dude wut
seriously folks, they should put him in jail as fast as they did that benghazi riots video feller. ;-)
Standoff at nevada ranch
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
dude wut
seriously folks, they should put him in jail as fast as they did that benghazi riots video feller. ;-)
Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
After the peaceful rally was completed today, a group of outside militants drove to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they seized and occupied the refuge headquarters. A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation."
The Bundy family of Nevada joined with hard-core militiamen Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 50 miles southeast of Burns for years.
The occupation came shortly after an estimated 300 marchers — militia and local citizens both — paraded through Burns to protest the prosecution of two Harney County ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday.
Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and two of his brothers. Militia members at the refuge claimed they had as many as 100 supporters with them. The refuge, federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was closed and unoccupied for the holiday weekend.
In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said.
more........
Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters | OregonLive.com
After the peaceful rally was completed today, a group of outside militants drove to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they seized and occupied the refuge headquarters. A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation."
The Bundy family of Nevada joined with hard-core militiamen Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 50 miles southeast of Burns for years.
The occupation came shortly after an estimated 300 marchers — militia and local citizens both — paraded through Burns to protest the prosecution of two Harney County ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday.
Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and two of his brothers. Militia members at the refuge claimed they had as many as 100 supporters with them. The refuge, federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was closed and unoccupied for the holiday weekend.
In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said.
more........
Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters | OregonLive.com
Yes, Yes it is... Nevada has some of the oldest laws regarding Free Range and Open Range Cattle..
The signs are posted all over the place in Nevada.
Then the state comes in and says; the land your ancestors grazed cattle on now belongs to the state and you must pay us now...
Lawsuit: Cliven Bundy's Wandering Cows Allegedly Caused Car Crash
woman sued Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy for negligence since a cattle he let roam on public land caused her to crash her car, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.
In April, the Bureau of Land Management let Bundy use federal land for his cattle even though he hasn't paid grazing fees in years after an intense standoff between the rancher's militia and the federal government.
Just two days after the BLM released Bundy's cattle, multiple cows wandered onto an interstate highway, where one collided with a car. The crash killed the cow and seriously injured a Las Vegas woman. Danielle Beck filed a lawsuit on Sunday and said Bundy "recklessly, carelessly and negligently allowed his cows to enter onto Interstate 15 through an area where he had no grazing or other rights."
"It’s a state problem. It’s not our problem," Bundy told the Review-Journal. "We really feel bad when it happens. We sure don’t want it to happen. But we’re not liable."
Lawsuit: Cliven Bundy's Wandering Cows Allegedly Caused Car Crash
Haha! A cow 'collided with a car'? Cows are not known to take a run at cars. If a driver sees a cow (or cows) in her path the smart thing to do would be to stop, not run into it (them) and then blame the cow. Cows don't know about right of way. Jeez!
The reason for the current situation is that the 2 ranchers were already convicted, sentences and did their time. Now some loony judge thinks he has the power to go back and alter the sentence. I am quite sure that is illegal as well as immoral and unethical. It sets a horrible precedent allowing federal judges to change any sentence they may think was too short. Every citizen should be scared by this. It means you do something and go through court etc and then go to jail for 6 months then 2 years later a federal judge can just say I think you should have done 3 years and poof back to prison you go even though you have already served your sentence handed out by the trial judge. This wasn't even an appeal, just a judge who thinks the sentence was too lenient handing out years of incarceration years after the original sentence was served completely.
davesmom; said:
Not funny as the driver was injured and missed something like 6 months of work. I'm sure the court will decide whether Bundy faces liability. After all with his record and all that ...
5 Taxpayer Handouts the Bundys Receive While Railing Against Government “Tyranny”
5 Government Handouts the Bundys Businesses Depend On
Nearly every part of the Bundy family’s business is funded by government welfare programs.
The armed militiamen currently occupying the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon have attempted to portray an image of themselves as rugged, independent Americans rejecting government interference in their businesses. But nearly every part of their existence as ranchers is made possible by government welfare programs — even the building they’re depending on for shelter from the cold was built by federal tax dollars as part of the New Deal program. Here are just a few ways taxpayers are subsidizing the livelihoods of cattle ranchers like the Bundy family:
1. Ammon Bundy’s loan from the Small Business Administration
The Small Business Administration (SBA) offers a loan guarantee program for businesses that don’t qualify for assistance in the private credit market. As Mother Jones reported, Ammon Bundy — the ringleader of the Malheur takeover bemoaning federal overreach — got a $530,000 loan from the SBA in 2010 for his truck maintenance business in Arizona, costing taxpayers over $22,000. What the loan was used for or whether or not Bundy repaid it is not listed in public records.
