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

a reply to: onequestion
It's an issue that can't be explained and discussed in sound bites.
The talking heads don't have half the knowledge of the subject, our US Constitution and our rights under that document, that people just a generation ago had. So when these guys try to explain their stand, the talking heads report that their "demands" are rather vague. What's not vague is that media is bound and determined to make this into a violent confrontation. Hell's bells, Oath-keepers has even fallen into the political trap and are making wild accusations.

As far as I can tell, this "violent, armed take-over" of this building complex and parking lot is a complete figment of someone's imagination. I have yet to see one person who is actually there report seeing any weapons on the site. I have yet to hear of anyone brandishing weapons.

Based on what I've seen/read/heard so far it seems to me that it went down something like this:
There was a big protest and lots of people turned out to support the family. When it was over the Nevada crew wanted a place to meet up and talk about it. Somebody in the crowd suggested that the refuge office would be empty and the keys were...somebody knew where they could find the keys. It is isolated, they could be inside and nobody would bother them.
Probably would have worked except for somebody wanting a whole lot of attention....

Or maybe I'm not giving them enough credibility and they do indeed have stores of food packed away in those woods weeks ago in planning this occupation.
I suppose we'll find out in time.

ETA: I expect that if they are still there when the office is scheduled to be re-staffed, they'll be asked to move along.

a reply to: diggindirt

He said during the interview that they have plenty of supplies don't even worry about it.

a reply to: Xcathdra
After doing a bit of re-reading, I noticed that the kid was 16 at the time of the incident. Unless Oregon has some really different sunshine laws, I don't think a juvenile case file will be accessible to the public. Most states protect juveniles.

They will prosecute them for alcohol possession.
They will prosecute them for tobacco possession.
They will have them institutionalized for cutting themselves.

But they keep those records private.

Anyone notice they've got cases of Coors Light inside with them? lol

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Hey man, when you're 30 miles from beer, you buy it in cases!
Nothing like a cold frosty one to take the edge off after dealing with the media all day.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Hey man, when you're 30 miles from beer, you buy it in cases!
Nothing like a cold frosty one to take the edge off after dealing with the media all day.

I wonder if anyone is planning on joining them...

It might take some time for anyone to really get there and they have to find a way in when they get there.

a reply to: onequestion
I suppose they could ask the journalists to bring them a few burgers. There appear to be more jounalists there than occupiers.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: onequestion
I suppose they could ask the journalists to bring them a few burgers. There appear to be more jounalists there than occupiers.

LOL!

It blows my mind how crazy people are.

Wouldn't it make sense for all of the different groups demanding justice from the government to band together under 1 issue at a time and support one another?

a reply to: diggindirt

Generally speaking you are correct. However when it comes to reports / court testimony for non juvenile cases what they say can be released provided identifying information is redacted, as we see in the sections of the court case where the juvenile gave statements in the arson issue. His previous treatment (the sandpaper) was used to demonstrate the mindset of the accused. That starting a fire is just as acceptable as hurting a minor. It shows indifference and allows a picture to be painted to the court / jury. The minor was threatened to not speak about what happened on starting the fire then described his fears when they found out he talked to police.

So while we most likely not see the full juvenile report what was said in court for the arson trial becomes a matter of public record with redactions to protect juveniles.

a reply to: onequestion
What an excellent suggestion!
That would even work.
Here's the problem: These guys aren't out there preaching for or against any party. They've seen representatives from both parties allow this kind of unjust treatment of citizens. Most of these "activists" are so tied to a major party that anyone who doesn't push their issues isn't important.
The folks like Alex Jones and Oathkeepers don't want to talk about real wrongs done to real people---they want to talk about what "might" happen if Obama does this, that or the other... They dismiss anyone who doesn't hunt by their whistles. And then take credit for "deescalating" the situation.
I'm still not sure what exactly got escalated in the first place---except a few gun phobics nearly had fainting spells from hearing that there were a bunch of guys out in the wilderness with guns.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Sorry. It passed you in both lanes.

