Why Did Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum Have To Die? The Connection Between Malheur, Putin, The Clinton Foundation, And Big Money
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 10 months ago
For those who have tracked this with at least a modicum of interest, this has all been puzzling. WeaponsMan has this to say about the death of Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum.
This whole mess began because a Federal prosecutor (like all of them an effete urbanite with many years in Eastern elite colleges) thought it would be amusing to make a felony out of some careless brush burnoffs by a couple of ranchers, and send the hayseeds to prison.
Amusing, you say? This all happened because someone wanted to be amused? Digging a little deeper, the original case was so weak that if something like this had happened around these parts, those responsible might have faced community service, a small to moderate fine and a stern talking-to by the judge. To explain just how bizarre this whole thing was to start out, and just how head-scratching the drama surrounding this was, I turn to none other than Western Livestock Journal, well before any of this ever happened.
BLM filed charges against the Hammonds back in 2012. The federal prosecutor chose to prosecute them under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Anti-terrorism Act).
The trial court’s 2012 findings can be summarized as follows: Dwight and Steven admitted to having started two fires, for which the court found them guilty. One of the fires was a prescribed burn in 2001 that, according the court record, accidentally spread onto 139 acres of BLM land. Those 139 acres happened to be located on one of the family’s federal grazing allotments. The other fire, from 2006, was a back-burn. Steven had set the fire on the family’s private property in order to protect their winter feed from a lightening fire that had started on adjacent BLM land. That fire accidentally spread to one acre of BLM land.
Those are the facts of the case. They aren’t any more complicated than that. This all has to do with some controlled burns that weren’t exactly controlled, and an agreement the Hammonds say they had with BLM that apparently they didn’t have in writing (big mistake). Continuing with the report.
The trial court sentenced Dwight and Steven Hammond, father and son, to a combined three months, one year and one day in prison. They served their time in 2013 and are now under three years’ “supervised release.” The court additionally revoked their firearms and Dwight lost his pilot’s license.
The Hammonds are also paying $400,000 as part of a separate settlement agreement with BLM.
They may be forced to sell part of their ranch to BLM to make the payment. BLM has additionally refused to renew the family’s federal grazing permits for two years running. This means Hammonds can use neither their BLM allotments nor thousands of their private acres, which are intermingled with BLM land. It should be noted that the civil settlement and the BLM’s refusal of Hammonds’ grazing permits are, technically, unrelated to the criminal case.
So this begins to get interesting, yes? A harsh settlement with the court, loss of weapons rights, huge fine, time in prison, and now (this is the interesting part) loss of grazing permits and possibly having to sell the ranch because of the huge fine. Remember, this is all stuff that was known well before anything with the so-called occupation ever occurred. Let’s continue.
… the federal government was unsatisfied with the less-than-five-year sentence handed down by the trial court, and decided to appeal.
In the first instance, why did the federal government choose to prosecute under an anti-terrorism statute? A reading of the court documents does not provide a clear answer. The Anti-terrorism Act was enacted following the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings in the 1990s. Legislative history shows the law’s purpose is to “deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes.” More specific purposes include authorizing federal courts to hear claims against “terrorist governments for acts of terrorism against U.S. citizens…” and revising criminal laws regarding “unlawful possession, use, transfer, and trafficking in nuclear materials and biological and chemical weapons.”
The government originally attempted to prosecute the father and son for nine violations of the Anti-terrorism Act. The trial court found Hammonds guilty on only two counts: for having started the 2001 prescribed burn and the 2006 back-burn. The guilty charges came under section 844(f) of the Act, which calls for a minimum of five years in prison for anyone who “maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property [of] the United States…” However, the judge and jury appeared to be conflicted over applying the Anti-terrorism Act’s full force. As noted by Judge Michael Hogan of the District Court, Hammonds’ fires likely rejuvenated and improved the federal range. Indeed, it would defy logic to expect Hammonds to purposefully and “maliciously” damage their own BLM allotments.
Of importance, too, was the trial court’s finding that no lives were endangered or harmed by the fires—which, under the Anti-terrorism Act, would have meant a minimum prison sentence of seven years.
You can read the rest for yourself. Now, to be sure, we can combine this ridiculous legal situation with problems of our own with the Bundy’s visit to Malheur. To begin with, if they had surrounded the Hammond’s home at their request and refused to allow him to be taken to prison, this might have ended differently, and would probably have had the support of most of the patriot community. Instead, they occupied an unrelated building in the middle of nowhere, without the Hammonds having requested it.
Furthermore, this was tactically and logistically unsustainable, and lacked means of egress, evasion and escape. For me, there is also the problem that the occupation is intermingled with eschatological complexities of the LDS. Ammon Bundy claimed to be told by God to do this, and one occupier said “I’m Captain Moroni, from Utah.” This is important. If you do not understand the significance of this, then study it.
As for me and my theological views (give me a brief minute here, as this is related to the article), God doesn’t reveal Himself today (contra LDS, Pentecostal, or Roman Catholic with the pope speaking “ex cathedra”). He has revealed Himself, past tense. It’s closed – finished. See the Westminster Confession of Faith. I am to follow His laws for my life, and honor His guidelines and wisdom in my interactions. I don’t listen for “voices,” wait for visions or expect God to favor me with knowledge other men don’t have.
So if you tell me God said for you to do something or other, I’m more than likely going to say, “Thank you sir,” shake your hand and be on my way. The situation was a bad case for patriots, poorly planned, poorly thought out, and badly executed. But it is what it is, not perfect. Perhaps I couldn’t have done better.
And into the gap stepped Bundy, his friends and Mr. Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum. They may not have known what they were stumbling into, but it is dark, deep, and a sad commentary on the state of this pitiful nation. Let’s take a step further into the darkness, thanks to Jon Rappoport.
Is uranium at the heart of the Oregon Malheur federal-protestor standoff? That’s the question I’m asking. It isn’t a flippant question.
I realize there are many other issues swirling around this event. The Hammonds, the Bundys, militias, the feds, cattle grazing on federal lands, federal land grabs, and so on. This article isn’t meant to take apart those matters.
It’s meant to follow up on my previous article, in which I present a circumstantial case for the Clintons’ heavy involvement in a scheme that’s transferred 20% of US uranium production to Putin and Russia. And the key company in that piece is Uranium One. Remember the name. It’s apparently a major clue in what I’m about to discuss.
I also want to say, at the outset, that I don’t know how many independent news outlets and websites are covering the uranium question, or which outlet initiated this line of investigation. I’m relying on one provocative January 23 article at intellihub, by Shepard Ambellas:
Down in the body of that article, the author provides a link to a page at the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is a federal agency under the Department of the Interior.