2. The US government charges 93 percent less for cattle grazing than private landowners
One of the biggest gripes from cattle ranchers like Cliven Bundy and other Western cattlemen is that the federal government is bleeding ranchers dry with overpriced cattle grazing fees. But the opposite is true — in 2012, it cost roughly $1.35 a month for each cow to graze on federal land, as opposed to the average $20 per month charged by private landowners for cattle grazing. FiveThirtyEight.com illustrated the price difference in a graph:
If anybody is getting the raw end of the deal from the federal government’s cattle grazing prices, it’s the federal government. As of 2014, grazing fees only accounted for 15 percent of the total cost incurred for the Bureau of Land Management to manage land for cattle grazing. The other 85 percent comes from we, the taxpayers.
3. Ranchers get huge discounts on leases of public land
In Nevada, home of the Bundy family, 80 percent of the state’s land is owned by the federal government. But ranchers get to lease that land for their own private businesses at a huge discount. According to an investigation by The Atlantic, the lease discount program cost taxpayers anywhere from $52 million a year to $200 million, when accounting for all of the administrative overhead involved in managing the program.
4. Livestock farmers milk the “emergency” feed program even in non-drought years
Western states, like Nevada and Oregon, where ranchers like the Bundys reside, only produce roughly one-fifth of the nation’s beef supply, but require a considerable amount of taxpayer subsidies to stay afloat. The Atlantic estimates that the 11 Western states populated by ranchers eat up approximately $26 million per year.
5. Ranchers depend on big government assistance to keep livestock safe
The Bundys and other ranchers would have very little livestock to feed if it weren’t for the “animal damage control” program, in which federal employees kill off the nearby predators that present a danger to cattle. The Atlantic’s study of this program found that, again, Western ranchers are responsible for a disproportionate amount of taxpayer subsidies compared to the other 39 states:
In 1994 this program cost $55.9 million nationwide, of which roughly $22 million was spent on western livestock operations. The animals killed nationwide with this money included 163 black bears, 293 mountain lions, 1,928 bobcats, 8,973 foxes, and 85,571 coyotes.
If the Bundy family really wanted the “independence” from government they claim to stand for, their businesses would be underwater. Ammon Bundy and his gang should thank their lucky stars to benefit from so much government assistance.
right wing welfare queens can't get enough handouts from the government they hate so much
5 Government Handouts the Bundys Businesses Depend On
Nearly every part of the Bundy family’s business is funded by government welfare programs.
The armed militiamen currently occupying the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon have attempted to portray an image of themselves as rugged, independent Americans rejecting government interference in their businesses. But nearly every part of their existence as ranchers is made possible by government welfare programs — even the building they’re depending on for shelter from the cold was built by federal tax dollars as part of the New Deal program. Here are just a few ways taxpayers are subsidizing the livelihoods of cattle ranchers like the Bundy family:
1. Ammon Bundy’s loan from the Small Business Administration
The Small Business Administration (SBA) offers a loan guarantee program for businesses that don’t qualify for assistance in the private credit market. As Mother Jones reported, Ammon Bundy — the ringleader of the Malheur takeover bemoaning federal overreach — got a $530,000 loan from the SBA in 2010 for his truck maintenance business in Arizona, costing taxpayers over $22,000. What the loan was used for or whether or not Bundy repaid it is not listed in public records.
2. The US government charges 93 percent less for cattle grazing than private landowners
One of the biggest gripes from cattle ranchers like Cliven Bundy and other Western cattlemen is that the federal government is bleeding ranchers dry with overpriced cattle grazing fees. But the opposite is true — in 2012, it cost roughly $1.35 a month for each cow to graze on federal land, as opposed to the average $20 per month charged by private landowners for cattle grazing. FiveThirtyEight.com illustrated the price difference in a graph:
If anybody is getting the raw end of the deal from the federal government’s cattle grazing prices, it’s the federal government. As of 2014, grazing fees only accounted for 15 percent of the total cost incurred for the Bureau of Land Management to manage land for cattle grazing. The other 85 percent comes from we, the taxpayers.