I was attempting to point out that law enforcement can arrest and incarcerate juveniles for tobacco possession.
The relatives had their own idea of what might work better than putting him in a detention center with a bunch of hoodlums.
Law enforcement can detain and incarcerate juveniles for alcohol possession.
The relatives had different ideas of punishment that didn't involve juvie hall.

Cutting one's body with paper clips?
I admit that I would be at a loss as well. Home-style dermabrasion doesn't seem to be the best answer. My last resort would be confining the child to a mental hospital but it certainly is indicative of some serious mental issues.

a reply to: diggindirt

Hmmm ok.. That's different from my training. The following is not intended to be insulting or anything like that.

Full on juvenile cases are sealed.
A juvenile testifying in court as a witness is not. How could parts of his incident be brought up in court? If the defense (or prosecutor) puts on a witness who makes claims that turns out to be inaccurate / a lie their testimony can be impeached by using another witness with verifiable facts.

If people testified at their trial that they were good role models and good with children the juvenile can be called to recount his experience of the sandpaper incident to counter the claims made.

Minor in possession of alcohol / tobacco is a misdemeanor / infraction (depends on the state / city laws). Those cases can be heard in a "court of competent jurisdiction" = municipal, state or juvenile courts (again depends on state).

Regular law enforcement (depends on the state) in general cannot arrest a juvenile on their own authority. We are required to contact a juvenile officer (police that deals with juvenile issues). If they tell us to arrest its on the authority of the juvenile officer.

Law enforcement doesn't incarcerate anyone - the court system does that. When we arrest the person is either cited and released (counted as an arrest in my state), placed on a 24 hold (felonies) (some states are longer) where we must submit a PC to the prosecutor. If the prosecutor issues charges the person is transported to the holding facility with jurisdiction (a person charged with felonies from a municipal case will go to the county jail. Misdemeanors can be held at the city jail -if there is one). If no charges occur the person is required to be released.

Juveniles generally have their own dedicated detention facility that holds only minors. They are sent their and will be released to a family member. Only juvenile court can "incarcerate" a minor.

Punishment by family is fine so long as the punishment doesn't violate the law. Using sandpaper to remove the scratches (or any punishment) leaves visible injuries, it can be a law violation.

Based on the people involved and their beliefs this incident enters the top floor of complex and down right goofy.

My kids are better prepared on a weekend trip into the mountains than these "Sovereign Citizen" morons. Have you SEEN the list of things they want brought to them?

When are people going to wise up to the game the Bundy's are playing? They are RICH ranchers supported by the LDS and they want to graze their cattle for free to up their profits.

The locals, the HAMMONDS, have figured this out and want nothing to do with them,...when will the rest of the idiots that believe these frauds represent anything other than their own (deep) pockets? You are being used to bolster the bank accounts of a wealthy and racist family that couldn't care less about any cause other than their own bottom line.

A new group has joined in to provide 'security' and Bundy doesn't want them there...

So the guys that are not wanted and are being asked to leave are now telling others that they are not wanted and that they need to leave...

“We don’t need that. We don’t want it and we’re asking you to leave,” Todd MacFarlane, an attorney mediating the dispute on behalf of the Bundys, told reporters Saturday.

www.rawstory.com...

a reply to: Sremmos80

can you imagine if they turn on each other and someone gets shot? wouldn't surprise me one bit.

if so, I'm sure it'll be lefties fault..

a reply to: knoxie

I read somewhere that there is already some fighting within the ranks out there.

To many chiefs not enough indians is my bet. My gut tells me that they won't turn and shoot each other though, just get so divided their cause will fail.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: Sremmos80

can you imagine if they turn on each other and someone gets shot? wouldn't surprise me one bit.

if so, I'm sure it'll be lefties fault..

The last BLM/Bundy stand-off almost came to blows amoung the "patriotic" Bundy-Bunch. I would not be surprised if the same thing happens again.

originally posted by: Leonidas
When are people going to wise up to the game the Bundy's are playing? They are RICH ranchers supported by the LDS and they want to graze their cattle for free to up their profits.