On that BLM page (“National BLM > OR/WA > Energy > Uranium Energy”), in a section titled, “Uranium on BLM-Administered Lands in OR/WA,” [(image of webpage forthcoming)] is the following statement:
“In September 2011, a representative from Oregon Energy, L.L.C. (formally Uranium One), met with local citizens, and county and state officials, to discuss the possibility of opening a uranium oxide (‘yellowcake’) mine in southern Malheur County in southeastern Oregon. Oregon Energy is interested in developing a 17-Claim parcel of land known as the Aurora Project through an open pit mining method. Besides the mine, there would be a mill for processing. The claim area occupies about 450 acres and is also referred to as the ‘New U’ uranium claims.
“On May 7, 2012, Oregon Energy LLC made a presentation to the BLM outlining its plans for development for the mine.
“The Vale District has agreed to work with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife on mitigation for the ‘New U’ uranium claims, which are located in core sage grouse habitat. Although the lands encompassing the claims have been designated core, the area is frequented by rockhounds and hunters, and has a crisscrossing of off-highway vehicle (OHV) roads and other significant land disturbance from the defunct Bretz Mercury Mine, abandoned in the 1960s.
“However, by the fall of 2012 the company said that it was putting its plans for the mine on hold until the uncertainty surrounding sage grouse issues was resolved.”
The first sentence in that BLM section ties together several key elements of the story: Uranium One; a uranium mine; southern Malheur County. Southern Malheur is the general area of the federal-protestor standoff. Let me give you that first sentence again:
“In September 2011, a representative from Oregon Energy, L.L.C. (formally Uranium One), met with local citizens, and county and state officials, to discuss the possibility of opening a uranium oxide (‘yellowcake’) mine in southern Malheur County in southeastern Oregon.”
What does this have to do with Hillary and Bill Clinton? I’ll reprint my previous article so you can read the details, but the short version is: there’s a case to be made that they, through Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation, facilitated the sale of Uranium One to Putin and the Russians. And if so, and if this area of Oregon is projected to be part of that uranium mining deal, then we are looking at a stunning “coincidence”: the US federal government is coming down hard on a group of protestors who are occupying, for their own reasons, a very valuable piece of territory that goes far beyond the issue of private cattle grazing on government land.
It comes under the heading of those old familiar lines: you have no idea what you’re involved in; you have no idea who you’re messing with; this is way over your head; you just stepped into the middle of something that’s bigger than you can imagine.
Not only is an awful lot of Uranium at stake, but the company to which he refers is very interested in Gold as well. And right in the area of the fields of weeds in Malheur. This observation isn’t limited to a blogger, however good he has proven to be. Bloomberg has noted that since 2013, “the nuclear energy arm of the Russian state has controlled 20 percent of America’s uranium production capacity.” And USA Today notes that this all comes back to a huge donation to the Clinton Foundation.
This is a good summary of the situation.
This is an update to my previous article Constitutional Shake Down in Burns Oregon.
I stated in my previous article that the Chinese wanted the uranium under Harney county but it turns out it was the Russians that wanted the uranium. David Ward the sheriff it turns out, used to work for BLM and testified against the Hammonds. It has also been revealed that the Clintons under their reign made a deal with Russia to let them mine uranium under Harney County. The Clinton money laundering Foundation received approximately 2.5 million dollars in four payments from the Russian mining company now known as Uranium One that was bought from a Canadian firm.
This would explain why state officials were nervously trying to end this and why the sheriff gave his permission for the FBI to come into the county at the behest of the governor now as 200 fed vehicles come to Harney County. This governor Kate Brown is a Clinton brown nose supporter
This corruption goes all the way to the top of the Clinton white house, the justice dept, BLM, the forestry dept. and includes the sheriff playing his role in the theft of the Hammonds freedom and land by lying on the stand to convict the Hammonds as a BLM thug. The conflict of interest alone should free the Hammonds on the basis of a mistrial.
Just like the Bundy experience, which was all related to a corrupt deal by Harry Reid to enrich the Chinese communists and his own son with the Bundy land, this is related to land, how valuable it is, and the value of its minerals. If you think that this land is for you, if you think that you can just do anything you wish with government owned land, if you like to sing “this land is your land, this land is my land, from …,” then you’re a moron and you belong at a Bernie Sanders rally. No one except other rubes believes that anything about federal lands is yours. Federal land is capital. It is power. It is largesse. It allows gifts to those in power. It catalyzes corruption. It is quid pro quo, the stuff of powerful men and women who want to rule the world, the currency of graft.
The video the FBI released was purported to show, in the words of FBI special agent Greg Bretzing, “On at least two occasions, Finicum reaches his right hand toward a pocket on the left inside portion of his jacket. He did have a loaded 9 mm semi-automatic handgun in that pocket.” First of all, without the wife or daughters producing a proof of sales for a 9 mm pocket pistol, I don’t believe them. Furthermore, it looks to me like he stumbled.
Additionally, even if he had a pocket pistol, no one with two brain cells (and I believe that Mr. Finicum had >> two brain cells) would present or produce a 9mm pocket pistol to engage in combat with multiple operators equipped with rifles, optics and body armor. I don’t believe it. If this video is the best they can do, they failed. It proves nothing. Whoever decided to release this video as evidence of Mr. Finicum’s decision to engage in combat is a moron. It’s a video of a mad, but pitiful old man stumbling in the snow. And you can’t prove that it’s anything but that.
Here we are with Mr. Finicum dead, a good man by all accounts, especially those who knew him best, his friends and family, and yet the evil goes much deeper. The divisions are becoming more pronounced, and they will not be healed. As for the shooters, Oregon police, or *.gov federal agents, whomever you are, this is what we know. You knew that this mess needed to be closed out quickly. Thus you did what you did. Congratulations. You killed Mr. Finicum so that Hillary Clinton could become enriched by selling the rights to American Uranium and Gold to a Russian communist.
On February 1, 2016 at 2:37 am, 15Fixer said:
I sure wish we could generate ALOT of interest in this. I am going to send this article out to everyone I know. Hopefully it will snowball … Prayer helps too.
On February 1, 2016 at 7:39 am, Kerry said:
“Extraordinary
Infallible Magisterium (“Solemn Magisterium”): this is exercised when
the Pope, as supreme pastor of the entire Church, speaks ex cathedra
(from the Chair of Peter) and solemnly defines a dogma concerning faith and
morals to be held by the entire Church, or when a Dogmatic Council convened
and endorsed by a Pope formally defines a matter of faith and morals to be
held by the entire Church. This is a very rarely exercised assertion of
authority (only a few times in the past few hundred years). When the Pope
teaches using his extraordinary infallible Magisterium, or when a Council
dogmatically defines something and the Pope endorses that defintion, Catholics
must believe what is taught de fide, as an article of faith.