3. Ranchers get huge discounts on leases of public land
In Nevada, home of the Bundy family, 80 percent of the state’s land is owned by the federal government. But ranchers get to lease that land for their own private businesses at a huge discount. According to an investigation by The Atlantic, the lease discount program cost taxpayers anywhere from $52 million a year to $200 million, when accounting for all of the administrative overhead involved in managing the program.
4. Livestock farmers milk the “emergency” feed program even in non-drought years
Western states, like Nevada and Oregon, where ranchers like the Bundys reside, only produce roughly one-fifth of the nation’s beef supply, but require a considerable amount of taxpayer subsidies to stay afloat. The Atlantic estimates that the 11 Western states populated by ranchers eat up approximately $26 million per year.
5. Ranchers depend on big government assistance to keep livestock safe
The Bundys and other ranchers would have very little livestock to feed if it weren’t for the “animal damage control” program, in which federal employees kill off the nearby predators that present a danger to cattle. The Atlantic’s study of this program found that, again, Western ranchers are responsible for a disproportionate amount of taxpayer subsidies compared to the other 39 states:
In 1994 this program cost $55.9 million nationwide, of which roughly $22 million was spent on western livestock operations. The animals killed nationwide with this money included 163 black bears, 293 mountain lions, 1,928 bobcats, 8,973 foxes, and 85,571 coyotes.
If the Bundy family really wanted the “independence” from government they claim to stand for, their businesses would be underwater. Ammon Bundy and his gang should thank their lucky stars to benefit from so much government assistance.
right wing welfare queens can't get enough handouts from the government they hate so much
Without question,,hands down the ugliest baron desolate shythole of a state in the Union.Yes, Yes it is... Nevada has some of the oldest laws regarding Free Range and Open Range Cattle..
The signs are posted all over the place in Nevada.
Then the state comes in and says; the land your ancestors grazed cattle on now belongs to the state and you must pay us now...
So his family worked the land big deal. We have ranchers in BC who have worked
crown land for years too but they don't own it the government does and when the
government wants to use it they take it back because the rancher does not own it.
Secondly he stopped paying his grazing fees and since he had paid them in the
past he has admitted he did not own the land
It is time the government removed him by negotiation for force which ever he chooses
people like this are lawless and it is not tyranny to force people to obey the law once
they reach the state of armed conflict that is criminal activity period
crown land for years too but they don't own it the government does and when the
government wants to use it they take it back because the rancher does not own it.
Secondly he stopped paying his grazing fees and since he had paid them in the
past he has admitted he did not own the land
It is time the government removed him by negotiation for force which ever he chooses
people like this are lawless and it is not tyranny to force people to obey the law once
they reach the state of armed conflict that is criminal activity period
Black Thugs, Muslim Terrorists and White Patriots: The Issue With Today's Media
Black Thugs, Muslim Terrorists and White Patriots: The Issue With Today's Media | Omar Alnatour
Picture this: You live in one of the 45 states in America that allows the open carry of firearms. You are pulling into the parking lot of your local grocery store when you see an African American in a hoodie with a handgun. You walk inside the store and find a bearded Muslim man walking around with a gun at his waist. As you checkout at the cashier, you see a white man in line with a pistol at his side. Under this law, all three encounters should be seen as perfectly acceptable and normal yet the reality is that the bias in today's media has caused us to become discriminatory and fearful people. The first two men would most likely be seen as people who pose a threat, a thug and a terrorist respectively, while the last man would be seen as a patriotic American citizen simply exercising his constitutional right to carry a firearm.
On Saturday, some 150 predominately white armed men took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. The protestors then broke into a federal building on the refuge and refused to leave, with members of this occupation setting up a roadblock and two of their armed men manning a nearby guard tower. This armed occupation was in protest of the "tyranny" of the federal government with the goal of pressuring the government to turn over federal-owned land to the local ranchers, loggers, and miners of Oregon. These armed men stated, "they're willing to kill and be killed if necessary" and "would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them". Addressing the seriousness of this armed occupation, the Senator of Oregon added that these men "are willing to take the law into their own hands".
This is a huge deal. We are talking about armed men taking over government property and using the threat of violence in an attempt to change federal law. Schools in the area have been shut down and local residents say they are "scared to death" about the violence that could ensue.
The FBI defines domestic terrorism as "acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law" that are "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct". According to the FBI itself, an act of terrorism took place this past Saturday yet the average American had little to no idea about it due to the disparity in media coverage and police response when it comes to violence in America.
