Civil Unrest Continues to Build Around Eastern Oregon Rancher Case

[mark46th]

The BLM is full of activists whom seek to take land and grazing rights away from Ranchers that have used the land legally for decades. They want the land to return to pristine condition with no public motorized access. The BLM, the National fForest Service and the National Park service are all in cahoots with each other to bar or severely limit public access.

[atticus finch]

Originally Posted by craigepo

I read National Review quite often, and while it is definitely conservative, they are usually rather objective. Interesting summary of what's going on out there.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ence-justified

Paints something of a different picture of just malcontents wanting to start trouble or thumb thier noses at everyone.

[pcfixer]

Originally Posted by mark46th

The BLM is full of activists that seek to take land and grazing rights away from Ranchers that have used the land legally for decades. They want the land to return to pristine condition with no public motorized access. The BLM, the National fForest Service and the National Park service are all in cahoots with each other to bar or severely limit public access.

I think so to.

Article I Section VIII Clause XVIII of the U.S. Constitution limits the Federal Government obtaining land only by sale per approval of a State Legislature and the use of that land is limited only for Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock yards and other needful buildings. The Federal Government did not purchase this land from the State of Oregon and a building for a wildlife refuge is clearly not a needful building since it does not pertain to any of the enumerated powers delegated to the Federal Government. The People are therefore not trespassing on Federal Land. They are occupying their land and supporting the U.S. Constitution per Article VI Clause III. It is the Federal Government who is committing a crime.

[Box]

Originally Posted by Sdiver

Did Billy write that ???

Because, that seems like his style ....

It all makes perfect sense to me !!

This crap is nothing more than a bunch of racist, moss-eating, gun-toting, Anglo-hillbillies violently abusing their white privilege as they mindlessly cling to their guns, religion, and antipathy towards others.

If they were serious about protesting the government, they'd have made the 300 mile drive to Portland so they could loot a few grocery stores and set fire to a couple of big-city cop cars.

The proof is in the pudding. They wandered out to an admin building on a wildlife preserve in the middle of the pacifc northwest wilderness.
...who in the fuck protests like that?
If they aren't going to man-the-fuck-up and break some glass, block traffic, rob some stores, and light fire to some cars, then they should be shot like dogs.

Where in the hell are guys like Lon Horiuchi when we really need them?

[Hand]

Originally Posted by pcfixer

I think so to.

Article I Section VIII Clause XVIII of the U.S. Constitution limits the Federal Government obtaining land only by sale per approval of a State Legislature and the use of that land is limited only for Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock yards and other needful buildings. The Federal Government did not purchase this land from the State of Oregon and a building for a wildlife refuge is clearly not a needful building since it does not pertain to any of the enumerated powers delegated to the Federal Government. The People are therefore not trespassing on Federal Land. They are occupying their land and supporting the U.S. Constitution per Article VI Clause III. It is the Federal Government who is committing a crime.

Looks a lot more like a case of eminent domain to me.
This mess has been going on since 1908 according to one of the links here. WTF over?

[pcfixer]

Originally Posted by Hand

Looks a lot more like a case of eminent domain to me.
This mess has been going on since 1908 according to one of the links here. WTF over?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T424sWq1SkE

Don't think eminent domain is involved! No private property involved. Seems like the government broad expansion of powers with NO due process. Government does not own property outside what is constitutional allowable. Like W DC.

Gentlemen. De oppresso liber

[Sdiver]

Another good read about the lawlessness of the FedGovt out here in the west.

While I'm still "Eh-Eh" about those folks in the Fed Building in Burns OR, I am glad that stuff like this is coming to light.

I may send those guys in Burns a 6-pak of socks and a sleeve of cheese/peanut butter crackers.

Oregon Standoff Reveals There Is No Adult Supervision of Federal Agencies in the West

Over the past two decades . . . government officials, and perhaps [others], entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive [the family members] not only of their [grazing] permits but also of their vested water rights. This behavior shocks the conscience.” These are not the words of the embattled Hammond family in Harney County, Ore., nor their noisy defenders who made headlines with their illegal occupation of a few buildings at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge — actions the Hammonds do not support — nor even conservatives who see another Sagebrush Rebellion spreading across the American West.