This from Fisheaters.com. Your understanding is incorrect concerning ex cathedra. It is not God the Father, God the Son, nor God the Holy Spirit moving the lips. The Chair of Peter, as in, Or if you like, from the Challoner Douay-Rheima, “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam.
[19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum. Et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in caelis: et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in caelis.
On February 1, 2016 at 10:42 am, Herschel Smith said:
Oh, I think I understand this concept just fine. My seminary professor wanted to make sure that although we were taught reformed doctrine, we understood Roman Catholic doctrine as well as we did our own. Thus, we spent much time in the Council of Trent. So we would, for example, deny that there is a “chair of Peter” and that that understanding of Matt 16:19 is correct. The priesthood of all believers is a very important doctrine coming from the reformation.
Look, the point is not to get into an involved debate over this. It is to point out that there are those of us who believe that revelation is closed. Telling us that God told you so-and-so, whether you’re Bundy or the pope, isn’t the right way to engage patriots.
On February 1, 2016 at 2:51 pm, Heyoka said:
For one I believe this, any man made organization is corruptible. The catholic Church is as guilty as sin for innumerable attacks upon people for their faith. Their entire system is composed and orchestrated for control with the state upon the population. The Declaration and Resolves, 1774, emphatically states that such a proposition is contrary to the colonies and what the Founders called the Rights of Englishmen. Their faith and devotion to conscience is to each and everyone.
I will say this and no more. God speaks to whom He will choose and all man made conditional upon God’s will be damned.
Those who make it mandatory upon others to come to them for their absolution to the Almighty are tyrants. The Pharisees did it, the Papists did it.
Jesus taught us that the Law is not dead but will continue to exist until the Heaven and Earth pass away, Matthey 5:17-20. He did not saw that the perversions of the Pharisees was destroyed. In fact Paul states that those statutes which were against us hand upon the cross. So in essence Jesus cursed the Pharisees for exactly what Catechism and the Reformation Theology is doing to this day. These theologians who claim that all being fulfilled means when Jesus rose are in absolute contradiction to the Master’s words.
Timothy states to study to show yourself approved…. at the time there was no new testament. The scriptures were all that were contained in what is called the Old Testament. Nothing new under the sun, perversion begets perversion and the claim that the deniers and those who limit God are as perverse as they were in ancient Israel. Denying that God will or can speak to you is merely blocking communication and you are a victim of you own disbelief. Until you get your spiritual house in order everything you do will be colored and your discernment in error. The Gifts of the Spirit are as real as the day of Pentecost spoke of in Acts and Corinthians. No man is the arbiter of those gifts because they are of the Spirit and beyond the control of man.
Absolutely speaking denying the promise of the Master that we may all be sons and daughters of God is anti Christ, 1 John 4. You have aligned yourself with the spirit of error. This not about a boogeyman, it is about human nature and the limits that man put upon others to control them. It is about the buy into some doctrine that is contrary to basic scripture. In short is it about as valid as the Supreme Court deeming themselves to the absolute arbiter of what the Constitution means and at the same time rule in absolute contradiction to the intent and simple words of the document based upon some rationalized perversion that suits their agenda. The difference between rationalization and reason using the correct etymology of the word. The same is true in spiritual understanding.
Regardless I do appreciate your articles Hershchel. You have a lot of insight and are spot on in many ways. Thank you for that.
The entire Catholic advent and the feeble attempt at Reformation fell pitifully short.
On February 1, 2016 at 3:05 pm, Herschel Smith said:
My comment was brief, I didn’t intend to write a thesis. So by nature it will be incomplete. Your comment is a bit rambling and I don’t really understand what you’re saying at all. You would have to be less random and more focused on the point you’re trying to make in order for me to respond directly to it.
The point I made was that I don’t believe in continuing revelation. Illumination by the Holy Spirit, yes. Revelation, no. The 66 books of the Bible closes it. No man can tell you authoritatively what Scripture says. That is understood by you, not a priest, not the pope. The priesthood of all believers taught during the protestant reformation is perhaps the most important doctrine coming from the reformation.
Referring to a creed or confession is a short handed way of supplying a synopsis, not a reversion to an authority because I feel obligated to that authority.
These and other sorts of things are covered in great detail in systematic theology classes. If your objection is that you are a Roman Catholic and I’m not, then just accept that we’re going to disagree on this, and profoundly so. Again, I just don’t know what your objection is because I can’t decipher the comment.
On February 3, 2016 at 6:00 am, Heyoka said:
Sir:
I am not Catholic. I am sorry that you took it that way. I am of a mind that I my comments criticizing the Roman Church would tell in their own light.
I am not sure that I understand your position that Illumination by the Holy Spirit is not Revelation. Surely it was the Holy Spirit that inspired the prophets in vision and dreams as well as speaking to God face to face. Again my position is that a man made and organized tribunal does not motivate God to either speak or not speak to His people as He sees fit. I understand that there is a fundamental issue here. Who do you believe??? I would say that the Master’s words are enough. Jesus left us several ways to discern truth from falseness.
We do agree that no man can tell us what the scriptures fully say. I think they speak to us differently. They do convey messages on many levels but are consistent. The apply to the physical world just as they do in the spiritual world. I often open the Bible when I am focused on a problem that has proven itself beyond my ability to resolve. Although a random selection by just opening the Book without regard to where I open it reveals a path to resolution for me. However, the scriptures are often misquoted because the original language and the idiomatic references escape the modern mind. We simply do not know the context in which the words were written unless we devote a great deal of time in study and reference to the meanings in the language. We also need to understand the idioms used and what they meant at the time.
My basic concerns are institutionalized structure that do not reflect the actual word. My reference to Matthew 5:17-20 is a measure that I have found to be defining in many denominations. Too many denominations depart from the Master’s words in this respect. It was his chief complaint of the Pharisees. I can’t reasonably consider any tradition that counters his direct words.
I hope this clarifies what I was getting at.
On February 1, 2016 at 6:22 pm, Kerry said:
Herschel. It looks like the debate intended by neither of us has taken off. Mea Culpa. Anyone who says they are Moroni, is moronic.
On February 1, 2016 at 10:57 am, Fred said:
All glory, honor, might, majesty, power, and dominion goes to the LORD Jesus our risen Christ. Thank you Jesus for giving me my own copy of your Holy Scripture. Thank you for refreshing and growing my understanding and love of you daily.
The dogma of men? No thanks.
On February 1, 2016 at 9:49 am, UNCLEELMO said:
A couple of facts about the resentencing of the Hammonds-
1- The prosecutor was an Obama appointed U.S. Attorney who later resigned for ‘family reasons’ (that, and she had been stalking a subordinate in her office).
2- The judge that sent the Hammonds back to prison had a history in Democrat politics and was appointed by Bill Clinton. Her late husband was a Poly Sci professor at the University of Oregon and was a former chair of the Democratic Party of Oregon.
A couple of other points to be made.
As I understand it, as a result of the original trial BLM has the right of first refusal if the Hammonds decide to sell their property.
I’ve heard that Uranium One had donated a total of $2.3 million to the Clinton Foundation in several installments during Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State. Husband Bill was paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow during this same time frame.
Regarding the arrest of the occupiers, a point that has not been made is that at the time of arrest the two pickups were traveling to Grant County, and one of the people they would be meeting with that evening was Constitutional Sheriff Glenn Palmer, who had earlier stated that the FBI should leave Harney County and that the Hammonds should be released from prison. I don’t believe the occupiers ever made it out of Harney County.
It’s rumored that LaVoy Finicum’s last words were “Let me talk to the Sheriff or shoot me now”.
On February 1, 2016 at 10:07 am, camp taji said:
This STINKS!! perfect example of Rural Cleansing. We’ll teach you to be independent. So in the west an accidental grass fire is terrorism; in the east overturning cars, looting and arson is “social expression”
On February 1, 2016 at 10:51 am, Swath said:
I like the name you chose. Very few will know what it represents.
On February 1, 2016 at 10:13 am, Swath said:
Follow the money.
On February 1, 2016 at 10:41 am, Fred said:
Sir, excellent reporting here. So, whoring out a nation for personal gain, figures.
On February 1, 2016 at 12:01 pm, ghostoflibertypast said:
This should be ‘brought up’,loudly, every time Hillary Clinton makes an appearance,especially in the western U.S.The federal prostitutor..uh.prosecutor’s name should be well known,in case the urge for further ‘public service’ ever strikes the creep.The judges,too.We shouldn’t be in the dark as to who is selling out American citizens lives and liberties for political,and almost certainly, financial gain.
On February 1, 2016 at 12:15 pm, Joe Martin said:
I have some experience in Uranium and there is no reason at all to push the ranchers off to get the uranium. Most uranium is extracted insitu by pumps. I always see cattle grazing all over the uranium one site in Wyoming.
On February 1, 2016 at 12:32 pm, Herschel Smith said:
I think it depends, but in any case you may be missing the point. There is every reason to push the ranchers off the land since they own it. Since they own it, they also own the mineral rights. The government can’t deed the mineral rights of land owned by someone else.
On February 1, 2016 at 1:19 pm, Ned Weatherby said:
In some jurisdictions, one can own the land, but not the water, oil and gas or mineral, rights. https://www.deeds.com/information/how-are-oil-gas-and-mineral-rights-affected-by-real-estate-deeds-1438387987.html That was the case on several pieces of property I once held in Colorado, I have no idea how it stacks up in Oregon, but often one can reclaim mineral rights if no action to extract has been undertake within a certain amount of time. It seem clear, however, that in the case of an open pit mine and mill, whomever owns the mineral rights will run the show.
But like you said, it’s up to the mineral rights owner to deed the rights – not government, except for the ugly little fact that the government seems to do whatever the heck it wants – law or no law. Seems that more and more, laws are for the little people to obey – not the government. This matter seems more and more settled by U.S. Kangaroo Courts. (I’m not talking about fringed flag BS either.)
If I were the Hammond’s lawyer, I’d be submitting a FOIA request to the BLM for title to the land they allegedly burned. It would be interesting to see what BS response BLM would disclose.
On February 1, 2016 at 1:44 pm, Blake said:
Also, it isn’t like the Clinton’s don’t have a track record of payoffs when it comes to natural resources.
It’s pretty much a given that President Clinton created the Utah National Monument at the behest of the Lippo Group. The idea was to keep a trillion dollar seam of low-sulfur coal off the market, because Indonesia owned the low-sulfur coal market.
I don’t remember what the payoff was. The payoff may have been interest in the Lippo group or outright graft to the Clinton Foundation.
On February 2, 2016 at 11:23 am, Joe Martin said:
Most land that is used for grazing in the western states was land that was claimed under the Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916 and does not include Mineral rights. Most people took this claim because you could get 640 acres rather than the 320 acres for a normal homestead.
On February 1, 2016 at 12:45 pm, c0228bfc@opayq.com said:
You must have missed this Joe…”Oregon Energy is interested in developing a 17-Claim parcel of land
known as the Aurora Project through an open pit mining method.”
On February 2, 2016 at 11:42 am, Joe Martin said:
Its unlikely they will ever get an open pit permit. Even if they do, they need permission from the surface estate owners to do anything. Many ranchers make much more from the mining companies than they ever make from ranching.
This is mainly covered under the 1872 Mining Law.
On February 2, 2016 at 12:02 pm, Herschel Smith said:
I would surmise that all that money the Hammonds could make by selling their rights would go a long way towards paying the massive fines and covering legal expenses. What a coincidence. Who could’ve imagined it!
On February 2, 2016 at 5:45 pm, Joe Martin said:
My point is that “Legally” The Gov has all the right in many cases. They only gave away the surface rights. This has ben taken to court many times and even has had bills presented in congress to try to come to some sort of agreement. However every court has said that the “Gift” of the surface rights was quite clear.
Passing incorrect info only makes matters worse. Most ranchers know exactly what they have and why.
I have my own Homestead that I got in the 1970’s.I did a lot of research and had some good info from my grandfather whom pointed out all the failures of the Stock raising homestead act and pushed me to go for the Land that contained all the rights. However with the 320 acres, I cn only feed 8 cows. Not much income there.
The Hammonds are another case entirely.
I feel bad for the Hammonds. They had poor legal representation and and suffered the consequences.
If you really want to help. Set up a foundation and a go fund me site to help them and people like them (and us) and actively fight the Gov. Im sure you can get many donations. Talk to the guys at calguns foundation. They might be willing to help. It will take someone like you with name recognition to do it. That is the only way to fight them without actually shooting them. And no matter how satisfying that sounds it is not an option at the moment.
The Feds taking the land and giving it to others is just business. Pure and simple. No conspiracy there. Just business. However you CAN fight it. The Enviro weenies have been doing it for decades. SO can we. To fight it takes money and Lawyers. Not hearsay and conspiracy theories.
On February 2, 2016 at 6:07 pm, Herschel Smith said:
(1) I certainly don’t have “name recognition.”
(2) It isn’t conspiracy to say that The Clinton Foundation worked to sell Uranium rights to a company owned by the Russian state. That is fact. What is likely at the moment is that this was quid pro quo for massive payments to The Clinton Foundation.