Let's take a quick look at the media response to this armed occupation:
The Associated Press made no mention of an armed occupation and even went as far as to include the term "peaceful" in their headline.
ABC News had a similar headline, trivializing the threatening armed occupation down to simply an "action".
The Washington Post called the armed occupation a "land dispute" (note how the media previously referred the Chapel Hill terrorist attack, where an armed Caucasian man killed three innocent Muslim Americans execution-style, as a "parking dispute") and even went as far as to calling these armed protestors "activists" in their article.
The New York Times didn't bother to report on the armed occupation until the following day and even then, it was disparaged to a side story than most viewers wouldn't even notice.
Fox News was equally apathetic to the entire situation, carelessly pushing this story to the sidelines of their front page.
The police response to this armed occupation was no better. According to reporters in the area, "local police said they had no intention of going to the scene, not even to keep watch on the militia". The White House also showed an equal amount of indifference, with Press Secretary Josh Earnest saying that President Obama is aware of the situation but that it is a "local law enforcement matter" despite the fact that this directly involves federal government land. Press Secretary Earnest added that "the FBI is monitoring the situation and offering support to the local law enforcement officials", but as I mentioned earlier, local reporters have yet to see a significant police presence in the now illegally occupied federal area.
As a Muslim American who has repeatedly been called a terrorist and told "to go back home" as a result of the media's overdramatic coverage on the crimes carried out by "Muslims" that don't represent the teachings of my faith, my mind is filled with questions:
Why is it that when a person violates the law in the United States, the extent of the media coverage on that crime is more correlated with the criminal's ethnicity rather than the severity of the crime itself?
Why is it that when 150 unarmed African Americans occupied a blocked off street in Ferguson, they were tear-gassed, smoke-bombed, and shot down with rubber bullets? Why is it that the national guard was brought in with brutality when unarmed blacks were simply pleading for their civil rights last year yet not a single police officer was seen when armed whites in Oregon violated federal law this past weekend? Why is it that the last time an armed black anti-government group protested against the federal government, they were bombed and burned alive? Why is that unarmed black people were killed at six times the rate of unarmed white people in America last year?
Why is it that Muslims are repeatedly called terrorists when the FBI stated that over 93% of terrorists in the United States from 1980 to 2005 have been non-Muslims? Why is that the media portrays Muslims as a demographic threat to America when more Americans were killed by toddlers last year than by Muslims? Why is it that when a suspect in a crime happens to be Muslim, the media is quick to label him as an "Islamic terrorist" before they even have enough information to identify him by name?
I am not saying that the armed men in Oregon should be subjected to the same hateful and irrational unsubstantiated accusations that African Americans or Muslims continually face. I am simply asking, when is the last time we heard of large groups of armed blacks or Muslims being referred to as a militia rather than as thugs and terrorists? When was the last time an armed African American violated the law to a similar extent as we saw in Oregon and it didn't result in a burial? When was the last time an armed Muslim committed a crime and wasn't labeled as a terrorist all across breaking headlines nationwide?
These questions need answers because we can no longer afford to ignore them. Ignoring them has resulted in the racism and discrimination that has propagated the police brutality that is dropping the bodies of innocent unarmed blacks like leaves in the autumn. Ignoring them has resulted in the racism and discrimination that causes the daily Islamophobic attacks which leave covered American Muslim women terrified to leave their homes. It is this racism and discrimination that has divided our nation and caused hate to overpower our unity.
This nation we live in is called the United States of America for a reason. We must stand united. And we must stand up for each other. I am Tamir Rice. I am Deah Barakat. I am every single innocent American that was killed or oppressed as a result of discriminatory hatred. And lastly, I am simply asking this: Do not allow the disparity in media converge to turn you into a hateful person. Speak up when you hear of injustice. Stand up for those who are being unjustly victimized. Live up to being the change you wish to see in the world.
more ....
a good analysis of right wing media bias
Black Thugs, Muslim Terrorists and White Patriots: The Issue With Today's Media | Omar Alnatour
Picture this: You live in one of the 45 states in America that allows the open carry of firearms. You are pulling into the parking lot of your local grocery store when you see an African American in a hoodie with a handgun. You walk inside the store and find a bearded Muslim man walking around with a gun at his waist. As you checkout at the cashier, you see a white man in line with a pistol at his side. Under this law, all three encounters should be seen as perfectly acceptable and normal yet the reality is that the bias in today's media has caused us to become discriminatory and fearful people. The first two men would most likely be seen as people who pose a threat, a thug and a terrorist respectively, while the last man would be seen as a patriotic American citizen simply exercising his constitutional right to carry a firearm.
