Bundy's Won in Oregon and Mistrail in Nevada

[gelton]

As expected this thread is heavy on conjecture and light on facts.

Fact #1: The Bundys established water rights that were first registered in 1891. The BLM wouldnt be created until 55 years later. Not going to elaborate here but look further into beneficial use - Beneficial Use legal definition of Beneficial Use

Fact #2: When the BLM was created there were 50+ Ranchers in that area using that land. Now there is one (the Bundy's)...Why?

Fact #3: The BLM campaigned for "No More Moo by 92' and Cow Free by 93" (obviously their plan has been very effective of robbing people of their way of life, see #2)

The Bundys were protesting gubmint overreach and the BLM tried to make a spectacle of them and failed miserably and now they are the spectacle.We arent supposed to have federal agents policing citizens, this should have been handled by the local sheriff from the get go.

The Oregon trial was also full of lies that ended up getting an FBI agent indicted and a man killed. And more importantly they were acquitted.

Regardless of your outlook on this it wasnt only handled wrongly in two different courts in two different jurisdictions it was handled wrongly from the get go and the only people that should be going to jail are those who made the disastrous decisions here from day one...and it isnt the Bundy's...its the Bozo's over at the BLM and in Oregon, the FBI.

 

[gelton]

not only deadbeat freeloaders, you can add poaching and arson to this fine upstanding family

Got a link for that claim?

 

[gelton]

from Politico (story talks about Senators Rand Paul and Dean Heller condemning Bundy’s comments

“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton,” Bundy said over the weekend, according to the Times. “And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Just like the rest of the mainstream media that quote was taken out of context and leaves out the most important part which frames the entire statement...he clarified your quote with this but everyone conveniently leaves it out of their "reporting": We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and sure don’t want to go back; we sure don’t want the colored people to go back to that point; we sure don’t want the Mexican people to go back to that point; and we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.

But even more importantly - WTF does race have to do with this?

 

[tttoadman]

If an example of their "do it in a peaceful way" is the armed takeover of my public lands in OR, I'll pass.

 

[C Bow]

Why buy more cows than you have land for I am very confused

 

[mtwarden]

Got a link for that claim?

I was under the impression the entire standoff organized by the Bundy's was to support the Hammond's due to their convictions of arson and poaching- no?

 

[gelton]

I was under the impression the entire standoff organized by the Bundy's was to support the Hammond's due to their convictions of arson and poaching- no?

Well you slandered them by saying they were poachers and arsonists when they weren't. The Hammonds were tried and convicted, served their time and were released only to be sent back to jail under a terrorism statute. (AntiTerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

The AEDPA was used to prosecute Oregon Hammond ranchers.

The Bundy's were protesting the abuse of the law not supporting arson and poaching - so your statement is more than a little misleading.

As I stated in my OP I dont agree with how everything went down in Oregon and I believe the Bundy's were being used as tools by Federal Agents that were inside the refuge which is part of the reason they and 6 others were acquitted.

 

[mtwarden]

^ oh they were just supporting two arsonists and poachers by an armed takeover of a public refuge- then by all means I retract my previous statement

 

[gelton]

Why buy more cows than you have land for I am very confused

They had the cows before the BLM was even conceptualized...the family has been there since 1877.

 

[gelton]

^ oh they were just supporting two arsonists and poachers by an armed takeover of a public refuge- then by all means I retract my previous statement

not what I said, I said they were protesting the abuse of the law. Do you think its appropriate that the Hammonds went to prison and were released only to be sent back under a law that was written to stop terrorism?

 

[Trial153]

this is from the washington post

*I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

 

[mtwarden]

not what I said, I said they were protesting the abuse of the law. Do you think its appropriate that the Hammonds went to prison and were released only to be sent back under a law that was written to stop terrorism?

so you have a couple of professed poachers and arsonists- are you heading to Oregon to support these guys because "abuse of the law"?

I'm not.

Their original sentences were a joke. Their next sentences were much closer in line where they should be.

 

[Bubblehide]

A mistrial is not a win, it's a delay. IMNSHO what is happening here is that the FBI has an ongoing investigation concerning the Las Vegas incident, and to many coiendences exist between the Bundy's, the militia and the Vegas shooting/shooter for them to be random. Assuming I am correct, of course the FBI does not want to release inter-relating evidence at this time. Additionally, if the Bundy's and the militia have any involvement with the Vegas shooting, the Bundy issue is insignificant in comparison, and may be a moot point from a prosecution perspective. Don't get me wrong, I'm no conspiracy theorist, I'm just looking at the known facts that the media has yet to link together (obviously law enforcement isn't going to do that at this point in time/the investigation).