Instead, they are the thoughtful words of Nevada chief federal district-court judge Robert C. Jones in a painstakingly thorough 104-page decision in May 2013 following a 21-day trial held in 2012 in Reno. Judge Jones ruled in a lawsuit filed pro se by Wayne N. Hage, defending the estate of E. Wayne Hage, his father, against two huge federal land-management agencies — the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service — and their employees, all represented by scores of lawyers from the Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Agriculture. (The federal lawyers’ appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was argued last month.) As National Review’s David French has chronicled, the Hammond travails over the decades mirror the fearful path trod by the late Wayne Hage and his family, except for the substitution in the Hammonds’ case of yet another federal land-management agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, which runs the national wildlife refuge surrounding their ranch.

Unfortunately, federal agencies’ abuse of the citizenry is not uncommon. In 2007, a third of a continent away, but still within the vast expanse of America where federal land ownership predominates — reaching two-thirds and more of some states and over 90 percent of some rural counties (72 percent of Harney County is federally owned) — a similar battle raged in Wyoming. Unlike the Hammonds in Oregon or the Hages in Nevada, the case of Harvey Frank Robbins and a federal agency “run amok,” in the words of a BLM employee, reached the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the BLM “made a careless error:” After obtaining an easement to use a private road across the ranch owned by Robbins’s predecessor, federal officials failed to record it. Thus, when Robbins bought the ranch, he did not know about the easement, and, under Wyoming law, he took title free of it. Thereupon, BLM officials, wrote Ginsburg, “demanded from Robbins an easement — for which they did not propose to pay — to replace the one they carelessly lost.” When Robbins offered to negotiate an agreement, they told him “the Federal Government does not negotiate” and “this is what you are going to do.” When he refused, he became, according to Ginsburg, the target of “a seven-year campaign of relentless harassment and intimidation to force [him] to give in.”

After two appearances each before the federal district court in Wyoming and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Robbins reached the Supreme Court in his effort to hold federal employees accountable for violating his constitutional rights to exclude them from his land and for trying to extort an easement from him. Sadly, Justice Ginsburg did not write the majority opinion; her outrage on Robbins’s behalf was a lonely dissent; instead, Justice David Souter, on behalf of the Court, held that Robbins had no cause of action. He admitted that Robbins had suffered a “death by a thousand cuts,” in “endless battling” that “depletes the spirit along with the purse,” but concluded that the rights of citizens to be protected from “illegitimate pressure” by “unduly zealous” bureaucrats was balanced against the government’s need for “zeal on the public’s behalf.” Fearing that granting Robbins relief “could well take the starch out of regulators who are supposed to bargain and press demands vigorously on behalf of the Government and the public,” the Court held Congress was in a “better position” to provide relief if it saw fit. In the years since the 2007 ruling, however, Congress has done nothing to protect citizens from “unduly zealous” — meaning “lawless” — bureaucrats and the taxpayer-funded lawyers who defend them.

It is not just Congress — which could conduct oversight hearings, investigate abuses, hold officials and lawyers accountable, and constrain budgetary authority — that did nothing. The abuses by bureaucrats in the field far from Washington — instigated, and aided and abetted, by environmental extremists, both local and national — of the Hammonds, the Hages, and Robbins occurred either knowingly or negligently during the administrations of Republican and Democrat presidents alike. For example, in 2005, a man who became a client of Mountain States Legal Foundation and prevailed after a nine-year battle before five federal courts was told by federal lawyers that his property rights and legal precedents were irrelevant. He had what they wanted and they would take the case to the Supreme Court to get it. They did but they lost.