On Saturday, some 150 predominately white armed men took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. The protestors then broke into a federal building on the refuge and refused to leave, with members of this occupation setting up a roadblock and two of their armed men manning a nearby guard tower. This armed occupation was in protest of the "tyranny" of the federal government with the goal of pressuring the government to turn over federal-owned land to the local ranchers, loggers, and miners of Oregon. These armed men stated, "they're willing to kill and be killed if necessary" and "would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them". Addressing the seriousness of this armed occupation, the Senator of Oregon added that these men "are willing to take the law into their own hands".
This is a huge deal. We are talking about armed men taking over government property and using the threat of violence in an attempt to change federal law. Schools in the area have been shut down and local residents say they are "scared to death" about the violence that could ensue.
The FBI defines domestic terrorism as "acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law" that are "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct". According to the FBI itself, an act of terrorism took place this past Saturday yet the average American had little to no idea about it due to the disparity in media coverage and police response when it comes to violence in America.
Let's take a quick look at the media response to this armed occupation:
The Associated Press made no mention of an armed occupation and even went as far as to include the term "peaceful" in their headline.
ABC News had a similar headline, trivializing the threatening armed occupation down to simply an "action".
The Washington Post called the armed occupation a "land dispute" (note how the media previously referred the Chapel Hill terrorist attack, where an armed Caucasian man killed three innocent Muslim Americans execution-style, as a "parking dispute") and even went as far as to calling these armed protestors "activists" in their article.
The New York Times didn't bother to report on the armed occupation until the following day and even then, it was disparaged to a side story than most viewers wouldn't even notice.
Fox News was equally apathetic to the entire situation, carelessly pushing this story to the sidelines of their front page.
The police response to this armed occupation was no better. According to reporters in the area, "local police said they had no intention of going to the scene, not even to keep watch on the militia". The White House also showed an equal amount of indifference, with Press Secretary Josh Earnest saying that President Obama is aware of the situation but that it is a "local law enforcement matter" despite the fact that this directly involves federal government land. Press Secretary Earnest added that "the FBI is monitoring the situation and offering support to the local law enforcement officials", but as I mentioned earlier, local reporters have yet to see a significant police presence in the now illegally occupied federal area.
As a Muslim American who has repeatedly been called a terrorist and told "to go back home" as a result of the media's overdramatic coverage on the crimes carried out by "Muslims" that don't represent the teachings of my faith, my mind is filled with questions:
Why is it that when a person violates the law in the United States, the extent of the media coverage on that crime is more correlated with the criminal's ethnicity rather than the severity of the crime itself?
Why is it that when 150 unarmed African Americans occupied a blocked off street in Ferguson, they were tear-gassed, smoke-bombed, and shot down with rubber bullets? Why is it that the national guard was brought in with brutality when unarmed blacks were simply pleading for their civil rights last year yet not a single police officer was seen when armed whites in Oregon violated federal law this past weekend? Why is it that the last time an armed black anti-government group protested against the federal government, they were bombed and burned alive? Why is that unarmed black people were killed at six times the rate of unarmed white people in America last year?
Why is it that Muslims are repeatedly called terrorists when the FBI stated that over 93% of terrorists in the United States from 1980 to 2005 have been non-Muslims? Why is that the media portrays Muslims as a demographic threat to America when more Americans were killed by toddlers last year than by Muslims? Why is it that when a suspect in a crime happens to be Muslim, the media is quick to label him as an "Islamic terrorist" before they even have enough information to identify him by name?
I am not saying that the armed men in Oregon should be subjected to the same hateful and irrational unsubstantiated accusations that African Americans or Muslims continually face. I am simply asking, when is the last time we heard of large groups of armed blacks or Muslims being referred to as a militia rather than as thugs and terrorists? When was the last time an armed African American violated the law to a similar extent as we saw in Oregon and it didn't result in a burial? When was the last time an armed Muslim committed a crime and wasn't labeled as a terrorist all across breaking headlines nationwide?
These questions need answers because we can no longer afford to ignore them. Ignoring them has resulted in the racism and discrimination that has propagated the police brutality that is dropping the bodies of innocent unarmed blacks like leaves in the autumn. Ignoring them has resulted in the racism and discrimination that causes the daily Islamophobic attacks which leave covered American Muslim women terrified to leave their homes. It is this racism and discrimination that has divided our nation and caused hate to overpower our unity.
This nation we live in is called the United States of America for a reason. We must stand united. And we must stand up for each other. I am Tamir Rice. I am Deah Barakat. I am every single innocent American that was killed or oppressed as a result of discriminatory hatred. And lastly, I am simply asking this: Do not allow the disparity in media converge to turn you into a hateful person. Speak up when you hear of injustice. Stand up for those who are being unjustly victimized. Live up to being the change you wish to see in the world.
more ....
a good analysis of right wing media bias
LAS VEGAS -- Two sons of Nevada cattleman Cliven Bundy refused to attend, and several co-defendants shouted an oath of defiance at the end of a Friday court appearance for 17 men accused of conspiring and taking up arms against federal agents near the Bundy ranch in Nevada in April 2014.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen decided not to order marshals to bring Ammon and Ryan Bundy to court by force, so the two Bundy sons remained in a nearby holding cell. Marshals were instructed to provide a speaker so they could hear audio of the court proceedings.
Another defendant, Peter Santilli, blurted out that the Bundy brothers didn't want to be shackled. Leen admonished Santilli that he didn't get to speak on their behalf.
So began a contentious three-hour hearing during which the judge didn't make immediate rulings on a range of arguments, including the government's request to have three trials and defendants' requests to be tried together or in groups of their choosing
Trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 6. Leen called it "physically and logistically impossible" to try all 17 defendants together, and suggested it would be unfair for a 17th defendant to have to wait months or years to resolve his case if they were tried individually. She said she'll issue a written scheduling order soon.
Leen also is considering multiple requests to dismiss charges; a plea for a change of venue to Reno or another city; a suggestion that federal officials shredded documents that would be relevant to the case as they packed up and left temporary offices near Bunkerville; and Cliven Bundy's lawyer's insistence that the federal government has no jurisdiction in Clark County.
Santilli's attorney argued that he's a journalist, and that his calls in Internet postings for supporters to rally to the Bundy ranch to lawfully carry guns and protest federal Bureau of Land Management action were constitutionally protected free speech.
At least two defendants, Ryan Payne and Scott Engel, stood the moment court was adjourned and loudly declared, "Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God!"
Santilli chimed in that he expected that when Donald Trump becomes president, he'll intervene in the case on the defendants' behalf.
Several people among about three dozen family members and friends responded with words of love and support as they filed out of the courtroom gallery under watchful eyes of U.S. marshals.
The protest-by-absence of Ammon and Ryan Bundy echoed the refusal by their father last March to enter a plea to federal charges that he led the tense armed standoff that stopped a government round-up of cattle on public land about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas. A magistrate judge entered a not-guilty plea for him.
No shots were fired, and no one was injured in the standoff. But images of Bundy backers with assault rifles on a freeway overpass forcing federal agents to back off in a dry river bed below have become iconic in an ongoing battle about states' rights and federal authority.
That dispute has roots a nearly half-century fight over grazing rights in Nevada and the West, where the federal government controls vast expanses of land. Calls for action have grown louder and more frequent in the Internet age, with bloggers protesting federal agency decisions to designate protected areas for endangered species and set aside tracts for mining, wind farms and natural gas exploration.
The Bundy case defendants face conspiracy, obstruction, weapon, threat and assault on a federal officer charges that could get them decades in prison if they're convicted. They and two others who have pleaded guilty in the case remain in federal custody in southern Nevada.
Federal prosecutors want three trials, with the first to start Feb. 6 for accused conspiracy leaders Cliven, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, Payne and Santilli.
A second trial would start in May for six alleged "mid-level" standoff leaders and organizers: Bundy sons Dave and Mel Bundy, Brian Cavalier, Micah McGuire, Joseph O'Shaughnessy and Jason Woods.
A third trial would begin in August for six accused "followers and gunmen." They are Gregory Burleson, O. Scott Drexler, Todd Engel, Ricky Lovelien, Eric Parker and Steven Stewart.
Woods' lawyer, Kristine Kuzemka, protested Friday that labeling defendants as "gunmen" is unfair because it suggests guilt or culpability.
Leen said a description used for now, during pretrial proceedings, might never be suggested to a jury.
