News Was the FBI Agent Indicted in the Oregon Standoff Case?

[Astronuc]

More craziness in 2016. It will be interesting to see where this goes this year and beyond.
Where - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harney_County,_Oregon

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/why-ammon-bundys-oregon-standoff-is-doomed-to-014534768.html

http://news.yahoo.com/armed-group-oregon-fears-raid-071902283.html

The federal government controls about half of all land in the West. For example, it owns 53 percent of Oregon, 85 percent of Nevada and 66 percent of Utah, according to the Congressional Research Service.

http://news.yahoo.com/people-of-bur...ife-refuge-occupation-drags-on-225354493.html

Burns, Ore., residents to Bundys: It's time to go home
Sheriff meets with anti-government occupiers one day after town meeting
http://news.yahoo.com/burns-oregon-residents-to-bundys--it-s-time-to-go-home-201715243.html

Self-styled militia group joins Oregon occupation, could raise tensions
http://news.yahoo.com/self-styled-militia-group-joins-oregon-occupation-could-213023142.html

Oregon occupation leader rejects sheriff's bid to end standoff
http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-occupation-leader-rejects-sheriffs-bid-end-standoff-005704307.html#

An Oregon rancher's take on the matter
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...you-dont-understand-about-the-bundy-standoff/Of course, the US government could return the land to the First People, in this case, the Paiutes.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2016/01/burns_piaute_tribe_militants_s.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/us/native-tribe-blasts-oregon-takeover/

 

[fras]

Of course, the US government could return the land to the First People, in this case, the Paiutes.

Or, the US government could return the land back to arthropods.

 

[gleem]

When America was settled the native Americans where baffled at the fact that these new inhabitants thought that they could own land. How could one own land?

 

[dipole]

When America was settled the native Americans where baffled at the fact that these new inhabitants thought that they could own land. How could one own land?

Possession is nine tenths of the law.

 

[gleem]

Yes, as they soon learned.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, as they soon learned.

Personally, I think that's BS. Even if they didn't have the idea of ownership defined in terms of money and legal contracts -- because they had neither -- they still fully understood and claimed ownership. They fought wars with each other over their land. And besides -- if their beliefs say they can't own land, then they have no basis for a claim today that "their land" should be returned to them.

Regardless of all of that, it's been what, 150 years? It's over. Live with it, accept it -- heck, grow up. Civilized people no longer fight over land. It is ridiculous to want to re-start a land fight because they don't like the chair their ancestors got when the music stopped. This isn't the Middle East, where people seem to think it is a normal thing to kill each other over obsolete land clams.

[/rant]

 

[WWGD]

Personally, I think that's BS. Even if they didn't have the idea of ownership defined in terms of money and legal contracts -- because they had neither -- they still fully understood and claimed ownership. They fought wars with each other over their land. And besides -- if their beliefs say they can't own land, then they have no basis for a claim today that "their land" should be returned to them.

Regardless of all of that, it's been what, 150 years? It's over. Live with it, accept it -- heck, grow up. Civilized people no longer fight over land. It is ridiculous to want to re-start a land fight because they don't like the chair their ancestors got when the music stopped. This isn't the Middle East, where people seem to think it is a normal thing to kill each other over obsolete land clams.

[/rant]

Isn't much easier to feel this way when you got the (way, way) better side of the deal?

 

[gleem]

The Chinese are extending the concept of ownership to the seas areas claimed by several other far eastern countries.

 

[russ_watters]

Isn't much easier to feel this way when you got the (way, way) better side of the deal?

I received no deals. These things happened a hundred years before I was born.
[edit]
And if you want to say that I've received the benefit of that -- that I'm lucky to have been born in the USA, sure, I agree. Ironically, these people received similar luck and are rejecting it!

 

[russ_watters]

The Chinese are extending the concept of ownership to the seas areas claimed by several other far eastern countries.

We do have a separate thread for that:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...itary-reaching-out.772216/page-7#post-5336325

 

[WWGD]

I received no deals. These things happened a hundred years before I was born.

EDIT You and I, all have benefited while growing up , indirectly, from ownership of those lands, by having access to resources we may not have otherwise had. Similar to the case of benefiting from , who knows, a trillion dollars worth of slave labor without which the country may not have developed as it did. Just curious, do you think if you had been , e.g., Jewish, you would not keep some resentment over Nazis, or if you were black, resentment over slavery, etc.? It is not healthy to keep those resentments, but it seems difficult to leave them behind too.

