Of all people, you should be beating on Bundy, not Obama for this. Bundy's lease on federal lands was at far below market prices. Even so, he refused to pay even that.
He was screwing the taxpayers and freeloading on your and my dime. In other words, he's been living on a version of federal welfare for years, yet even then he thinks he shouldn't have to pay for his tax-payer subsidized grazing rights.
I still believe we will be writing the Finicum family a large check when that lawsuit is over. The FBI lying about firing at him and possibly removing their spent casings is a big hurdle to overcome.
I'm a small government guy. I get some of the gripes these guys have with Federal land management, but their approach probably alienated more people than it attracted.
God bless, Steve
I think you may have neglected the issue of the poached deer.
God bless, Steve
The information I read the fire was not legal and was started to cover up the poaching of two deer.
The fire they had a permit for. They burned to clear up brush and such so pasture grass would grow. It in fact was an asset to the land. It did cross over to fed land for a few acres. If i recall the local courts determined the damages at $50 or some such. And dropped it. Then the "terrorism" charges came up.
Who was it that started the "fire cover up" story? The Feds. Were they convicted of poaching? Not that I'm aware of. They were charged with being "terrorists" because the fire they knowingly set (with a legal permit) to clear out scrub brush burned onto some fed land and "destroying fed property". Also known as scrub brush. Technically they twisted that "destruction of fed property" into "terrorism". They wanted Hammonds out to expand their stupid mismanaged sanctuary. And proceeded to act against them to do so.
Two totally separate events, NV and OR.
God bless, Steve
The Hammonds were convicted of arson, NOT terrorism. The charge carried a mandatory minimum sentence under anti-terrorism legislations. Have issue with this? Write your congressional reps and ask them to remedy this. It's a post 9/11 issue, and a prime example of how mandatory minimum sentences don't always do what they are intended to do.
When Nevada was granted statehood, they immediately relinquished all unclaimed lands to the federal government. They were not "stolen". It was part of the deal, pure and simple, and was common for most western territories as they sought statehood.
The Bundy's led the Malheur Refuge takeover in protest of the Hammonds' sentencing and wanting lands "back" from the federal government.
Steve and Spike have it right too.
It was a situation that goes way back and, the Bundy's didn't acknowledge that. I can't say that I blame them either. but, it appears as far as they knew and were concerned, this had always been state land. But, as JLS said, many western states were required to give unclaimed land within their borders, back to the federal government upon statehood. It's just the way it is. And, why the BLM land is being managed by the Department of Interior.
God Bless men
Not good enough for the feds, they wanted the land (and the water rights and ROW the ranch owned) The TERRORISM charge was used to take it to FEDERAL court (if not "really" terrorism charges why was it used?) to put them in JAIL for a brush fire that crossed a few acres into fed land. You can look up and read what the REAL property damages were assessed at, was some $50 or something if I recall. It was purely an attempt to bankrupt the ranch by the feds. How people like that sleep at night I have no idea.
It was all pure BS as the refuge management people, fed employees, want them out so they can take the PRIVATE land and it's water rights away from them after the ranch went into bankruptcy. A chitty deal pulled off by some really chitty people.
That "million dollars" is nowhere near what they owed in grazing fees, that was including fines and interest and whatever else they could scratch up against them. And NONE of this started because anyone was behind on their payments or refused to pay. This ALL started when the feds told him to move out. There's this tortoise they say......
Bundy was paying his fees. Right up until the feds started to squeeze him out. Bundys stopped paying and refused to leave from a place generations had worked with sweat and blood from before there was a state. If you've seen the area..... I'd love to watch someone who has no clue go make a living in it. Some clueless urban suits likely fresh out of college figure they are on a mission. Remove humans and human activity from what has always been a multi use area. They are not from the area and will be gone and moved on in just a few short years. They don't have to live there or work there or suffer any consequences of their actions, Kinda like the feds and wolves...... the feds and most everything.....
How Bundy handled it is certainly up for debate. But IMO both cases the federal government used it's power in an attempt to literally crush some hardworking folks that just want to be left alone and keep working. Because THEY see no real value in it..... and because THEY are in control and.... can.... or they want what is someone else's for their own.
"People are confusing things. The deer incident and fire were in OR, if I recall it was the Hammond Ranch. The Bundy's and the cattle/grazing issue was in NV."
That's true. But Bundy's were involved in both.
As most thiings i have seen WRT the feds over the years.... they will still do what they can to get what they want and really have little regard for what is right and wrong when it comes down to local residents. To the point of being vindictive. They don't care. They are the government.... and they are here to "help" you.....
This is the dilemma that mandatory sentences create.
I'll agree to disagree with you on your assertion of how the Bundy's were treated. My grandfather leased a lot of land from the BLM for grazing, and he paid his grazing fees as required.
"The sentences were remanded to the 9th Circuit" This was done some time after the original trial, I believe. It wasn't immediately appealed? By who? Why
The case (in the original trial) had been settled. Over. Done. Fines paid. But not damaging enough to the ranchers in the eyes of those feds managing the refuge. It was essentially "reopened" or appealed and the "terrorism" aspect was added which wasn't an issue with the original court. That ridiculous definition was brought to bear and sent to a higher court. The ninth circus. Friends of the common citizen to protect them from an overreaching fed government right?