Burleson's attorney, Terrence Jackson, asked again for the judge to consider releasing his client before trial for medical reasons.
Jackson said Burleson, 53, of Arizona, is blind, diabetic and uses a wheelchair.
Burleson told Leen he isn't getting medical treatment in federal custody.
"I don't want to end up dying in here," he said.
Bundy brothers refuse to attend US court hearing in Vegas | OregonLive.com
U.S. Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen decided not to order marshals to bring Ammon and Ryan Bundy to court by force, so the two Bundy sons remained in a nearby holding cell. Marshals were instructed to provide a speaker so they could hear audio of the court proceedings.
Another defendant, Peter Santilli, blurted out that the Bundy brothers didn't want to be shackled. Leen admonished Santilli that he didn't get to speak on their behalf.
So began a contentious three-hour hearing during which the judge didn't make immediate rulings on a range of arguments, including the government's request to have three trials and defendants' requests to be tried together or in groups of their choosing
Trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 6. Leen called it "physically and logistically impossible" to try all 17 defendants together, and suggested it would be unfair for a 17th defendant to have to wait months or years to resolve his case if they were tried individually. She said she'll issue a written scheduling order soon.
Leen also is considering multiple requests to dismiss charges; a plea for a change of venue to Reno or another city; a suggestion that federal officials shredded documents that would be relevant to the case as they packed up and left temporary offices near Bunkerville; and Cliven Bundy's lawyer's insistence that the federal government has no jurisdiction in Clark County.
Santilli's attorney argued that he's a journalist, and that his calls in Internet postings for supporters to rally to the Bundy ranch to lawfully carry guns and protest federal Bureau of Land Management action were constitutionally protected free speech.
At least two defendants, Ryan Payne and Scott Engel, stood the moment court was adjourned and loudly declared, "Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God!"
Santilli chimed in that he expected that when Donald Trump becomes president, he'll intervene in the case on the defendants' behalf.
Several people among about three dozen family members and friends responded with words of love and support as they filed out of the courtroom gallery under watchful eyes of U.S. marshals.
The protest-by-absence of Ammon and Ryan Bundy echoed the refusal by their father last March to enter a plea to federal charges that he led the tense armed standoff that stopped a government round-up of cattle on public land about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas. A magistrate judge entered a not-guilty plea for him.
No shots were fired, and no one was injured in the standoff. But images of Bundy backers with assault rifles on a freeway overpass forcing federal agents to back off in a dry river bed below have become iconic in an ongoing battle about states' rights and federal authority.
That dispute has roots a nearly half-century fight over grazing rights in Nevada and the West, where the federal government controls vast expanses of land. Calls for action have grown louder and more frequent in the Internet age, with bloggers protesting federal agency decisions to designate protected areas for endangered species and set aside tracts for mining, wind farms and natural gas exploration.
The Bundy case defendants face conspiracy, obstruction, weapon, threat and assault on a federal officer charges that could get them decades in prison if they're convicted. They and two others who have pleaded guilty in the case remain in federal custody in southern Nevada.
Federal prosecutors want three trials, with the first to start Feb. 6 for accused conspiracy leaders Cliven, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, Payne and Santilli.
A second trial would start in May for six alleged "mid-level" standoff leaders and organizers: Bundy sons Dave and Mel Bundy, Brian Cavalier, Micah McGuire, Joseph O'Shaughnessy and Jason Woods.
A third trial would begin in August for six accused "followers and gunmen." They are Gregory Burleson, O. Scott Drexler, Todd Engel, Ricky Lovelien, Eric Parker and Steven Stewart.
Woods' lawyer, Kristine Kuzemka, protested Friday that labeling defendants as "gunmen" is unfair because it suggests guilt or culpability.
Leen said a description used for now, during pretrial proceedings, might never be suggested to a jury.
Burleson's attorney, Terrence Jackson, asked again for the judge to consider releasing his client before trial for medical reasons.
Jackson said Burleson, 53, of Arizona, is blind, diabetic and uses a wheelchair.
Burleson told Leen he isn't getting medical treatment in federal custody.
"I don't want to end up dying in here," he said.
Bundy brothers refuse to attend US court hearing in Vegas | OregonLive.com
I remember driving through chaparral like that in Texas a few years back, seeing a cow and her calf in the middle of it and wondering how they survived. That sort of a hard life couldn't possibly produce beef that is of good enough quality for anything more than pet food. Why bother ranching?
