The real last interview / The Real Reason Lavoy Was Murdered / Warned About Ambush In Phone Call

Wow this is pretty chilling. Listen for your selves to the REAL last interview of LaVoy Finicum and the warning that the FBI listened to.

This was recorded on accident after a radio interview ended they hung up and called back after to talk to LaVoy more directly. This is the conversation that was recorded. They apparently didn't even know they had it, which is why it is only now being released(Feb. 8th is the date of the article on the oath keepers site). The Connors Report did a show as well on it February 12th 2016.

Part 1 of 3

Part 2 of 3

Part 3 of 3

How about a brief summary of the video for those of us who are unable to watch it

EDIT: Much appreciated, bud

a reply to: Barzad

On Sunday, January 24, 2016 (just two days before his death) Lavoy Finicum was a guest on Jason Van Tatenhove’s radio show (The Patriot Report) along with Stewart Rhodes, Founder and President of Oath Keepers. On the show, they discussed how Lavoy and Ammon Bundy’s message of western ranchers resistance to federal tyranny had begun to “catch fire” and was spreading to other counties and other states, with an additional eight ranchers (including in Utah and New Mexico) stepping up to declare their “emancipation” and independence from the BLM and USFS. They also discussed the great advantages to taking stands in counties that had strong constitutional sheriffs willing to interpose and protect the ranchers.

After the show Stewart Rhodes, Idaho Oath Keeper Todd Engle (veteran of Bundy Ranch) and Jason Van Tatenhove called Lavoy on the phone and warned him that it was clear that the FBI and the state of Oregon had put in place all the personnel (approximately 400 officers) and equipment needed to shut the occupiers down, and that by our estimation that action was imminent (within two to three days, tops). We urged him to consider making a tactical lateral move to a county with a strong constitutional sheriff, so that they could continue to spread the “brush fire” of liberty in the minds of other ranchers.

Jason had set his Skype account to record the show, but we didn’t realize at the time that it was still recording when we made the phone call to LaVoy after the show. We just discovered this recording. ~Oathkeeper's Website

SOURCE:
www.oathkeepers.org...

Yah, he was a hero, patriot and son of liberty after all.

chew it up, haters…

a reply to: intrptr

For once, we agree.

a reply to: tensetek

Great thread topic, tensetek. I had heard the interview and phonecall, hadn't thought to do a thread on it. Glad you did. Good thinking!

If they had made that move, they would probably still be free men and women, continuing their activism within the community. Sheriff Palmer would not have allowed federal presence the way Ward did. I think this is probably the main reason the feds and OSP moved when they did. The meeting they were going to (in John Day) was in the county (Grant) where Rhodes had suggested that they move to. They probably would have planned the move during that visit, if they hadn't already.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Sheriff Palmer would not have allowed federal presence the way Ward did.

A county sheriff's authority is trumped by the state.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Sheriff Palmer would not have allowed federal presence the way Ward did.

A county sheriff's authority is trumped by the state.

That, my brother, is subjective. A sheriff is an elected official. Does 'anything' actually trump the results of an election?

I know what you're going to say ... so save the response.

a reply to: Snarl

I know what you're going to say ... so save the response.

You knew I was going to say that the Governor is elected? And that state law supersedes county law?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Sheriff Palmer would not have allowed federal presence the way Ward did.

A county sheriff's authority is trumped by the state.

It's debatable I think. You've definitely touched on one of the points of contention that is an underlying issue in this topic though.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Snarl

I know what you're going to say ... so save the response.

You knew I was going to say that the Governor is elected? And that state law supersedes county law?

Yeah ... I wish life was more like Burger King, but it ain't. When the shoe was on the other foot I had a habit of planting it where the sun don't shine. There was one incident, however. It did involve a sheriff. My boss came after me with a leash and put me back in the cage. 'Cause some things just aren't worth it.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

It's debatable I think.

No. It isn't.

(1) Arrest and commit to prison all persons who break the peace, or attempt to break it, and all persons guilty of public offenses.

(2) Defend the county against those who, by riot or otherwise, endanger the public peace or safety.

(3) Execute the process and orders of the courts of justice or of judicial officers, when delivered to the sheriff for that purpose, according to law.

(4) Execute all warrants delivered to the sheriff for that purpose by other public officers, according to law.

(5) Attend, upon call, the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Oregon Tax Court, circuit court, justice court or county court held within the county, and to obey its lawful orders or directions. [Amended by 1985 c.339 §1]

www.oregonlaws.org...

Please note nos. 1 and 4.

You've definitely touched on one of the points of contention that is an underlying issue in this topic though.

Which point would that be? That everyone is their own law? That a county sheriff can decide who should be and who should not be arrested? What a wonderful world it would be.

originally posted by: Phage
Which point would that be? That everyone is their own law? That a county sheriff can decide who should be and who should not be arrested? What a wonderful world it would be.

No, no. The point of contention I was trying to highlight is that of the extent of a sheriff's authority within his county. Supreme atuthority within his county vs. just a sheriff. I'm not sure exactly what that notion is based on, but that's what it is. So it's debatable. There is a point of contention there in the cultural divide of the philosophy of government. I'm not the guy to argue it with, though. I wouldn't claim to be some constitutional sheriff expert, or even that knowledgable on the topic really. That contention is there, though.

You guys probably know more about it than I. Go ahead, drag it out into the light, let's have a look at it. See if it stinks or not, and if so how bad.

I think in terms of de facto government, if a local sheriff wants to make it difficult for federal and/or state officials to operate effectively within his county, he can do that. If he's well enough organized, he could undermine most efforts from a federal or state agency I'd guess. They might get their job done eventually, but not without a much larger resource allocation.