These decisions don't automatically go to higher courts. It had to be appealed by someone..... Who? I forget the name offhand and don't believe he was involved much if at all with the original case. but recall he had a direct connection of some kind with the refuge managers. For what reason was it appealed? "Justice"? Justice for what? Accidentally burning some brush? $50 worth of damages? BS. It was some fed bureaucrats wanting to expand "their" refuge who had it out for some ranchers and openly wanted that ranch and it's water. "We run this country, not you." I've seen it over and over where I grew up.
This stinks, and the most disgusting odor comes from these overbearing bureaucrats with little regard for lifelong residents they see as being in their way. Again, I don't see how some people sleep at night, much less look in the mirror in the morning. I hope there is such a thing as hell or karma..... and these people get what's coming to them in the end.
Again, Bundy had been paying his fees. That wasn't the issue. The feds moved to revoke his grazing rights due to some tortoise or something. He refused to remove his cattle and stopped paying. At one time he was trying to set up a payment using the state but they wanted no part of it. It became about telling the feds to go wizz up a rope. they don't like being told that, but in a great many cases deserve it. And will do what they can to squash any kind of resistance or rebellion. With extreme prejudice. Because they can...
WRT Bundy involvement in the Hammond deal, glad there was a protest, even an occupation of sorts. But when Bundys showed up the original story was ignored, dropped even and it became about Bundy. The injustice done to Hammonds etc. was swept away. That was the sensationalism angle for the press, the Hammonds and what was done, the how and why were hardly even mentioned again. No matter their intentions, they did far more harm to the Hammond's cause than helped them. That's for sure.
He stated that he traveled there to protect Bundy from the Government and would take a bullet if necessary. The judge called him a "bully vigilante".
He spent more than a month in an encampment organizing armed patrols and serving as an intermediary between a self-styled militia and local authorities.
DeLemus was a main Tea Party organizer back in the day in NH. DeLemus once ran for sheriff and mayor in his hometown of Rochester, New Hampshire, and served as a delegate to the Republican National Committee. His wife, Susan DeLemus, is a former Republican state lawmaker. DeLemus was also a delegate for Donald Trump at the 2016 Republican National Convention. Because he was detained at a federal prison in Nevada at the time, however, he was unable to attend the convention.
Eighteen others are in custody waiting on sentencing for their guilty pleas or to stand trial.
What option did they have? Life imprisonment as a terrorist? Threats of death to their loved ones? Murdered like Lavoy?
God bless, Steve
The choice is a trial by a jury of your peers. We live by the rule of law.
If your lawyer tells you ... you are as guilty as sin ... and you will probably be convicted by a jury then it's best if you plea in hopes to get a better sentence. A guilty plea means that you agree that you are GUILTY !
Lavoy made his own choice that day. If I recall no one else was "murdered" ..... he could have stopped and surrendered like everyone else and still be alive today.
That said, I am not convinced he planned on hurting anyone. The rubber bullet shot at the truck during the first stop looks like it was interpreted as a lethal round by the passengers. Believing you are being shot at when not presenting a threat can make someone feel they are being set up for assassination. You are allowed to flee or defend yourself if being wrongfully attacked by anyone, including LE.
The road block position and the fact that it didn't have an outlet could be an issue. Common protocol as I understand it is to not make a "deadmans" road block especially with nonsuspects in the vehicle. The fact that the FBI shot at him after the threat of the truck approaching was gone and he had his arms outstretched with empty hands could be an issue. The fact that the FBI lied to fellow LE about ever firing could play heavily in the wrongful death suit. He definitely reach to his side just before OSP killed him. There are some who suggest he was hit with a nonlethal sponge round which made him clutch his side. There is an abrasion in the autopsy on that side and an FBI operator closest to him that looks like he could have fired it and then retreated. Or he certainly could have been reaching for his gun to shoot it out. Judging from the way he alternates between reaching and putting his hands back up, he looks confused. Not surprising for anyone who was there that day in those few seconds but doesn't really tell us anything. We may never know exactly what happened and we certainly won't ever know what he was thinking. I believe the OSP when they say they thought he was reaching for a gun.
Very dangerous position he put himself in regardless of whether or not he was intending on pulling his gun, but I see definite and potential mistakes from LE that play a part in the story.
It is confusing. As TD pointed out, it gets real confusing when you look at the specifics of this case. People tired of being mishandled by an over bearing agency. People doing what they believed were the right things concerning their fees. These were free people. Hard working American people. Being pushed around by Barney Fifes with a badge. Had the whole situation been handled differently, the outcome would have Been different.
I blame the Feds for this. The fault lies with them. People trust them until they begin the over steps. Had they worked with the Bundys instead of trying to railroad them, none of this would have happened. Instead, they show up in force after ensuring that is what was going to happen.
It's interesting to see the political climate one posses with their posts here. Very telling indeed. God Bless
God bless, Steve