Posted on 01/27/2016 4:17:13 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian
The federal government outlined its case Wednesday against Ammon Bundy and other militants charged with occupying an Oregon wildlife refuge.
The criminal complaint was filed in federal court in Portland.
It lists video and written evidence that shows Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli, Shawna Cox, Jon Ritzheimer and Joseph O'Shaughnessy all took part in an armed occupation at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
Federal prosecutors have charged all of the defendants with felonies related to preventing federal workers from doing their jobs.
All of the defendants except Ritzheimer, who turned himself in to Arizona law enforcement Tuesday, appeared before Judge Stacie Beckerman in Portland Wednesday afternoon.
[snip]
Federal prosecutors Wednesday argued during the hearing that the defendants should all be detained during the court proceedings because they are part of "an ongoing conspiracy" and could potentially return to the wildlife refuge near Burns, Oregon if released.
Defense attorneys countered that the defendants mostly did not have criminal histories and should be released on bail. They'll have a detention hearing on Friday.
All of the militants except for leader Ammon Bundy opted to accept court appointed defense attorneys on the grounds that they could not afford their own counsel.
Ammon Bundy was represented at the hearing by Lissa Casey, an attorney with Arnold Law in Eugene, Oregon.
(Excerpt) Read more at opb.org ...
Anyone ever hear of a GOOD court appointed attorney?
A man was killed by the government for
“Preventing federal workers from doing their jobs”?
I wonder how many VA executives they’ve shot over this?
” Having somebody that doesn’t pay grazing fees for 20 years, and loses his cattle in court, decide to pull guns on people with a court order doesn’t help that fight. “
I think this gets lost in the discussion.
“No winners in this one. Just varied degrees of losers.”
Agree
Yes, the played right into the feds hands. They should have gone unarmed and let every reporter in the world know they were unarmed. And naming themselves Occupy Wall Street West would have helped.
“I was born into a ranching family. When I was younger, I’d work the summers with my grandfather, on whatever ranch he was hired to work. My knowledge of land, range, and water issues are better then some. More importantly, I understand the law regarding those issues. The Bundy brothers were promoting a warped and simply wrong viewpoint of these issues. I could explain it to you. However, i can’t make you understand the law. Hire an attorney to explain it to you.”
So, working with a transient granddaddy summers makes you a qualified person to understand the Bundy argument? I think not cowpoke...
Well, there are the 'winds of change' for the white house and probably a distillery or ten for the state department and a state department for the military and the Justus department for election officials.
I think the fbi has found something they can really build on.
” on whatever ranch he was hired to work.”
So do you have an idea of what percentage of those ranches are still in business?
NO demonstrable “damage” created by the “occupation” aside from the one protestor murdered by “law-enforcement”.
“A man was killed by the government for
“Preventing federal workers from doing their jobsâ€?”
. . . good perspective
Fall back, bastion of the Socialists and totalitarians: the ‘law’.
The ‘law’:
Allows O’Care over 1st Amendment objections
Allows NSA to snoop, decode, listen/read private correspondece
legalized abortion
validates ‘gun control’
Created ‘gay marriage’
...
The ‘law’ is an @ss
They have no problem labeling them and calling them militants but they cannot call a muslim a radilcal islamic jihadist. We know who are enemy is
You’re a fraud.
Who shot and killed LaVoy Finicum?
We would know, if he were a black man in a traffic stop.
Demand answers. Demand a trial for the shooter.
Sadly, I agree. When the issues (of Federal land grabs, the exclusion of citizens from the resources that are, by law, supposed to be available, and the interference with travel, especially in mixed owner acreage for the purpose of denying usage of private property so the Government can take the land or obtain it cheaply under duress) had been exposed and made part of the discussion, the immediate objective had been attained: Awareness.
The next step enabled the accumulation of data from others who had similar problems.
If that was done, I sincerely hope that information was transmitted off site and successfully mirrored and archived in a host of locations. It could have been submitted equally well via e-mail or other means.
At that point, what is left?
Armed conflict?
Neither the test case nor the time for it.
Push it in the court of public opinion and pull out more cases like it, to show this is not an isolated situation but endemic abuse.
A shootout? Nope. Bad deal.
The media will allow no martyrs for a cause, but will instead do what has been done by the media at Ruby Ridge, in Philadelphia, Waco, Medina, and possibly Waco again.
Any appearance of having been anything but WRONGED by the Feds loses support, and the worse the act(s) which are not in line with the rules, the less support there will be for the (any) cause.
Demonization (Alinsky tactic) of the parties wronged in these situations is the first step in the media by official agencies.
You have to be more of a saint than that--preferably beyond reproach.
You can protest the fees, but pay them. You lose the moral high ground when you can be portrayed as a hooligan and scofflaw rather than a citizen with a legitimate grievance.
The founders worked their way up to armed conflict (even the snowball fight that became the Boston Massacre), but they built their case with those who would listen, and did so strongly, exhausting peaceful means, in writing, and conducting occasional protests along the way.
That glorious unanimous Declaration in 1776 was far from the first step--it was the final one, after repeatedly trying all legal means to prevail in their grievances.
This situation went to a level it should not have--whether justified or not, despite the validity of the cause, because the objectives had been achieved, unless the objective was armed conflict.
We will likely never know what the discussion was going to be with the Sheriff, whether the Feds would have let the people up there just leave (At $100,000/day, they sure had all that geewhiz cop equipment out and they had to be able to put heads on pikes to justify that), or if there was going to be a pitched battle.
There is still a significant part of America that simply doesn't get the issue, does not understand or know about the wrong being done in America's name, or just doesn't care.
Without garnering massive support before any standoff, the issue is doomed to the abyss.
Hopefully, that doesn't happen here.
our federal overlords will demand that the peasants be made and example of in order to stop any future uppityness.
With that reply and your unabashed vitriol towards the Bundy’s ... I think you DO have to explain it to me.
We would know who shot the rancher, if the rancher was a black youth in the urban jungle.
How much of the population do you need? I don’t know but here’s something on the American revolution, which did not have “massive” support in the colonies:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/11b.asp
Considering that he seems to have some background in both Nevada and range use it might be useful to consider what he says, even if you don't like it.
I lived in Nevada for a dozen years and unlike most of America, who will forget this issue next week, land use is always huge issue in that state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.