Could the Injustice to the Hammond Family and the Malheur Wildlife Refuge Takeover Have Been Avoided? - What you need to know!

COULD THIS HAVE BEEN AVOIDED?
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW!

On Saturday, January 2nd, 2016, following a peaceful protest of hundreds of local Harney County, Oregon residents, a group led by Ammon Bundy of Nevada left the protest and took control of the "federally-owned" Malheur Wildlife Refuge near Burns, OR.  The group, between 50 and 150 strong, is attempting to take a stand and make a statement.

On Monday, January 4, 2016, the Bundys posted a lengthy blog titled, