"I'm a sovereign human being, I stand under common law only" - Thread of Freemen

people said the same thing about Occupy iirc

despite a lack of parallels elsewhere, occupy was a similarly unfocused protest that had goals too nebulous to distill into a series of explicit demands and was likewise pointed at the wrong targets and accomplished little/nothing

Calling it a protest, IMO, is playing into their hands. It's an armed confrontation. They are a terrorist group by any definition.

I mean, they think like fascist terrorists, they don't need to articulate goals. They have been looking for the opportunity to confront the government.

I'd call it more of a violent tantrum.

Whoa - this is what the SPLC said:

"The sheriff reportedly received death threats for
not being a “constitutional sheriff,” standing up
what the antigovernment extremists brand as
the “tyranny of the U.S. Government,” and
offering sanctuary to the Hammonds –
something they didn’t request."

These people piss me off.

is the presence of guns the main objection? bc i could imagine worthy left wing causes occupying a space in order to create political change that would be championed here not derided and it seems like opposition to this is centered on it tactically (eg i have seen v few ppl discussing whether they have legitimate reasons to be upset about imminent domain and grazing laws, but lots of talk about how this is terroristic criminal behavior). i don't even need to imagine bc obv there have been tons of left wing activism movements that /have/ occupied spaces (and have even employed some level of violence in doing so). i bet some of them even protested imminent domain laws.

like if the problem is that their goals seem inchoate i remember that was the right's v critique of occupy

Sheriff David Ward said protesters came to Harney County, in southeastern Oregon, "claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers." In reality, he said, "these men had alternative motives to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States.”

In an interview with reporters late Saturday night posted on Facebook, Bundy said he and others occupied the building because "the people have been abused long enough."

"I feel we are in a situation where if we do not do something, if we do not take a hard stand, we'll be in a position where we'll be no longer able to do so," he said.

Bundy said of the park headquarters: "It is the people's facility, owned by the people, and it has been provided for us to be able to come together and unite in making a hard stand against this overreach, this taking of the people's land and resources."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/01/03/militia-members-occupy-us-building-in-oregon-after-protest/78226600/

Bundy seems confused about the difference between a wildlife sanctuary and a community center, social hall, town square, or church basement, at the very least.

xxp EMINENT domain dude

I think the local outrage is primarily due to:

1. they are from out of state and not very welcome
2. past history of dumbass behavior by the Bundys
3. blatant kid-glove handling of the situation due to their race & privilege
4. it's a goddamn bird sanctuary
5. "ready to die" nonsense posturing

not all of these are believed by the same demographics imo

I could give a shit about the guns, everybody in Harney County has guns.

thx for the correction. re "blatant kid-glove handling" like the federal gov did invade an armed compound when i was 9yo and killed a ton of ppl and it was a huge deal. WACO's whiteness didn't protect them in 94.

93?

I thought maybe you'd confused it with Ruby Ridge, but apparently that was 92. Didn't ANY of these hillbillies get ko'd in 1994?

xps

Grazing rights on Bureau of Land Management federal lands are extremely cheap and act as a subsidy to ranchers in the interest of cheaper meat for urban areas. If the ranchers were required to graze only on the land they owned or leased from a private owner, their costs would be enormously higher.

Nor are these people protesting eminent domain, in that the federal lands in question were never under private ownership, but were always public domain. The difference is that they have become more actively regulated by acts of Congress since 1910.

Finally, even if one accepted that there is some injustice being protested here, the solution being offered is to decentralize the state's monopoly on force so radically that local government would immediately regress to vigilantism and hooliganism.

i'm of several minds about this

the Bundys are racist goons and their cause is one of the worst in american life. they've turned themselves into freelance antifederal celebrity protesters. Wesley Lowery's reporting has been great

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/01/03/what-spurred-the-armed-occupation-of-a-federal-wildlife-refuge-in-southeast-oregon/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/armed-activists-in-oregon-touch-off-unpredictable-chapter-in-land-use-feud/2016/01/03/17a45e5c-b272-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html

the Hammonds did their time for the crime committed -- arson in a federally owned forest (i'm a little unclear if it was a "national forest" or if than even matters tbh -- and, per Lowery, the community is largely hostile to the Bundy showboating

i really don't like this idea of mandatory minimums, so objecting to the Hammonds being brought back to jail for an extended sentence seems totally fair to me

there's a lot about federal land use out west that i'm not familiar with. i've seen lots of contradictory anecdotal stuff that the feds run those lands a) as a "welfare" program for the rural communities out there and b) for the benefit of the well-connected.

there's really more than enough hypocrisy to go around. tons of liberals saying these men would have been lit up if they were muslim or black while crowing for the gov't to do just that, which is just nauseating

again, the Hammonds are acquiescing to their punishment. the Bundys, whatever crimes they've committed here -- trespassing? weapons violations? -- don't really amount to sedition, no matter their self-regarding proclamations. this isn't captial crime territory.

it's worth mentioning that Cliven Bundy got his way in 2014. the federal BLM let him do whatever with his fucking cows. a bad precedent, it seems.

my memories of Waco are fuzzy but there were several dead FBI agents in the course of that thing, too...

good summary, thx

it's worth mentioning that Cliven Bundy got his way in 2014.the federal BLM let him do whatever with his fucking cows. a bad precedent, it seems.

i was wondering what had come of that. ugh.

The [Hammonds] had been sentenced and served time previously, but on appeal a federal judge ruled that their initial sentences had been too short.

When you appeal to a higher court, you are seeking to overturn the outcome of your previous trial. That's what happened here, except it was overturned in order to extend the sentences for the arson they committed. The Hammonds took their chances on appeal and they are accepting the result. It is the 'militia' who are portraying this as tyranny, not the arsonists.

i take that sentence to mean that it was prosecutors who had appealed the sentence, not the Hammonds

The history of animosity between the BLM and Hammonds on the Bundy Ranch blog makes for an interesting read. Was pointed in that direction via a fb friend's comments string. I won't link to it, but google bundy ranch blog hammonds and that should get you there. Obviously slanted and desperately needs a fact-checker, apply salt to taste, etc.

xp: the re-sentencing came from a federal appeals panel.

The Oregonian (Portland Oregon)

February 8, 2014 Saturday
1M EDITION

Arsonists who did time face more

BYLINE: Helen Jung hj✧✧✧@oregon✧✧✧.c✧✧

SECTION: A; Pg. 07

LENGTH: 494 words

Two eastern Oregon men got off too lightly for setting fires on their ranch that spread to government lands and should be re-sentenced, a federal appeals panel said in an opinion issued Friday.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that retired U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan illegally sentenced the father and son of the prominent Hammond ranching family in Harney County to terms below the five-year minimum.

“A minimum sentence mandated by statute is not a suggestion that courts have discretion to disregard,” Judge Stephen J. Murphy III wrote in the opinion. The panel found that the case should be sent back to the district court for another sentence.

Both Dwight Hammond Jr., 72, and his son, Steven D. Hammond, 44, were found guilty in 2012 of intentionally and maliciously setting fires in September 2001 near Steens Mountain, where they leased public land for livestock grazing. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land, taking it out of production for two growing seasons, the court said in its decision.

In addition, Steven Hammond was found guilty of setting fires on Krumbo Butte in August 2006 on the boundary of the Hammonds’ land. Despite a burn ban, the court noted, he said he set them to counteract fires sparked by lightning nearby. The fire consumed one acre of public land, according to the decision.

Prosecutors sought the five-year mandatory minimum prison term for both men, but Hogan sentenced the father to three months in prison and the son to one year and a day. Both have completed their terms, a lawyer for the family said.

According to a transcript from the October 2012 hearing, Hogan said imposing the five-year term would violate Eighth Amendment protections.

The Hammond sentencings were Hogan’s last before his retirement the following day after 39 years as a federal judge. “I will impose a sentence that I believe is defensible under the law, but also one that is defensible to my conscience,” he said at the hearing.

He said he didn’t believe Congress intended for the five-year minimum to apply to fires set in the wilderness. “It just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality,” he said according to the transcript.

But the appeals panel disagreed.

“Even a fire in a remote area has the potential to spread to more populated areas, threaten local property and residents or endanger the firefighters called to battle the blaze,” Murphy wrote in the opinion. He noted that a teenage relative of the Hammonds was nearly burned by the fire and pointed out the damage to grazing land as well.

“Given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense,” the opinion states, in sending their cases back to the district court.

Larry Matasar, one of the attorneys for the family, said he is “very disappointed” by the opinion. He said he expects the Hammonds will ask the full 9th Circuit bench to reconsider the panel’s decision.

I mean, fuck the Bundy's anyway I hope they feel the tyrant's bootheel.

i'm totally cool w/ anyone who's like fuck the bundys and whatever they believe in. just annoyed w/ all the stupid arguments that are getting thrown around today about tactics and whether this should be called terrorism etc.

xp oh it was Michael Hogan, what a surprise that he lowballed their sentences. glad he's gone, he was the worst.

makes for an interesting read

I mean, in terms of a timeline of the history of the conflict and a litany of perceived aggressions.

The thing that makes this completely inscrutable to anyone who lives in a mostly-urbanized area is what these guys really think they have the right to do -- use publicly-owned resources for their own private profit, without compensating for use of the land.

I live in a part of the country that has a large agriculture economy and has virtually no government-owned or -managed land, outside of a handful of parks that are mostly recreation areas. The idea of having cattle just wandering around on land you don't own would be a crazy proposition -- even farms that raise animals in the free range fashion are doing so on land they own.