 

[russ_watters]

EDIT You and I, all have benefited while growing up , indirectly, from ownership of those lands, by having access to resources we may not have otherwise had.

See my edit too: yes, I received luck based on where I was born/who I was born to. Ironically, they are rejecting some of that same luck!

Similar to the case of benefiting from , who knows, a trillion dollars worth of slave labor without which the country may not have developed as it did. Just curious, do you think if you had been , e.g., Jewish, you would not keep some resentment over Nazis, or if you were black, resentment over slavery, etc.? It is not healthy to keep those resentments, but it seems difficult to leave them behind too.

I'm really not sure where you are going with that? Yeah, their ancestors had it rough. Everyone's ancestors had it rough, even if some had it rougher than others - though that would depend on how far we could go back. If I held on to racial/ethnic hate from events that happened before I was born, I'd have to kill myself for being part Scottish, English and German. What I object to is choosing to hold on to such things that shouldn't matter anymore. It's stupid and childish and racist. But I do get it: much of the strife in the world to day is from racism justified by history. It's time to grow up.

Anyway, I don't really see what that has to do with this thread, since this isn't about racial/ethnic hate it is about land ownership.

 

[gleem]

I think this disputes really is about the general principle of eminent domain and the use of land for the "public good"

 

[russ_watters]

I think this disputes really is about the general principle of eminent domain and the use of land for the "public good"

Yes, I haven't been following it very closely, but what I've heard is that it is largely about cattle grazing rights on public land.

 

[OmCheeto]

Yes, I haven't been following it very closely, but what I've heard is that it is largely about cattle grazing rights on public land.

Being less than 300 miles from the epicenter, I've been following this a little bit.
Of Astro's introductory links, about the only one that isn't familiar to me is:

An Oregon rancher's take on the matter
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...you-dont-understand-about-the-bundy-standoff/

This article, is about a fellow Goonie, telling me, that I don't understand.
Out here, we call them; "Fightin' words!"
"Martha, did that thar dude just call me 'stoopid'"?

First off, the title of the piece:

I’m an Oregon rancher. Here’s what you don’t understand about the Bundy standoff.
The Obama administration has pushed our livelihood to the brink.

Way to lay blame, on someone, who has very little to do with your current predicament.
See; "Disruptive Technology".

I could tear mister "Andy of Mayberry Rancher's" argument to pieces, phrase by phrase, but that would be exponentially longer than the tiresome article itself, so I'll focus on some economic points:

...Every purchase I make — from new cows ($2,000 each)...

New cows are free. They're called "baby cows", or "calves", if you want to get pedantic. Why are you buying cows?

to a new piece of equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars — is a major investment.

The plural, indicates that this is not some "mom and pop" endeavor. $200,000 is not a small sum, for most Americans.
hmmm...

I think I'll stop here, as the further I get, the more I want to stab someone...

 

[jim hardy]

Not living out there i can't know what is really going on.

That said...
I don't trust bureaucracies.
They will grab land under false pretenses.

In early 1990's Florida confiscated the sparsely populated North half of Key Largo, excluding the exclusive Ocean Reef millionaire's community. They did pay those owners the assessed value for their property. They moved state employees into the few houses extant there .
I lived in a working class subdivision just a few miles further south on Key Largo adjacent John Pennekamp State Park. It predated the park.
One day every resident of our subdivision got an official letter from Florida's environmental department stating that the dredging fifty years earlier had exceeded permitted depth by some six inches . Therefore the state was confiscating all the property in the subdivision to reclaim their fill and there'd be no compensation.

I did what any reasonable man would do when so threatened , i bought a high powered rifle and joined the local militia.

Cooler heads prevailed . A neighbor in the subdivision was a retired lawyer . We paid his hotel bill in Tallahassee and he brought back a letter signed by Gov Chiles releasing the state's claims.

The subdivision is named Pamela Villa oops that's Winston Waterways _jh* in Monroe County and above is in the public records.

So ---
do i think there might be more to this than we're hearing about ?
You bet i do.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com...uge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

(ab) In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

(a) In 1964 the Hammonds’ purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.

(a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres, stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.

As Huck Finn said, "I been there."

OM - We had a good governor in Lawton Chiles. How's yours ?

edit
* sorry about subdivision name
Pamela Villa is nearby and i'd lived there prior...
...sure do miss my alleged mind

 

[Astronuc]

More armed men visit site of Oregon wildlife refuge standoff
http://news.yahoo.com/more-armed-men-arriving-oregon-wildlife-refuge-210754481.html

On Saturday, militants drove government-owned vehicles and heavy equipment around the compound, saying the trucks and backhoes now belong to the local community.