 

[5MilesBack]

IMNSHO what is happening here is that the FBI has an ongoing investigation concerning the Las Vegas incident, and to many coiendences exist between the Bundy's, the militia and the Vegas shooting/shooter for them to be random.

Given the patterns we've seen from the FBI over the past few years, I'd say those patterns aren't random either.

 

[tthompson4]

There is no denying the Bundy’s are freeloaders benefiting from a technicality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NevadaZielmeister]

So public lands should only be used for your hunting benefit.....Gotcha.

No, you don't got me and you misunderstood. It should be used lawfully by all. Not just hunters, user groups, cattle ranchers, et cetera. Just to be clear.

 

[Halfslam]

As expected this thread is heavy on conjecture and light on facts.

Fact #1: The Bundys established water rights that were first registered in 1891. The BLM wouldnt be created until 55 years later. Not going to elaborate here but look further into beneficial use - Beneficial Use legal definition of Beneficial Use

Fact #2: When the BLM was created there were 50+ Ranchers in that area using that land. Now there is one (the Bundy's)...Why?

Fact #3: The BLM campaigned for "No More Moo by 92' and Cow Free by 93" (obviously their plan has been very effective of robbing people of their way of life, see #2)

The Bundys were protesting gubmint overreach and the BLM tried to make a spectacle of them and failed miserably and now they are the spectacle.We arent supposed to have federal agents policing citizens, this should have been handled by the local sheriff from the get go.

The Oregon trial was also full of lies that ended up getting an FBI agent indicted and a man killed. And more importantly they were acquitted.

Regardless of your outlook on this it wasnt only handled wrongly in two different courts in two different jurisdictions it was handled wrongly from the get go and the only people that should be going to jail are those who made the disastrous decisions here from day one...and it isnt the Bundy's...its the Bozo's over at the BLM and in Oregon, the FBI.

Spot on! Thankyou. I don't really know the Bundy's Nevada history but most folks in our area of southeast Oregon know that the Hammonds were done a serious injustice by the BLM and the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. The Bundy's stepped in seeing an opprotunity to further their cause. They went about it wrong and the Hammonds chose not to be involved with them from the start, which was at a peaceful anti sentencing rally ( for the two Hammonds) in Burns Oregon that the Bundy crowd attended. This was the bogus 'terriost' charges that sent them back to prision for 5 years.

Not many outside people know that the Refuge manager and the BLM range manager were married and for years did everything in their power and then some to make life hell for the Hammonds. The arson and poaching charges were trumped up. Anything to get them off the land and behind bars.

After the sentencing rally is where everything went south. The Bundy crowd moved on over to the Wildlife refuge headquarters which was basically shutdown for the winter.The local sheriff should have handled the standoff and was in communication with Bundy until the FBI stepped in. The court records tell the rest of the story, FBI lies and coverups. In truth the BLM, Malheur Bird Refuge and FBI tried their strongarm tactics and were exposed. The Bundys were wrong in how they proceeded after the rally but the Hammonds are the true victims. It would behoove folks to look at both sides of the story before passing judgement.

 

[mtwarden]

"The arson and poaching charges were trumped up."

well I guess they shouldn't have pled guilty to those trumped charges

 

[Bubblehide]

Given the patterns we've seen from the FBI over the past few years, I'd say those patterns aren't random either.

Very true, but that in no manner negates guilt.

 

[Broomd]

One thing should be clear to all here: the Feds aren't always on your side as a hunter, outdoorsman, sportsman.
I'd go as far as saying that they are almost always the enemy. (note that I stated almost.) They, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the EPA...they have all accrued immense power and it's about time that 'we the people' reclaim those agencies as our own--they are ours! The DOJ and FBI corruption scenarios that are so prevalent in the news right now only further underscore my point here.
Whatever some of you guys think of Trump, he is cleaning up some of the mess with some of these agencies. The EPA had a huge walkout recently. Good riddance! The agency has/had merit, but has been off the rails for a long, long time.


I'd also classify the Bundy's as firmly in the 'redneck' category, folks that think they are better than they really are.
I know people here locally like them. They feel that their seniority on a land makes them omnipotent and free of laws that most of us would peacefully accept and abide by.