PCS Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share Posted January 22, 2016 Well alrighty then. This happening right now. Bundy stopped talking to the FBI and now on the way to the Sheriff's department to talk to him. https://twitter.com/DymburtNews?lang=en Bundy refused to talk more with FBI. Says they are overreaching their power. Will take negotiations to local PD @KOINNews Talks with FBI lasted all of about 5 mins. Bundy wants media allowed in meetings with FBI - FBI says no. So he walked Bundy on his way to meet with Harney County Sheriff's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Why is anyone negotiating with this hillbilly? Nobody, whether FBI or local bumpkin police, can give them anything for taking over a federal park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 What is he asking from the FBI and sheriff that is in their power to grant him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Don't you understand? The Sheriff is the only law enforcement officer that We The People have to recognize. Don't you even read your Constitution? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share Posted January 22, 2016 A bit more. Ammon asking to meet with sheriff at his office, he's told he isn't available. Bundy says @HarneyCoSheriff is "duly elected" rep of locals, so it's his call on fbi. Note: Sheriff Ward wasn't elected. says he also wants to see proof @HarneyCoSheriff asked @FBI to be there. so basically he doesn't recognize fed authority. #bundymilitia Bundy arguing with Sheriff. Asks why is FBI here? Sheriff says bcuz it's the Feds land. Bundy says it's not. Bundy upset FBI had setup what he calls "a standing army". Sheriff making it clear local authorities and Feds working together Bundy did NOT meet w/Sheriff's. He was stopped at the gate. Presumably bcuz he showed up unannounced. Officers refused to argue so he left Okay. As for his demands or his "exit strategy". Let's see here. He wants the Feds/President to work their magic and release the Hammonds,(some nasty history coming out about them btw). He stated that they were in the process of looking at maps and current and previous claims in the area and are working to get those people their land back. He stated that he wants the FBI gone right now and in the near future,for all government buildings in Burns emptied and their employees gone. Never to come back again. Said that as long as FBI and others there,(BLM I think),they wouldn't leave. They were there to protect the ranchers while they get their lands back,(I'll assume he's including the building of a saw mill and mining in there). Stated they have teams ready to go if the government decides to pressure those that come back,(I'll assume he's including speaking about any ranchers who actually agree to his suggestion of tearing up their leasing contracts with the BLM). I'm sure there will be more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Every time i read "BLM" i think Black Lives Matter, not Bureau of Land Management, which really changes the scenario. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Every time i read "BLM" i think Black Lives Matter, not Bureau of Land Management, which really changes the scenario. I see "BM" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share Posted January 22, 2016 So now it's called the Oregon Freedom Revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 Son of a.... http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/children-present-at-occupied-refuge-with-militants-/ Militants Bring Young Children To Live At Occupied RefugeOPB has confirmed that there are children staying at the occupied Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.The two young girls now staying at the occupied refuge are sisters, ages 8 and 9. OPB is not naming the kids, nor their parents, to protect the identity of the children, but the mother and father are active and vocal militants in the armed occupation. Both parents have been involved in the incident since its start Jan. 2. *Click Link For More* Ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Freedom loving patriotic children bravely taking a stand against the tyranny of an unconstitutional federal government. Also firearms, Harney county, Harney county sheriff, Harney county ranchers, and militia. I think I got most of the buzz words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 That's a start anyway. Mark Rubio finally throwing in his two cents. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-23/marco-rubio-oregon-occupiers-should-be-prosecuted Marco Rubio: Oregon Occupiers Should Be Prosecuted But don't treat them like an 'invading army,' the Republican presidential candidate says *Click Link for More* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Freedom loving patriotic children bravely taking a stand against the tyranny of an unconstitutional federal government.Google translate sez...Human shields. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 Yep. Similar strategy to the one they used during Cliven the Clueless's standoff in 2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) Can somebody explain to me what this means? http://www.rightsidenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/AVR095-openlettertosheriffward.pdf I'm a little surprised to learn about my being subject to the Queen, hoping for some clarification. Edited January 24, 2016 by s0crates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Can somebody explain to me what this means?http://www.rightsidenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/AVR095-openlettertosheriffward.pdf I'm a little surprised to learn about my being subject to the Queen, hoping for some clarification. It means that there are many parallel universes where things are different. When conditions are right people from ours are swapped for those in a different one. No one, including those that have been displaced, are aware this has occurred. The results are wild inconsistencies between the facts of our reality, and the beliefs of those unfortunate individuals. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 It means that there are many parallel universes where things are different. When conditions are right people from ours are swapped for those in a different one. No one, including those that have been displaced, are aware this has occurred. The results are wild inconsistencies between the facts of our reality, and the beliefs of those unfortunate individuals. Thats hysterical, but I really do wish somebody could explain to me what she's talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted January 24, 2016 Author Share Posted January 24, 2016 Pretty much. That "Judge" is a judge because,well,she says so. Or maybe some sovereign citizen,militia lookin' person said she was. I've read where this is part ****ized posse comitatus. She's basically shoveling out a whole bunch of bull**** on why she's a judge and all those pesky lawyers and judges aren't and some other tin foil hat,other reality history. A brief explanation as to what that whole common law judge citizen grand jury stuff means to people like this can be found here. http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/oregon-burns-bundy-militia-grand-jury-occupation/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) Yeah I've seen some of this sovereign citizen stuff. I get the general "the Constitution says I can do whatever I want" attitude. It's the specifics that puzzle me. Some of it I kind of understand, like I saw a guy who insisted he did not need a drivers license or plates because he had a constitutional right to travel, and he was able to give several SCOTUS rulings to support that. I wouldn't try that stunt, but at least that kind of makes sense. I even get the open carry guys, the 2nd amendment does say they have the right. Not that I support it, but I can at least follow the logic. It's all this admiralty law, yellow frilled flag, persons as corporate legal fictions, your name in caps means something different, you are an unwitting slave and subject to the Queen stuff that I cannot make heads or tails of. I mean there must be some rationale behind it, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is. Edited January 24, 2016 by s0crates 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted January 24, 2016 Author Share Posted January 24, 2016 You aren't alone in that one. For many,it's one part revisionist,(read: made up),history. 1 part warped interpretation of the Constitution,(with the addition of stuff from W. Cleon Skousen),and big parts conspiracy theory all blended together in their heads. In this case,basically,the founding fathers knew the U.S. couldn't make it as a power so the signed secret treaties with the British Empire,(read: Puppet of),who in turn is a puppet of....oh hell it all goes to that secret bankers own everything along with the Bar. I would be careful directing the word rationale towards any of this. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) Yeah I've seen some of this sovereign citizen stuff. I get the general "the Constitution says I can do whatever I want" attitude. It's the specifics that puzzle me. Some of it I kind of understand, like I saw a guy who insisted he did not need a drivers license or plates because he had a constitutional right to travel, and he was able to give several SCOTUS rulings to support that. I wouldn't try that stunt, but at least that kind of makes sense. I even get the open carry guys, the 2nd amendment does say they have the right. Not that I support it, but I can at least follow the logic. It's all this admiralty law, yellow frilled flag, persons as corporate legal fictions, your name in caps means something different, you are an unwitting slave and subject to the Queen stuff that I cannot make heads or tails of. I mean there must be some rationale behind it, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is. It's all bull****. Just because the Constitution says you have a right doesn't mean that society can't put reasonable caveats on those rights. You have the right to free speech, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You have the right to travel, but if you are going to use public roads, then you need a driver's license. You have the right to the free exercise of your religion, that doesn't mean you can do illegal drugs because your religions says you can or should. It is very arguable that the Constitution does not say that any dummy can carry a gun at all times. These guys are dumb****s who have decided that the Constitution says whatever THEY want it to say. That's not how it works. Until THEY get appointed to the Supreme Court, their opinion of what the Constitution says is meaningless. The only reason they are being taken seriously AT ALL is because they brought guns. A gun is a Get Out Of Getting Laughed At Free card. Edited January 24, 2016 by PleaseBlitz 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 It's also because they are white. Put people of color in the same situation and they would have been arrested, jailed, shot while "resisting arrest", you name it. FBI get in there and to your job. Arrest them when they come out, don't let them back in. Where's the loud music, the tear gas? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 The NM rancher's spread is not too far from me. I have a strong urge to go camp on his Forest Service allotment and raise a ruckus. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 The NM rancher's spread is not too far from me. I have a strong urge to go camp on his Forest Service allotment and raise a ruckus. That would be pretty funny. They occupy federal land, other people occupy their land. NM law says adverse possession is 10 years. I say go for it, odds are good that if the Feds have their heads on straight those ranchers won't be coming back anytime soon. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) That would be pretty funny. They occupy federal land, other people occupy their land. NM law says adverse possession is 10 years. I say go for it, odds are good that if the Feds have their heads on straight those ranchers won't be coming back anytime soon. Can't pull adverse possession on the Feds, much as Bundy etal would like people to believe so. I do have the right to camp for 14 days at a time though. I could make dinner time for his cows awful unpleasant. <old devil smiley> I wouldn't want to go near the private part of his ranch. I figure those hills have eyes. Edited January 24, 2016 by KAOSkins 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now