Ammon Bundy is a resident of Arizona. Apparently, like the Blues Brothers, Ammon believes he's on a divine mission from God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge

While grazing rights are an issue, the current dispute relates to the arson case against Dwight and Steve Hammond. Ostensibly, they were subject to due process of law. Some may disagree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milit...r_National_Wildlife_Refuge#Hammond_arson_caseArmed Oregon occupation: Is it really about white poverty in the West?
http://news.yahoo.com/armed-oregon-occupation-really-white-poverty-west-184225134.html

This week, Ammon Bundy, the leader of the group, complained that Westerners are helpless against a federal foe that is “literally putting [people] into poverty.”

 

[OmCheeto]

Not living out there i can't know what is really going on.

You could know as much as me. I get all my news from the internet.
But I wouldn't expect anyone to, as this is too much information for even locals to absorb.

...
OM - We had a good governor in Lawton Chiles. How's yours ?

She didn't call out the National Guard to slaughter the intruders, so I'd say she's pretty good.
A lot of people have been asking why no one does anything about these people. But the fact of the matter is, the federal building they are occupying is little more than a visitor center. And its 30 miles from anything. Here are the coordinates if anyone doubts this: 43.265 -118.844
They've basically occupied the middle of nowhere.

The story is somewhat complicated, as there are two families involved.

Family #1, the Hammonds:
Local dad and son who are in jail for arson. The fire was allegedly started to cover up the fact that the two were killing and wounding deer illegally on federal property. Allegedly not for food.

Family #2, the Bundys:
Two brothers from out of state, along with about 10 associates, are criminally occupying a federal building.
Have an ongoing 23 year old legal battle with the federal government.
It is possible, that the Bundy's current actions have nothing to do with the Hammonds.

The Hammonds, in spite of how helpful the Bundys seem to want to be, want absolutely nothing to do with them, and told them to go home.
The nearest town, Burns, where there was protest last week of around 100 people, has a police force of 3: A sheriff and two deputies.
All schools in the Burns area were closed when the occupation started, and are still closed. Although this might seem overly cautious, I read that because the families might live several hours away, they are run as boarding schools. Kind of like college campuses for kids. This is a VERY rural area.

...sure do miss my alleged mind

Ditto.

 

[nsaspook]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fghanistan-Iraq-boost-combat-credentials.html
The outsiders (Bundy's, etc...) need to leave yesterday but there some issues that need to be addressed.

The Hammond's IMO are guilty and arrogant as sin but I'm troubled by the US governments appeal case on this matter and in general.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/07/12-30337.pdf

At sentencing, the court found that the guidelines range for Steven was 8 to 14 months and for Dwight was 0 to 6 months. Yet their convictions carried five-year minimum terms of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1). The government accordingly recommended five-year sentences of imprisonment and argued — both in its sentencing memorandum and at sentencing — that the court lacked discretion to impose lesser sentences. The court, however, concluded that the Eighth Amendment required deviation from the statutory minimum. Observing that Congress probably had not intended for the sentence to cover fires “the wilderness,” the court reasoned that five-year sentences would be grossly disproportionate to the severity of the Hammonds’ offenses. The court then sentenced Steven to two concurrent terms of twelve months and one day of imprisonment and Dwight to three months of imprisonment.
...
Given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense. The Supreme Court has upheld far tougher sentences for less serious or, at the very least, comparable offenses. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (upholding a sentence of fifty years to life under California’s three-strikes law for stealing nine videotapes); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (upholding a sentence of twenty-five years to life under California’s three-strikes law for the theft of three golf clubs);

Basically, it's OK to hand out excessive sentences if other equally excessive sentences are being handed out.

I would like judges to be able to judge the actual facts of the crime and not be a rubber stamp for some rigid one size fits all federal "War On ...'' law.

 

[Hornbein]

The seizure of land by force of arms is both traditional and ongoing.

 

[nsaspook]

http://www.kgw.com/news/ore-militants-stop-sending-us-sex-toys/14084577

 

[russ_watters]

The seizure of land by force of arms is both traditional and ongoing.

