create mayhem.
Be not afraid. Jones is on his way up there I believe to "de-escalate" the situation. He's going for the Nobel Peace Prize on this one! A dangerous and daring mission but one he must undertake!