(3) Not having a lawyer doesn’t obviate the moral requirement for judges to administer justice and for prosecutors to act ethically. Neither was the case.
(4) To say that the feds taking land and giving it to others is “just business” is, for lack of a better way to say it, deeply troubling to me concerning your standards. You may as well say “Hey, that gang that invaded your home, raped your daughter and stole your property was just doing business. Nothing more.”
On February 3, 2016 at 10:31 am, Joe Martin said:
1) Dont underestimate yourself. I myself heard about you way before I found this blog.
2) You are probably correct to a point. Politics is all about corruption.
3) Unfortunately it has been a long time since Law had any relation to morals. Even thou the definition of law is “What is Moral”
Like I said. Unless you are willing to shoot first, You must play their game if you want justice.
Playing the game requires paying for good lawyers and people who know the written Law.
4) My standards are trying to live in this world. A perfect world does not exist. Again if you want to fight this Crapola, It requires Lawyers.
On February 2, 2016 at 1:56 pm, Cliff Kiser said:
Joe I don’t think you understand the situation. The government is pushing ranchers off of their own private property so that then they have control of the mineral rights.
On February 2, 2016 at 5:46 pm, Joe Martin said:
Most of the ranchers dont have mineral rights.
On February 1, 2016 at 12:43 pm, SheepDog said:
Oregon Energy is interested in developing a 17-Claim parcel of land
known as the Aurora Project through an open pit mining method
On February 1, 2016 at 1:23 pm, JannyMae said:
This may very well be about uranium, but your conclusion that they killed Finicum to achieve that end is ridiculous. He didn’t ‘have to die.’ They could’ve simply arrested him like they did the rest.
On February 1, 2016 at 1:37 pm, Herschel Smith said:
They had to put an end this the attention this was getting in order to enable the corruption. This was a must for them. How they chose to do it was just that – a choice.
On February 1, 2016 at 1:53 pm, JannyMae said:
That is simply not true at all. Your conclusion is a non sequitur. “Choosing” to kill Finicum does nothing to accomplish that alleged goal. My point stands.
In addition, “this” was getting very little attention at all. Your reasoning is clouded by your bias against the authorities.
On February 1, 2016 at 2:09 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Choosing to kill him, choosing to arrest him, it makes no difference to the authorities, except that it’s cleaner to them if they kill him because the story goes away. In either case, he and Bundy had to go. How they chose to make them go was up to them.
They accomplished that goal. They will likely do the same to those left in the building. This isn’t complicated. Your disagreeableness is biased due to your support for law enforcement.
On February 1, 2016 at 3:04 pm, UNCLEELMO said:
Speaking for myself, I shall no longer be referring to them as ‘law enforcement’. From now on, I’ll be thinking of them as ‘government enforcement’.
On February 1, 2016 at 2:36 pm, coyote said:
You are biased in favor of the authorities, at least as much-if not more, as we are biased against them. Total control of the narrative via television means their story keeps the vast majority of state worshippers in thrall to the “cowboy rancher rednecks are stupid gun lovers on the public dole” story. Killing one of them- cheered on by bloodlusting bolsheviks- redeems their self-esteem for the standdown at the Bundys in Nevada. You are correct, Mr. Finicum did not “have to die”, except to insure that more ranchers/ westerners, rural Americans understand to defy the almighty may result in your death. We must understand that we (rural whites) are the latter-day native Americans: We will be forced off our land in this era of declining resources unless we fight for it.
On February 1, 2016 at 5:29 pm, sootsme said:
Mr. Finicum was polite, literate, reasonable, credible and worst of all, charismatic. In other words, he had to go in order for .gov to continue to control the narrative. Not exactly rocket surgery…
On February 1, 2016 at 1:55 pm, Blake said:
Janny, government is completely disinterested in the lives of Americans such as Mr. Finicum. Arrested or dead, it’s all the same. If anything, as far as government is concerned, dead is better, because dead men tell no tales. Also, and this is where LEO’s need to think a little harder about their jobs, if government did not have an excuse for the shooting, the LEO’s who pulled the trigger would have been blamed for being “trigger happy” and had their lives and careers destroyed. (Max Velocity has an excellent take on the road block. The LEO’s were put in a position to where a shootout was almost inevitable.)
On February 3, 2016 at 5:47 am, JTW said:
also, a bullet in the brain is cheaper than a prison cell for years and years and hope the guy gets killed by another inmate…
On February 3, 2016 at 5:46 am, JTW said:
he had to die “pour encourager les autres” iow, to get the point across that resistance is futile, you will be assimilated, go with the plan or die.
On February 4, 2016 at 9:04 am, LibertyChic said:
If you look at the extensive amount of video reporting Finicum had been doing, his recently published book (and ability to write more books) and his salt-of-the-earth, humble honesty that had enabled him to communicate and wake people up, he was a grave threat to the government. It was obvious he was a man of great courage and conviction and anything he discovered was going to be made public. He wasn’t afraid to die for the cause and those kind of people scare the hell out of the government because they can’t buy them off and they can’t threaten or intimidate them.
On February 1, 2016 at 1:25 pm, Blake said:
There is another unanswered question..or, at least, I’ve not seen it answered.
Who put the idea of occupying Malheur into Ammon Bundy’s head?
I find it hard to believe Ammon Bundy knew of the existence of Malheur and came up with the idea of occupying Malheur on his own.
On February 1, 2016 at 2:41 pm, coyote said:
the ‘voice of god” came from a fedgov infiltrator- bet on it. again- occams razor: the Nevada Bundy fiasco left egg on the BLM faces, the desire for revenge, and … but, hey, buck up: look how long it took these inept a$$holes to set up an ambush on unsuspecting good ol’ boys. Lessons learned, right?
On February 1, 2016 at 3:20 pm, UNCLEELMO said:
The plight of the Hammonds was common knowledge to those that didn’t depend on mainstream media to provide it.
Range Magazine had two articles (titled ‘Enemies of the State’ and ‘Government Tyranny’) on what was going on here, in their Spring 2013 and Summer 2014 issues.
(search: Range Magazine Hammonds)
On February 1, 2016 at 2:42 pm, coyote said:
Excellent synopsis, and thanks for incorporated analysis/ research. Thanks.
On February 1, 2016 at 3:20 pm, Douglas Cowdrick said:
Someone needed to pay for a full appeal of their sentence on the conviction of the “Terrorism” statute.
Sadly on the Federal level I believe ALL appeals have to contain all points of appeal and be filed in 18 months. I guess their appeal failed on the overcharging on Terror laws or was rejected as valid.