While that's true as a plain statement of fact, it has generally fallen out of favor in the world community and realistically was discarded by the major Western powers at the end of WWII. After something on the order of a thousand years of near perpetual war over their borders/territories, it suddenly and completely stopped more than 60 years ago. I don't know the details for the others, but the US has only reduced it's territorial holdings since the, which would have been unheard of before.

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.kgw.com/news/ore-militants-stop-sending-us-sex-toys/14084577

While awesome, how are they even getting packages delivered?

 

[nsaspook]

While awesome, how are they even getting packages delivered?

The FBI seems to think these guys are a lot more crackpot than dangerous. Lots of nice things 'from people who care' about how they are doing could be in some of the packages.

 

[Astronuc]

Reports of harassment, intimidation on the rise as Oregon occupation enters second week
http://news.yahoo.com/law-enforceme...ssment--intimidation-in-oregon-230339291.html

Armed group calls meeting to talk with Oregon community
http://news.yahoo.com/armed-group-calls-meeting-talk-oregon-community-204252389.html

The Latest: Sheriff says they will not be intimidated
http://news.yahoo.com/latest-armed-group-going-government-documents-201526085.html

Tension between ranchers and federal officials is dangerously high in Nevada
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nevada-ranchers-blm-20160114-story.html

 

[Ben Niehoff]

While awesome, how are they even getting packages delivered?

I've been wondering the same thing. By the US Postal Service?

Unlike most Americans, I'm aware the the USPS does not receive any gov't funds. But aren't they at least gov't run? Not entirely sure, but it does seem that a group of anti-gov't terrorists receiving mail is rather hypocritical.

 

[Hornbein]

I've been wondering the same thing. By the US Postal Service?

Unlike most Americans, I'm aware the the USPS does not receive any gov't funds. But aren't they at least gov't run? Not entirely sure, but it does seem that a group of anti-gov't terrorists receiving mail is rather hypocritical.

It says they pick up the mail general delivery in a nearby town.

So they are allowed come and go freely from the occupied area? No blockade? I don't get it.

 

[OmCheeto]

I've been wondering the same thing. By the US Postal Service?

Two of the boxes are USPS, and a Dec 31, 2015 facebook post requests packages be addressed to:

General Mail
[two of the members]
Burns, OR 97720​

So, Yes.

Unlike most Americans, I'm aware the the USPS does not receive any gov't funds. But aren't they at least gov't run?

Pretty much.

Not entirely sure, but it does seem that a group of anti-gov't terrorists receiving mail is rather hypocritical.

Pretty much everything they are doing is hypocritical. I think this is why it's so easy to make memes about them.

Yesterday, I read an article:

Oregon occupiers call for common law grand jury [cnn]
Jan 13, 2016
...
The "judge," Bruce Doucette, owns a computer design and repair store near Denver...

I am assuming they are doing this in response to the comments of a real judge in the county;

[ref yahoo news]
...
But at a community meeting Monday, Harney County Judge Steve Grasty said he plans to make them pay for the estimated $60,000 to $70,000 a day it’s cost to bolster security in Harney County since the occupation began.

“We’re going to send Mr. Bundy the bill,” Grasty said.

[op-ed]
I was just thinking about how long the Bundy's have been fighting their original legal battle, 23 years!, and decided that they might have learned some "legality stuff" along the way. Or maybe not, and just make stuff up along the way.
Also, a lot of people are blaming Obama, duh, for a lack of action in the current situation. But this current situation is simply an extension of the Bundy's legal fight. It has nearly nothing to do with the original Oregon family going to jail, in spite of the "militias" foot stomping.

Anyways, this is somewhat of a political hot potato, as this has been going on for pretty much the full terms of Clinton, Bush, & Obama!
I can only imagine that any action at all against them, will have every yeehadist in America up in arms.

This is why I pretty much fully endorse the current actions. Wait for them to get bored and go home, arrest them all, throw them in jail, and throw away the damn keys.
[/op-ed]

 

[OmCheeto]

It says they pick up the mail general delivery in a nearby town.

So they are allowed come and go freely from the occupied area?

Yes.

No blockade?

Correct.

I don't get it.

It's complicated. Very few people "get it".

One of my fellow Goonie Facebook friends and I had a brief conversation about this the other day.

Om's friend; "Hippies protest things they're passionate about by sitting down holding hands. Because that's what they know. These guys are protesting with guns and stunts and drama because that's their mentality. HOWEVER! The scope of the protest should not be diminished because of their chosen method for attention".

Om; "If the scope of their protest is worthy of support, then they need a new PR manager, as I'm not getting it. And as for hippies... I like hippies. ...

Om's friend; "Some people light themselves on fire for attention. Some starve themselves to near death, or actual death. Some chain themselves to a stationary object and refuse to move. Some hang from ropes off of bridges. These assholes with guns are threatening deadly violence
on other people and that's ****ed up. Unfortunately they believe their hope for a more just future is aggressively hiding in the second amendment, so that's their m.o. WE should still look into what it is that got them so pissed off in the first place and we should be pissed off, too. After we disarm them, of course. If we dismiss what they're trying to say because we don't appreciate the method they're using ("whiny kids throwing a tantrum at a bird sanctuary") , the REAL bad guys ( in this case the BLM ) will continue to **** people over. I bet that will be the case here, sadly".

Om's friend; "I think we should send a missile or two through the front door. And I think the BLM (the whole government while we're at it) should be audited.

Om; "Missiles were my first thought, but I checked out the Oregon National Guard website, and discovered that they only have a few front loaders. Now the Oregon "Air" National Guard, on the other hand... As far as the government being audited? hmmm...". ...See More

I thought it was a very interesting conversation.
Unfortunately, he deleted his initial post, which wiped out the entire conversation.
But not before I copied the entire thing, sans the "See More" part.
For the life of me, I can't remember what I said.
But, I'm sure it was something along the lines of; "Good luck with that".

 

[Hornbein]

This seems to me to be setting an extremely bad precedent.

 

[mheslep]

More craziness in 2016.

Poor way to start a discussion, to label the actors in the story as crazy in the first sentence. They may be, but there are several highly odd things about this situation in the West that are not based on the actions of ranchers.

I'd start with the fact that the federal government somehow owns over a quarter of the land in this enormous country with a federal system, going as high as 85% in Nevada, so that the federal government may own half of all the land west of the Rockies. In a more or less one government country like, say, Russia, such would be unsurprising, but the United States ostensibly has a federal system, where the states and federal government are independently sovereign in matters of, for example, the police power resides which resides with the states. That balance can't exist in reality when the federal government owns an overwhelming share of the land.

I'd like to see a poll on the fraction of people that think the entire US should be turned into one big park, aside from their own residence. Former http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/01/16/canada-not-giant-nationa_n_1209463.html denounced that idea, as he thought it was being applied to Canada by Americans.

 

[nsaspook]

Poor way to start a discussion, to label the actors in the story as crazy in the first sentence. They may be, but there are several highly odd things about this situation in the West that are not based on the actions of ranchers.

The 'actors' have far overstayed their welcome even if their cause has some merit.

 

[mheslep]

The 'actors' have far overstayed their welcome even if their cause has some merit.

Perhaps so. My objection is to the bizarre lack of context here, the obsessive media coverage of a couple possible cranks in a remote cabin versus the blase attitude about a government in enormous overreach in land management.

 

[jim hardy]

I'd like to see a poll on the fraction of people that think the entire US should be turned into one big park, aside from their own residence. Former PM Harper of Canada denounced that idea, as he thought it was being applied to Canada by Americans.

i like the idea of parks, for we've got populous enough to need them

but to throw people off their land to expand one isn't right.

A park should be a good neighbor
and anyone lucky enough to live adjacent one should do likewise .

I'm wary of bureaucrats. They like to expand their power via creeping infringement. As Parkinson said, "Bureaucrats want subordinates not peers."

https://www.nccs.net/2002-07-the-u-s-constitution-and-federal-lands.php][/PLAIN]
The Founders allow Very Little Property to be Owned by the National Government
With the power of private property firmly in mind the Founders clearly set forth necessary limitations in the Constitution so that the national government will not accumulate much property itself. The thought was to leave it to the people who will use, care for, develop, subdue, and gain dominion over it in a manner which will bless the lives of all the people and lead to greater and greater permanent prosperity.

There were, however, a few reasons to have the national government own property: for a seat of government, for military uses, and for needful buildings. This is the very limited power given to Congress in the Constitution:

• 
  "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, dockyards, and other needful buildings" (Art I, Sect. 8, Clause 17)

An earlier draft in the Convention merely read, "to exercise like authority over all places purchased for forts, etc." Madison noted that "Eldridge Gerry contended that this power might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience to the General Government..."

 

[nsaspook]

Perhaps so. My objection is to the bizarre lack of context here, the obsessive media coverage of a couple possible cranks in a remote cabin versus the blase attitude about a government in enormous overreach in land management.