A judge called a New Hampshire man a "bully vigilante" and sentenced him Wednesday to more than seven years in prison for his role organizing armed backers of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy after a standoff with U.S. agents in 2014.
Gerald "Jerry" DeLemus became the first person sentenced for his ties to the confrontation that became a rallying cry for those who want vast stretches of federal land in the U.S. West put under local control. Eighteen others are in custody.
DeLemus has been jailed for almost 16 months, so the sentence means the 62-year-old former U.S. Marine will spend about six more years behind bars.
He then spent more than a month in an encampment organizing armed patrols and serving as an intermediary between a self-styled militia and local authorities.
She said she didn't think he accepted responsibility for his actions.
"I have to say, Mr. DeLemus, that you unfortunately are blinded by the information you choose to believe," she said.
Instead of advising Bundy to abide by court orders to pay 20 years of overdue grazing fees or let agents round up his cattle from public land, Navarro said DeLemus became "a bully vigilante, threatening peacekeepers of the community."
"I never heard you say you told Mr. Bundy ... to follow the law," she said.
DeLemus told the judge that he traveled cross-country with weapons because he'd heard that government snipers surrounded the Bundy home. He said he was willing to "take a bullet" to protect the family.
"My concern was that someone would get hurt," he said, choking back tears. "It wasn't the cows. I didn't want that family injured. God will know in the end."
DeLemus said he never would have shot at law enforcement. He cast himself as a martyr to his Christian beliefs and cited a biblical passage that there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends.
"I may not have given it out there," he said of the standoff near Bunkerville, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas. "I'm giving it now, in jail."
DeLemus once ran for sheriff and mayor in his hometown of Rochester, New Hampshire, and served as a delegate to the Republican National Committee.
First Prison Term Handed Down in Bundy Armed Standoff in Nevada - NBC News
Gerald "Jerry" DeLemus became the first person sentenced for his ties to the confrontation that became a rallying cry for those who want vast stretches of federal land in the U.S. West put under local control. Eighteen others are in custody.
DeLemus has been jailed for almost 16 months, so the sentence means the 62-year-old former U.S. Marine will spend about six more years behind bars.
He then spent more than a month in an encampment organizing armed patrols and serving as an intermediary between a self-styled militia and local authorities.
She said she didn't think he accepted responsibility for his actions.
"I have to say, Mr. DeLemus, that you unfortunately are blinded by the information you choose to believe," she said.
Instead of advising Bundy to abide by court orders to pay 20 years of overdue grazing fees or let agents round up his cattle from public land, Navarro said DeLemus became "a bully vigilante, threatening peacekeepers of the community."
"I never heard you say you told Mr. Bundy ... to follow the law," she said.
DeLemus told the judge that he traveled cross-country with weapons because he'd heard that government snipers surrounded the Bundy home. He said he was willing to "take a bullet" to protect the family.
"My concern was that someone would get hurt," he said, choking back tears. "It wasn't the cows. I didn't want that family injured. God will know in the end."
DeLemus said he never would have shot at law enforcement. He cast himself as a martyr to his Christian beliefs and cited a biblical passage that there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends.
"I may not have given it out there," he said of the standoff near Bunkerville, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas. "I'm giving it now, in jail."
DeLemus once ran for sheriff and mayor in his hometown of Rochester, New Hampshire, and served as a delegate to the Republican National Committee.
First Prison Term Handed Down in Bundy Armed Standoff in Nevada - NBC News
The feds showed just what a police state the US really is.
Like after waco and ruby ridge, there was any doubt.
"FBI agents under investigation for possible misconduct in LaVoy Finicum shooting
An FBI agent is suspected of lying about firing twice at Robert "LaVoy" Finicum and may have gotten help from four other FBI agents in covering up afterward, authorities revealed Tuesday."
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/03/oregon_standoff_fbi_agents_und.html
...and we know these guys aren't trustable.
Like after waco and ruby ridge, there was any doubt.
"FBI agents under investigation for possible misconduct in LaVoy Finicum shooting
An FBI agent is suspected of lying about firing twice at Robert "LaVoy" Finicum and may have gotten help from four other FBI agents in covering up afterward, authorities revealed Tuesday."
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/03/oregon_standoff_fbi_agents_und.html
...and we know these guys aren't trustable.
There is an Oregon thread........
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/140352-armed-militia-bundy-brothers-take.html?highlight=bundy