As anyone who has the federal government as a neighbor knows — whether in northwestern Montana, in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, or in the Ozark Mountains of Arkansas — federal land managers and their lawyers make the worst people to have next door. The federal government, which owns a third of the country, acts not just as a landowner; it behaves as sovereign too, especially when it sends its lawyers into court. The Canons of Ethics purport to regulate the behavior of those lawyers, providing that: “A government lawyer . . . has the responsibility to seek justice . . . and he should not use . . . the economic power of the government to . . . bring about unjust settlements or results.” Moreover, Supreme Court justice George Sutherland, Utah’s only Supreme Court Justice, wrote, “The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest . . . is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.”

“It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful [result] as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one,” Sutherland concluded.

Regrettably, in my experience, federal lawyers seek not justice, but to win and to win at all cost, which includes: Failing to conduct due diligence before defending federal employees named personally for wrongdoing, withholding documents, misstating or suppressing legal authority, and misrepresenting facts during oral argument. Where are the Canons or Justice Sutherland’s command then, or perhaps more important, where is the disciplining from senior attorneys, supervisory officials — many confirmed by the Senate — or state bars?

That federal lawyers have “run amok,” much like the bureaucrats they defend, is evident, not just from my experience, but also from the fact that the Hammonds were charged, not with trespassing on 140 acres of federal property with the backfire they started to protect their land, but with terrorism! The Oregon district-court judge trying the case saw the outrage and the injustice but was reversed by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. Meanwhile, where were senior officials at the U.S. Department of Justice and where were their overseers in Congress, which had ample opportunity to question the legal proceedings in Oregon during the confirmation of Attorney General Loretta Lynch? Silent as always!

No wonder fury builds at the injustice being done in the West.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...es-out-control

[82ndAA]

I hope this isn't true. I hope someone here can stamp this out as a rumor.

"Oath Keepers has received very credible information from an active duty source within the special operations community that at least one SOD-X (Reserve/National Guard Special Operations Detachment, see this, this, and this) unit under the command of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) has been tasked for this standoff at the Malheur Wildlife Reserve and moved to the area. That source contacted one of our long-time members who is a retired Special Forces 1st Sgt (who has known the source for over twenty years)."

https://www.oathkeepers.org/urgent-w...e-immediately/

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Billy L-bach

Where in the hell are guys like Lon Horiuchi when we really need them?

Lon will be enroute to Burns as soon as he finishes up shooting female range targets.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Billy L-bach

If they aren't going to man-the-fuck-up and break some glass, block traffic, rob some stores, and light fire to some cars, then they should be shot like dogs.

Sexist pig!

[Old Dog New Trick]

Originally Posted by Paslode

New recruits will be enroute to the new QC as soon as they finish up shooting female range targets.

Fixed it for you.

Eggzellent idea, the new military will need to start breaking old barriers down and start teaching young recruits how to indiscriminately discriminate soldiers from civilians. The old Soviet 3D plastic targets will now have boobs and the new Type E silhouette will be pear-shaped and 1/3 shorter than the previous 40-years of production.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

Fixed it for you.

Eggzellent idea, the new military will need to start breaking old barriers down and start teaching young recruits how to indiscriminately discriminate soldiers from civilians. The old Soviet 3D plastic targets will now have boobs and the new Type E silhouette will be pear-shaped and 1/3 shorter than the previous 40-years of production.

Two Thumbs Up!

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Paslode

Two Thumbs Up!

That would be sexual assault.

[Box]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

Sexist pig!

Wow.

I stand corrected. Thank you for calling me out on this one. The correct term should be "Person-the-fuck-up".

I apologize to all of my associate board members for the slip. (notice that I did NOT use the phrase FELLOW board members)

"Man"-the-fuck up is unfortunately a term stuck in my vocabulary from decades of time spent in a patriarchal, male-dominated, insensitive, cis-gendered, and elitist force.

Please forgive me. I cherish your friendship and as punishment I will go to the PX and allow at least ten Soldiers to witness me reading the current copy of Cosmopolitan magazine at the news-stand.

Again, thank you for what is a well deserved internet shaming for using the "m-word"...

Respectfully submitted,
BL

[Bleed Green]

Thank you so much for the laugh Mr. Billy. It is amazing how funny some things are after a midnight shift and that is going to leave me chuckling until the mimi monster hits me.