The media is fascinated by the exotic, new and the Sagebrush Rebellion is an old story. The political distance between the cranks and people who live in the badlands can be small but most Oregonians have a zero tolerance for grandstanding bozos of any stripe.

 

[OmCheeto]

I'm wary of bureaucrats. They like to expand their power via creeping infringement. As Parkinson said, "Bureaucrats want subordinates not peers."

To my knowledge, nobody likes bureaucrats.

One of my favorite stories, whether true or not, strikes me as anecdotally true, as far as human nature goes:

My Dad Worked at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and He Knows What Happens When Ranchers Get Their Way

My first experience with cattle grazing on the refuge lands was in the south part of the refuge near Frenchglen. Several fields between the west side canal and the Donner und Blitzen River were being used for grazing. There were lots of cattle there. I think these cattle were from one of the larger ranches in the area, can’t say which one, but Roaring Springs Ranch comes to mind. The cattle had pretty much eaten just about all available vegetation there. These fields were merely mud and cow dang. It was ugly. We were not able to survey these fields for prehistoric sites until a few years later when the fields were not used for grazing.

As my dad recalls, this poor stewardship of the land was what drove the government to limit grazing and buy up ranches:

bolding mine

Sounds like a reasonable story to me.

 

[jim hardy]

from OM's immediately prior post :

As my dad recalls, this poor stewardship of the land was what drove the government to limit grazing and buy up ranches:

A park should be a good neighbor
and anyone lucky enough to live adjacent one should do likewise .

 

[nsaspook]

Ranching is messy (something I know from personal experience as a kid) at any scale but in a few years after the cows have been moved the mud and cow **** fields will be some of the best grass land in the area. With proper land management you rotate cattle fields, tight restrictions on grazing rights have made the problem worse on the limited lands that can be grazed when combined with the western drought. I think a large part of the current problems can be traced to the lack of water for years in the west. This year looks a lot better so hopefully it will take some of the pressure off.

http://www.nuggetnews.com/main.asp?SectionID=8&SubSectionID=8&ArticleID=23503

 

[mheslep]

i like the idea of parks

Im sure everyone does, within reason.

 

[mheslep]

To my knowledge, nobody likes bureaucrats.

The SEIU likey very much.

 

[OmCheeto]

https://www.nccs.net/2002-07-the-u-s-constitution-and-federal-lands.php
"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, dockyards, and other needful buildings" (Art I, Sect. 8, Clause 17)

I don't speak "lawyer", so I can't say for sure what the above is saying in regards to land ownership. Just change a word, and I'm sure the lawyers will say the feds can own everything...

hmmmm... browsing the constitution, this is almost like picking and choosing random verses out of a religious text, to make ones point:

United States Constitution, literal print [gpo.gov]
Section 8
...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

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;
...

bolding mine

As far as I know, Obama specialized in constitutional law. Perhaps I should send him a reminder e-mail, regarding "disciplining the Militia". ps. That looks like one very whackadoodle source (www.nccs.net) you came up with there:

The National Center for Constitutional Studies (NCCS) is a conservative, religious-themed constitutionalist organization, founded by Latter-Day Saint political writer W. Cleon Skousen. It was formerly known as The Freemen Institute.
According to the NCCS, the founding of the United States was a divine miracle. As such, the NCCS worldview and program are based on two major pillars: (1) understanding the divine guidance that has allowed the United States to thrive and (2) rejecting the sometimes tyrannical and/or sinful deviations of the modern U.S. federal government from that divine mold.

wow. just, wow.

 

[OmCheeto]

Well, there's one down:

Takeover update: Crescent man held in theft of 2 refuge vehicles [ktvz.com Central Oregon's News Leader]
Oregon State Police troopers arrested Kenneth Medenbach, 62, shortly after noon at the Safeway in Burns...

Safeway is regional grocery chain.

Crescent is about 200 miles from the standoff.
The perp, Kenneth Medenbach, REALLY hates the BLM.
His Facebook page seems to have been almost completely devoted to it, since its inception.

From the above KTVZ article:

...
Back in 1995, the Bureau of Land Management told Medenbach he had to leave his makeshift cabin on federal land in northern Klamath County that he claimed to own.
"I feel the Lord's telling me to possesses the land, and I can legally do it, because the U.S. Constitution says the government does not own the land," said Medenbach
...