These guys are really arguing for the inverse of eminent domain, which is when the government takes over privately-owned property for an arguable public good. They want to have their property (animals) wandering around on land they don't own, feeding off of public land, and pay nothing for it. Or in the case of poaching, to just grab animals off public land.

If they want to argue the land belongs to "the people" then yeah, you're right, I'm one of those people as a US citizen. Pay for your damn resources.

they want to argue the land belongs to "the people" then yeah, you're right

But the bundys get to decide who are people and who aren't. Given their own words on the subject, blacks certainly don't qualify. Seems likely no one on ilx would meet their qualifications either.

perhaps their movement can address that

in the meantime, the idea that there's public land that's not owned by anyone is an intriguing wild west idea that hasn't been the case for a long time.

give them the max. setting fire to public property seems like a GIANT WARNING SIGN that this person is a very real danger to civilized society. they even almost burned their teenage relative. idiots.

relevant federal maps, for anyone who is interested:
http://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/printable/fedlands.html

http://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/printable/images/preview/fedlands/BLM_2.gif

hopefully most of that land is inhabited by people that don't lack the self-control of Beavis & Butthead

i.e. you, based on how much you appear to know about what's going on

Generally speaking federal lands are uninhabited. Some of it is leased on long term leases where there are inhabited dwellings, but this amounts to a tiny fraction of the whole.

lots of links and history of this movement for your reading pleasure

http://www.hcn.org/articles/sagebrush-rebellion/

there are a lot of legitimate reasons to set (controllable) fires in areas that you are using, whether as a break against wildfires or to clear dead areas for renewal, but again, it goes back to whether you have the legal right to that land and the authority to do whatever you want on it

there's an undeniable secessionist bent to the take-the-land-backers imo but it's sort of weird because they left behind the free labor supply.

worth noting that the BLM gets a lot of hate from the environmental left too, is accused of selling out especially to energy interests.

WACO's whiteness didn't protect them in 94.

― Mordy, Monday, January 4, 2016 2:08 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The branch davidians were a multiracial group. 45 of the ~130 living in the waco compound were black.

interesting. i didn't know that. 2 things you've taught me today :)

oops, sorry, sleeve taught me the other thing. got confused.

worth noting that the BLM gets a lot of hate from the environmental left too, is accused of selling out especially to energy interests.

this is very true, esp. in Oregon

tbf I am acting like there are legitimate, poorly-articulated complaints these people might have, but I don't think they'd agree with me on anything and their actual stances are less within the legal framework and more nebulous *waves constitution at passerby*

the bureau of land management, along with many of the other organizations that coordinate and regulate land use both public and private, are pretty understaffed and subject to the whims of politicized interests

the argument "well, BLM lets corporate fat cats use land poorly for mining and energy so they should not restrict our use of the land" is the "just let us all behave badly" end of things

what's the deal w/ the grazing? do these ppl not have sufficient land to graze their livestock or is it really a principle of the thing type of thing, we go where we want?

grazing disputes are so ancient. they're the reason lot + abraham split up when lot went down to sodom.

xp

rn you can't deny that by seizing this facility over a holiday weekend this handful of rabble-rousers has succeeded in capturing a lot of attention for their self-important posturing, so they have to be pleased with themselves. plus, if they don't make a big mess of the facility or pull their weapons on the wrong people, they might quietly slip out of town in a few days and not even face arrest or trial, let alone have to face a hail of bullets from FBI agents.

I get where they're coming from, but they're still a bunch of dumbasses.

http://i.imgur.com/TG94nh4.png

http://i.imgur.com/TG94nh4.png

Is Abbott still on this board? I think she'd be the best explicator of some of the Mormon background here

this one isn't a grazing dispute, mordy. but the bundy brouhaha in Nevada was about the bundys not paying the fees required by their contract with the government, even though they had derived the financial benefits of grazing their allotment. the blm tried to impound their cattle as a form of lien, met armed resistance from about 300 so-called militia, and backed down to avoid what looked like certain bloodshed on both sides. now the bundys are in the armed insurrection business.

do these ppl not have sufficient land to graze their livestock

they traditionally have just let their cattle graze across the prairie, including federal land, and I doubt they have much fenced area. true free range.

but yeah, the case they're supposedly protesting now is nominally not about this, but it comes down to whether they think they own the government anything at all

one vital aspect overlooked by the bundys is that the government grants exclusive grazing rights to ranchers within their federal allotments, so there is an enforceable mechanism that prevents a rancher with more guns and cattle from running off your cattle and putting his on the land you were grazing. or maybe they don't overlook this and believe they can always be the rancher with the most guns and they'll be doing all the bullying.

The branch davidians were a multiracial group. 45 of the ~130 living in the waco compound were black.

I actually thought there were more black victims than that, there were a lot of British citizens there and, as far as I know, they were all black.

you guys: https://youtu.be/zcOIdVMa4-0