I used to think that person who snuck up on the Federal prosecutor and killed him at home with a silencer was a dick who deserved to get caught. Now I don’t give a shit.
As the slogan for Toyota used to say; “You asked for it, you got it”. But his prize wasn’t a Toyota. Too bad, so sad.
On February 1, 2016 at 5:36 pm, sootsme said:
Wow… you must have read ‘Unintended Consequences’ by John Ross. (Available here:
https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/129/Media/Unintended_Consequences.pdf
for anyone who is not familiar with it.)
On February 2, 2016 at 3:01 am, Douglas Cowdrick said:
Actually I have it in a .pdf, though parts of the book are out of sequence for some reason. I had a hardcover of it but the ball and chain “reorganized it” out of existence [IE; shitcanned it].
Strangely even though it is a high demand book no one ever reprints it. It is actually for RENT on Amazon for $16 a semester? Used copies start at $47 and go up from there. Thanks for the new copy.
I didn’t pass around the .pdf because I don’t like to cause Mr. Ross money loss if it gets a reprint. I’m not holding my breath though. that book is getting so valuable that Mr. Ross could go to one of those “Vanity Publishers”, and pay for a reprint, sign all them and see them at like $150-$200 each signed and make a good profit.
Also for the FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, and the DIA or the American Kennel club or whoever who’s reading this, I’ve never been to Washington state and have only been west of the Mississippi as a member of the military BEFORE 1990 so you can save the money trying to investigate me for Mr. Wales death. Though if you want to die of boredom investigate away!
On February 2, 2016 at 5:42 pm, sootsme said:
This is important enough that if Mr. Ross or whoever owns it can’t/won’t get it back out there affordably, so be it. I will gladly buy Mr. Ross a good bottle if he likes, surely worth more than his royalty on a copy…
On February 2, 2016 at 7:34 pm, Douglas Cowdrick said:
I believe the problem is no book company that prints it wants to be visited by the EPA, OSHA, and being audited by the IRS for the next 5 years.
I get the impression Mr. Ross is not averse to more profit from an old book, but unless he buys a printing company himself it isn’t getting done again.
He also related that BATF questioned his [Very recent at the time.] ex-wife about him. She blew them off and called him. Luckily she wasn’t vindictive!
I think he knows it’s a “sensitive subject” to Feds and as more have read it they realize it starts with “F Troop” but spreads out from there. I think they realize Snowden’s revelations haven’t made 3 letter agencies popular either.
I’m sure Mr. Ross could have a cease and desist order typed up in about an hour and is not bothering to file it on that website or I’m sure the dozen others out there right now.
The Richard Bachman book [Steven King’s pseudonym] “The Running Man” was released in 1982 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Running_Man_(novel)
9/11/2001 occurred 29 years later.
“Unintended Consequences” was released in 1996. That make it 20 years last month. I think they might be getting nervous?
On February 1, 2016 at 6:23 pm, boogyoogyoogy said:
Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick………..
On February 2, 2016 at 12:28 am, __deborah harvey said:
charged as ‘terrorists’; same as innocent people being charged under ‘RICO’- happens all the time when the tyrants get ready to strong arm someone for their own nefarious purposes.
the heart of man is evil.
we will probably see more innocents charged falsely and under the name of ‘terrorists.
meanwhile, actual terrorists may rarely or never be charged in like manner.
On February 2, 2016 at 5:32 am, UNCLEELMO said:
Do you remember the memo that Janet Napolitano released very early in the Obama administration? The one that stated that the terrorist threats to America were veterans, the ‘militias’ and right-wing ‘extremist’ groups, while never mentioning anything having to do with Islam?
This regime (and by extension, the entire Democrat party) announced early on who their real enemies were. And re-wilding the West is one of their priorities.
On February 4, 2016 at 9:23 am, LibertyChic said:
Makes one wonder who exactly these laws were intended for under the guise of a straw man or real enemy?
On February 2, 2016 at 10:56 am, richardcancemi said:
Filth!
On February 2, 2016 at 1:49 pm, Tired of government B.S. said:
This is the best thing I have read to explain what happened. Thank you for your expose on the issue.
On February 2, 2016 at 4:45 pm, infowolf1 said:
I’ve seen the video and he didn’t stumble and if he did he wouldn’t reach to the lower part of his jacket fumbling like he is trying to get a gun out of his belt the jacket was covering. yes there was something dirty going on, maybe BLM made sure they felt safe in a verbal (never binding) agreement and that they wouldn’t get it in writing so they could be prosecuted and the ranch seized later.
There is also an element that wants a civil war. Security was blown before the Waco raid and it went on anyway. How it was blown is odd probably on purpose. Koresh could have been taken several times in town and wasn’t, and with the surveillance that had to be deliberate. THEY WANTED A MAJOR INCIDENT OR SOME FEW LEADERS ONE OR TWO DID so it could be a trigger for the uprising they want.
What would this accomplish? if the uprising fails, it would be the excuse for martial law and curtailment of the Constitution “temporarily” until hell freezes over. the shadow government would have more power.
if the uprising succeeds, the country would be destroyed into small units as many want to do, and the shadow government in its cult manifestation would still be in control. (Closet devil worshippers whose day job is Christian patriot.)
either way, they win.
I think this incident was created as yet another effort along this line, and that fellow was encouraged to do all this either by knowing he was the sort to do a fake surrender and surprise attack thinking he’d win, but not really competent to do this, same effect;
and/or he and his family decided he would be the sacrificial lamb to be killed (suicide by cop) as the provocation to get the rest of the “patriots” to go on the warpath, he being one of the many fools led by teachings that have their origin in occultist groups and individuals but think they are fighting occultism! see VISUP web pages on the subject of militias and read the cross referencing links in the articles to other articles at VISUP and elsewhere. Ironically, the writer doesn’t believe in conspiracies yet documents them.
didn’t have a gun unless there’s a sale’s receipt? what idiotic statement is that? people like that get off the record guns all the time in fear of confiscation of documented weapons.
On February 2, 2016 at 5:10 pm, Herschel Smith said:
I am the writer. I don’t know what you’re talking about concerning conspiracy theories. As to the stumbling I say occurred and you don’t, that’s my opinion. You can’t prove it’s wrong. Just because you say so doesn’t make it so.
As to the gun and sales receipt, are you serious? I’m the idiot? Really? Because a LEO says something necessitates me believing it to be true? Proof of sales would mean that Mr. Finicum, who wasn’t prone to carry pocket pistols, actually indeed had such a thing according to his family. I keep all of my sales receipts. If you don’t, you’re a moron, and you might be a moron anyway.