As I mentioned, I don't know squat about the law, but was curious what this fellow is potentially looking at:

Consequences Of Stealing Government Property (18 U.S.C. Section 641)
[Wallin & Klarich, A Law Corp, Criminal Defense Attorneys, (877)4-NO-JAIL]
...
Stolen or converted government property amounting to more than $1,000 can be prosecuted as a felony and upon conviction is subject to up to 10 years in prison, a maximum $250,000 fine, or both. ...
Other Consequences of a Government Theft Conviction ...
Loss of your right to possess, own or purchase a gun, if you are convicted of a felony ...

 

[lisab]

Poor way to start a discussion, to label the actors in the story as crazy in the first sentence.

To take over a publicly owned place using weapons? Uninvited and becoming more uninvited every day? Pretty much fits my notion of crazy.

I can just speculate how the course of events would have been different if these Patriots just happened to be well-armed Muslim Americans instead of a bunch of well-armed old white dudes.

 

[russ_watters]

Poor way to start a discussion, to label the actors in the story as crazy in the first sentence.

Agreed - I'd heard about the incident before reading the OP, so I would have gone with something stronger. "Terrorists", for a start...while trying to avoid the potential for a philosophical discussion about whether terrorists are all, more or less, by definition, "crazy".

I'd start with the fact that the federal government somehow owns over a quarter of the land in this enormous country with a federal system, going as high as 85% in Nevada, so that the federal government may own half of all the land west of the Rockies. In a more or less one government country like, say, Russia, such would be unsurprising, but the United States ostensibly has a federal system, where the states and federal government are independently sovereign in matters of, for example, the police power resides which resides with the states. That balance can't exist in reality when the federal government owns an overwhelming share of the land.

I'm really not following that even a little bit. What does any of that have to do with anything and why do you judge it the way you do?

This isn't the northeast we're discussing, where most of the territory was settled prior to the creation of the federal government. As far as I can tell, most of this land was bought by the federal government in the Louisiana Purchase and I would imagine hasn't changed hands since...for the basic reason, that who would want to buy it? - it's mostly desert. Maybe these guys would like to buy it...or, maybe they'd prefer using it for free?

Either way, the US is supposed to be a civilized country. Civilized citizens of civilized counties do no express their grievances via terrorism.

 

[Astronuc]

This isn't the northeast we're discussing, where most of the territory was settled prior to acquisition by the federal government. As far as I can tell, most of this land was bought in the Louisiana Purchase and I would imagine hasn't changed hands since...for the basic reason, that who would want to buy it - it's mostly desert. Maybe these guys would like to buy it...or, maybe they'd prefer using it for free?

The Louisiana Purchase was mostly the Mississippi River Valley, which was mostly prairie grassland.

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/louisiana-purchase
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/UnitedStatesExpansion.png
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/louisiana-purchase
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Louisiana.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Territory
http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/borders/essay3.html
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/oregon-territory

Originally Spain, Great Britain, Russia, and the United States claimed the territory. In 1819, under terms of the Transcontinental Treaty, Spain ceded its claims to the territory to the United States. Shortly thereafter the United States contested a unilateral Russian move to grant its citizens a fishing, whaling, and commercial monopoly from the Bering Straits to the 51st parallel.

It was the US government, which negotiated treaties, on behalf of the public. Ergo, it is the US government, which controls the land, not the residents of the territories.

One has to look at what was part of Mexico, which was at one point, Spanish territory, and so on.

The desert part is the region between the coastal range, e.g., Sierra Nevada/Cascades, and the Rocky Mountains.

With the exception of Southern California, south of Monterrey, the Pacific coast is temperate rainforest. Inland, east of the coastal ranges, the climate is drier.

When the US was developing in the early 1800s, not much was known about the west. Most of the civilization was along the eastern seaboard, and there were limited communities along the Pacific Coast. Development in the west didn't take off until gold was discovered in California in 1849. Most of the west was 'Indian' territory.

One has to look at not only the Constitution (and amendments), but the US Code (Public Law) and Code of Federal Regulations, which many folks do not know much about, particularly the folks like Ammon Bundy and his supporters.

Crazy applies to those who take up arms and attempt to usurp legal authority. Protesting is fine, but there are appropriate ways to protest against a perceived or actual injustice, and the armed protesters trespassing on federal lands are acting inappropriately, as well as illegally, including harassment of local law enforcement and judicial officials.

If folks object to how government works, let them work through the system and get themselves elected to public office.

 

[russ_watters]

The Louisiana Purchase was mostly the Mississippi River Valley...