..... You are being used to bolster the bank accounts of a wealthy and racist family that couldn't care less about any cause other than their own bottom line.

The perfect storm of Soverign Citizen and LDS leadership. The following is a reply to an article in High Country News

The poster...

I'm part of a rare phenotype: Liberal, environmentalist, Democratic voting, and active LDS.

I see current Mormon attitudes about land to be a huge change from decades ago, when the majority were farmers or ranchers. The greatest value is now placed on being a successful (measured in wealth) businessman, and the quickest way to new money is highly represented in the legislature as I indicated above. After every new legislature takes its seat, I read through all of the legislative biographies, which is why I am confident in my assessment that most are involved directly or peripherally in real estate development (and are therefore dangerous and opposed to the kinds of land values espoused by most HCN readers). They don't want the state of Utah to own the land, they want it only so they can sell it.

note for next part...
Mr. Ivory

sits on the federalism committee of the American Legislative Exchange Council. His nonprofit, the American Lands Council (ALC), is largely funded by local and county governments eager to gain control of land in their communities. It has also taken funding from utility companies and Americans for Prosperity, the dark-money group founded by the Koch brothers.

source

continuing on...

Mr. Ivory's family is heavily involved in real estate development. About two-thirds of Utah's legislators are tied to bankiing, insurance, land title, development, real estate or other firms who would benefit from the transfer of lands to the state. Becky Lockhart cooked up a proposal to pump $300 million of (non-existent) revenue into Utah schools to purchase technology; most of the money would have been funneled through her husband's firm--this should give an idea of her motivations as well as her greed.

Utah's legislature is over 80% Republican, with highly gerrymandered districts to insure that the 30% or so of Utahns who vote for Democrats are thoroughly disenfranchised. Wyoming's legislature is similarly constituted; but unlike Wyoming, the Utah legislature is overwhelmingly Mormon, while the state as a whole is about 60% LDS, exacerbating the sense of disenfranchisement. Proclaimed contempt for the federal government is their hallmark, especially in rural counties of eastern and southern Utah.

While all of this can be seen as merely a current iteration of the 1980s Sagebrush Rebellion, Utah's legislature is much more conservative Republican, much more anti-federal, and much more inclined to spend taxpayer money tilting at federal lands windmills. With a new large majority in the US House, and control of the US Senate, coupled with western Democrats who fear both the Tea Party and the NRA, I worry that enough Democrats will agree to transfer to create a veto-proof majority that will force this upon us all.

If these lands are ever transferred to the states, they will be gone forever. Few in Utah are under the illusion that the lands would be managed under new state ownership in as they are by the feds. Every acre would be either placed under mineral lease or sold to the lowest bidder crony of Ken Ivory and his legislative ilk.

Utah is currently "studying" moving the main state prison. The underlying reason? It is prime land south of Salt Lake City and the Senate Majority leader and his family control considerable land adjacent to the prison. No matter if the prison employees are disrupted by a move. No matter if prisoner families are forced to travel great distance for visits. The prison MUST BE MOVED so the developers can make a killing at taxpayer expense.

The motive of these bloodsuckers is transparent. The only question is whether they can be stopped. Exposing them to the light of day within Utah is useless. They must be exposed on a national level.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
A new group has joined in to provide 'security' and Bundy doesn't want them there...

Popcorn, anyone, while we watch the show? And maybe a .

Actually, my heart went out to those townspeople since the Bundy outside agitators came in. What a gawdawful mess that didn't fall but was forced into their midst. And now this.

originally posted by: desert

originally posted by: Sremmos80
A new group has joined in to provide 'security' and Bundy doesn't want them there...

Popcorn, anyone, while we watch the show? And maybe a .

Actually, my heart went out to those townspeople since the Bundy outside agitators came in. What a gawdawful mess that didn't fall but was forced into their midst. And now this.

They got what they wanted now they are backing down with their tail between their legs.

I have a feeling the new group isn't going anywhere now and it's get to get serious as more groups show up.