Having a pocket pistol doesn’t mean he would actually “present” the pistol, and that redounds to the video. I say the video shows him stumbling, and you can’t prove I’m wrong. As to “people like that,” you don’t know what you’re talking about. Actually, you just hurled an insult at a man you don’t really know, so that makes you a liar. There is no “people like that.” You have no information upon which to make such a statement – you just made that up, like the balance of your stupid comment.
From that to the weird – “occultist” … “Koresh” (who isn’t the subject of this post, and of whom I know absolutely nothing) … and on and on.
Your comment is weird, presumptuous, dishonest, and a fabrication of things you don’t know to be true.
Thanks for playing, troll.
On February 4, 2016 at 9:32 am, LibertyChic said:
He was stumbling because he had been shot twice before the sniper in the trees came out and shot him dead. The enhanced video shows it clearly. How in the world is anyone suppose to keep their hands in the air when they’re shot? And if you’re getting shot, why would you care if you kept your hands in the air? The first shooter came out from the right (roadside), took his shot then ran back. As Finicum stumbled reaching for his wound, the second gunman shot him (also from the right). Again he grabbed at wound and that’s when the third gunman (from the trees) came out and shot him.
On February 3, 2016 at 11:49 pm, jaquebauer said:
Will this story be buried in the news cycle, or will an accredited journalist investigate this and make it known to every American. A man is dead and government agents assinated him. All over a peaceful protest about government abuses of power. Imagine that there is a Clinton connection to this assination, another one of many that are buried in history. Will Congress investigate this, and if so will the results be a white wash, as was 9-11 and Benghazi 1. And believe me, more Americans will die, at the hands of EPA and BLM, ordinary folks fighting a government gestapo over backvyard ponds, ranch land, even piles of backyard dirt.
On February 4, 2016 at 12:45 pm, David Rice said:
Er… ah…. LaVoy “had to die” because he wanted to. His suicide could have been prevented if his “friends” cared enough to send him home after LaVoy started telling everyone he wanted to die.
On March 2, 2016 at 5:51 pm, disqus_vM1Ts0vZ7C said:
If one asks the question, “WHY did the BLM start a Land Consolidation Program in 2010?” {after hellacious clinton returned from China in 2009},
and follow the timeline of the Hammond’s intensified persecution beginning in June of 2010, an enquiring mind might start to wonder…
Were the Hammonds’ targeted as a test case in Oregon ?
The following timeline of events merging in 2010 (the indictment against the Hammond’s was June 2010 : the ‘trial’ took place in 2012) gives one pause to wonder…
Sources and links have been incorporated into the article: if the reader questions the source, an easy google search will verify other
sources/links that report the same data. Here goes, it’s long, but if you read it all, you might wonder….
Were the Hammonds’ targeted as a federal test case for BLM’s 2010 Land Agenda?
THE TRAIL OF COLLUSION AGAINST THE HAMMONDS
In August of 1994, when BLM and FWS falsely arrested Dwight and Steve Hammond for protecting their legally owned water rights,
Mr. Hammond did not counter sue for damages and false arrest. He went back to ranching
Interim actions of BLM from 1994 to 2006 included arbitrary revocation of 3 (three) separate grazing rights held by Hammonds.
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/t…
In August of 2006 BLM Ranger Orr and FWS had Sheriff Dave Glerup arrest Dwight and Steve Hammond.
The local county prosecutor reviewed all charges and declined to prosecute.
District Attorney Tim Colahan dismissed all 2006 charges after reviewing them, and allowed the charges to move into statutory expiration.
In June of 2010, acting preemptively before the statue of limitations expired from the 2006 dismissal by District Attorney Tim Colahan,
BLM re-filed ,adding on an additional 17 counts.
Indictment United States v. Hammond et al, No. 6:10-cr-60066-HO filed 2010-06-17 chief Judge Ann L. Aiken
This is where one could say, after they knew Amanda Marshall was going to end up being their prosecuting attorney:
After all, four (4) different US Attorney’s for the state of Oregon in less than 16 months
is nothing short of ludicrous. One could also say the three preceding US Oregon State Attorney’s refused to prosecute
the Hammonds’, and that is why they didn’t get to keep the position.
[It is imperative to remember the Hammond’s are the last private landholders in and around Mahler Refuge].
Let’s take a look at the timelines involved for Ms.(Sally) Amanda Marshall appearing on the scene in 2010.
From October 2003 to July 2009, Karen Immergut was the U.S. Attorney for Oregon: she resigned
From July 2009 to Feb.3, 2010, Kent Robinson was the interim U.S. Attorney for Oregon. After 7 short months, he was replaced.
From Feb. 5, 2010 to ________, Dwight C, Holton was the interim U.S. Attorney for Oregon
http://www.mainjustice.com/201…
Nov. 17, 2010 Obama nominates Amanda Marshall as U.S. Attorney for Oregon
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the…
How did S. Amanda Marshall, a sub-par attorney in the child advocacy section, with no federal prosecution experience, get to U.S. Attorney for Oregon?
The ten (10) candidates that applied for the position were:
1. Dwight Holton – Oregon interim U.S. Attorney from Feb.5, 2010
(until Amanda Marshall).
Known for his tough prosecution of environmental crimes
Endorsed by Oregon Sheriff’s and Oregon’s State Police Officer’s Association. http://www.holtonfororegon.com…
2. Kent Robinson – Oregon interim U.S. Attorney from July 2009 to Feb.3, 2010. Thirty years experience in the Justice Dept.
3. Josh Marquis – Clatsop County district attorney
4. John Foote – Clackamas County district attorney
5. Rob Bovett – Lincoln County district attorney
6. John Haroldson – Benton County district attorney
7. Ken Perry – Portland lawyer
8. Robert Hutchings – Lane County public defender
9. John Hummel – Portland lawyer
10. Amanda Marshall – child advocate lawyer. Attended East China University of Politics and Law in Shanghai.
http://www.mainjustice.com/tag…
By October 28, 2009, three applicants remained on the list: Josh Marquis, Kent Robinson, and Amanda Marshall.
http://www.mainjustice.com/200…
Kent Robinson withdrew his application for unnamed reasons, and the final list submitted to the White House included only Josh Marquis and S. Amanda Marshall.
Amanda Marshall…”may as well have had an inappropriate working relationship with Judge Aiken that should have potentially led to Judge Aiken to recuse herself from the Hammond re-sentencing.
Prior to being nominated by President Barack Obama as U.S. District Attorney Amanda Marshall worked for the Oregon Department of Justice in Child Advocacy Services. Judge Aiken has been the presiding President of the Child Advocacy Services Board since 1998.
Take into account that the only testimony used to establish “malicious intent” on part of the Hammonds derived from Dusty Hammond,
Dwight Hammond’s grandson, a mentally incompetent 13 year old whose case has been overseen by Child Advocacy Services and
the potential for wrongful collusion begins to crystallize.
Initially in the trial Dusty Hammonds testimony was disqualified by Judge Mike Hogan due to his mental capacity.
Despite this Dusty Hammonds testimony is assumed to have been used by Judge Aiken in determining malicious intent
by the Hammonds to qualify them under the terrorism statute for re-sentencing.”
“This is not the first instance of Judge Aiken potentially failing to acknowledge inappropriate relationships when presiding over a case.
In a 2013 complaint of Judicial Misconduct filed against Judge Aiken, a class action by Oregon lawyers against the Oregon State Bar,
the Supreme Court of Oregon Chief Justice Thomas Balmer and Jeff Sapiro, it is alleged Aiken failed to disclose similar relationships.
It is clear that Judge Aiken has a vested interest, politically, judicially and personally in the Malhuer Reserve and in all likely hood
should have not presided over this appeal,” considering her ties to the situation and the key individuals involved.”
https://shastalantern.net/2016…
BLM CHECKERBOARD LAND ACQUISITION PLAN
2010 was also a pivotal year for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Congressman Rob Bishop (Utah) discovered their plans in missing pages not submitted to Congress. http://robbishop.house.gov/. Bishop is the chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
http://robbishop.house.gov/new…
( Page 19 Attachment 6 Internal Draft NOT FOR RELEASE BLM LAND CONSOLIDATION OF ITS CHECKERBOARDED LANDS)
Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Utah, California
The fact that these missing pages of BLM’s plans to consolidate all its’ checkerboarded lands were not submitted for approval to Congress cannot help but lend credence to their illegal activities and collusion with local authorities to acquire Hammonds’ ranch. Again: Hammonds’ are the last private landholders around Mahler Refuge.
More Political Incest: Jake Klonoski is an Attorney Advisor in the Department of the Inspector General 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ja…
In 1978 (judge) Ann Aiken married James Klonoski, and Jake Klonoski is their son.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is where Amanda Marshall submitted her appeal to send the Hammonds’ back to prison for more jail time.
“In order to re-sentence the Hammonds as terrorists the United States Government had to file an appeal Under 18 U.S. Code 3742 (B).
According to the code; “…The Government may not further prosecute such appeal without the personal approval of the Attorney General, the Inspector General,
or a deputy inspector general designated by the Inspector General. The same Inspector General where Jake Klonoski is employed as a key Attorney Adviser.”
http://www.fourwinds10.net/sit…
Only 1% of the 5,000 odd appeals are ever picked to be heard in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“Each year the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals receives upwards of 5,000 requests for a new hearing before all the court’s judges, said Kelly Zusman, appellate chief for the U.S. attorney’s office in Oregon. The judges only hear about 1 percent of those requests. “They grant very, very few,” she said.” http://www.bendbulletin.com/lo…
“Judge Aiken was also the presiding Judge in a 2006 case that overturned several key provisions of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 which she found violated the supremacy of the Federal Environmental Protection Act.”
http://www.fourwinds10.net/sit…
“A management plan that the Hammonds were key in helping construct.”
“It should be noticed that the Hammonds, as acknowledged by Congressman Walden, were instrumental in development
of the co-operative plan.” http://agenda21radio.com/?p=23…
Judge Aiken’s decision weighed heavily based on affidavit testimony by Harney County Judge Stephen Grasty, whose actions have come into question and extreme scrutiny since the occupation began.”
Harney County ‘judge’ Stephen Grasty, has a brother that is a BLM supervisor.
http://wn.com/blm_oregon_judge…
Steve Grasty is not a real ‘judge’ in the legal, judiciary sense. Harney County, Oregon has a strange system (yes, there are a lot of things
in Harney County that are not normal) where the three elected country commissioners (of which Steve Grasty is one), refer to the third
commissioner as ‘judge’. This is an administrative body, NOT judicial. http://www.co.harney.or.us/
The Real Judiciary system in Harney County, Oregon is called Harney County CIRCUIT Court.
http://courts.oregon.gov/Harne…
Harney County BLM Manager is Rhonda Karges, who is married to Chad Karges, the manager of Mahler Wildlife Refuge.
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/t…
The BLM expended no monies or efforts in putting out the 139 acres of fire they accused the Hammonds’ of deliberately setting.
So why the $400,000 fine the Hammonds’ were forced to pay?
The State of Oregon has its’ own wildfire insurance policy through Lloyd’s of London.
So why the $400,000 fine the Hammonds’ were forced to pay?
http://www.bendbulletin.com/lo…
If the BLM and corrupt county officials that perjured themselves were not guilty of collusion in their agenda to obtain the last checkerboarded piece of land in and around Mahler Wildlife Refuge, why did they insist on being first in line to buy the Hammond’s ranch?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
There is more ‘evidence’: 12-31-2015 affidavit filed stating Assistant US Prosecutor Papagni called Kendra Matthews and Lawrence Matasar (Hammonds attorneys) and that Papagni told Hammonds’ attorney’s if the Hammond’s made any ‘fuss’, they would be reporting to a harder prison and at a much earlier report date. PDF court document
Other information: No ‘fire arson’ experts were ever produced to testify against the Hammonds’. It was just BLM saying it was arson.
No deer bones, or other evidence was ever produced by prosecution against the Hammonds’.
(deer bones aren’t going to burn up in a simple grass fire)
If the ‘hunting party’ allegedly witnessed this ( the hunting guide’s permit comes from BLM), it would seem odd
why none of them popped out their cell phones, or camera’s to take pictures of such alleged crimes
Note: Most people think Frank Papagni prosecuted the Hammond’s: but he was Assistant US Attorney for Oregon.
Amanda Marshall, State US Attorney for Oregon, was his boss.
On March 10, 2016 at 3:30 pm, Lyla Cunningham said:
One important issue would be to do a frame by frame examination of the police officer standing in back of Mr. Finicum. If you are an individual who has been around hunting or the military you will recognize the action of ‘recoil’ which happens when firing a rifle where the rifle creates a kick into the shoulder when fired. Watch the video clip carefully and you will notice a recoil to the shoulder of the policeman standing behind LaVoy. If the recoil happened even a split second before LaVoy spun around while reaching down then we have an innocent civilian who was shot – in – the – back.
To the naked eye and without the enhancement of a frame by frame evaluation it appears that this is what happened and needs to be examined by a professional and then presented in court. The New York Times stated that Finicum died from 3 gunshot wounds to – the – back….
There is something very wrong here and I can only hope that if Hillary were involved that she will receive a well deserved consequence for her ruthless dealings here. What a tragedy for these families who have suffered and have lost far too much at the hand of a greedy government.