Fair enough - it's been a while. Googling, it looks like the area we're discussing is mostly in the Utah Territory, which was acquired by the federal government from Mexico and the Oregon Territory, taken from the British. The identities don't change my basic point: when sparsely populated lands were acquired by the US from another country 150+ years ago, the federal government owned much of the land -- and still does today. I see nothing inherently untoward about that.

 

[Astronuc]

One has to look at the history behind the map. Mexico (Spain) controlled much of the red territory in the southern part of the map. Russia controlled from northern California up though Alaska.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_America

German immigrant, Johann August Sutter (aka John Sutter) bought land from Mexico and Russia. He controlled considerable land, until gold was discovered at 'Sutter's Mill'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sutter

The US government retained mineral rights in the US because of the vast mineral wealth. Back east (east of the Mississippi River), most property is sold with mineral rights. Folks need to learn about 'fee simple absolute'.

 

[Astronuc]

when sparsely populated lands were acquired by the US from another country 150+ years ago, the federal government owned much of the land -- and still does today.

Actually, it's more complicated than that. The federal government owns much of the land, but also sold or granted land, but withheld the mineral rights.

The railroads and some land grant universities were granted land with all rights in order to promote development of the west. At one point, the Southern Pacific Railroad was the largest private real estate owner in California. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railroad was another significant land (and mineral) owner. The Northern Pacific and Great Northern railroads has significant real estate ownership in Washington and Oregon, and that real estate went into the Burlington Northern. The BN and ATSF subsequently merged, and the resulting corporation is now part of Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffet).

One has to look at the treaties, public law (US Code) and corporate histories (over the past 200 years) to understand the current situation regarding land ownership.

About 20 years ago, I was interested in starting a short line railroad. I quickly discovered the morass of local and state legal legacy. It lead me to the state archives and the various contracts and mergers and acquisitions involving railroads (going back to the 1800s). Contract law is interesting, but if one is interested, one should delve into the contracts and M&A involving the railroads in the eastern US. They certainly knew how to write contracts back then.

With respect to the states, one needs to review the act by which each state entered the US. That is where the disposition of the land (and mineral rights) was decided. The relevant acts should be in the Library of Congress and the particular State Archives of each state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsllink.html

 

[jim hardy]

It was the US government, which negotiated treaties, on behalf of the public. Ergo, it is the US government, which controls the land, not the residents of the territories.

With respect to the states, one needs to review the act by which each state entered the US. That is where the disposition of the land (and mineral rights) was decided. The relevant acts should be in the Library of Congress and the particular State Archives of each state.

there's the link that's been missing.

Some folks argue when a territory becomes a state it becomes sovereign and assumes that control , thus if Oregon wants to let ranchers overgraze public lands that's Oregon's decision. Pastureland is not forts arsenals or dock-yards, ie not defense related.
What's the purpose of granting statehood if it doesn't convey sovereignty?

ps. That looks like one very whackadoodle source (www.nccs.net) you came up with there:

that doesn't change the text of Art I, Sect. 8, Clause 17 though,
from a less wackadoodle source https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-105sdoc11/pdf/CDOC-105sdoc11.pdf

Are these guys suitably un- whackadoodle ?
http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-i-section-8

Since the turn of the 20th century, federal legislation has dealt with many matters that had previously been managed by the states. In passing these laws, Congress often relies on power granted by the commerce clause, which allows Congress to regulate business activities "among the states."

The commerce clause gives Congress broad power to regulate many aspects of our economy and to pass environmental or consumer protections because so much of business today, either in manufacturing or distribution, crosses state lines. But the commerce clause powers are not unlimited.

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has expressed greater concern for states’ rights. It has issued a series of rulings that limit the power of Congress to pass legislation under the commerce clause or other powers contained in Article I, Section 8. For example, these rulings have found unconstitutional federal laws aimed at protecting battered women or protecting schools from gun violence on the grounds that these types of police matters are properly managed by the states._{bold mine}

I don't live out there. Does Oregon do a decent job of managing grazing lands ? Or do they leave that to BLM ? Seems to me it ought to be Oregon's call how many cows per acre he can run on public land in Oregon.

If as reported BLM put a fence around a watering hole the rancher leased from the state for his cows,
well,,,
he has a legitimate beef .

 

[mheslep]

"Terrorists", for a start..

Hardly. Terrorists set out to harm and kill so that they can terrorize. They don't camp out and hold press conferences. Maybe these guys belong in jail. But they've not acted as terrorists. More to come ...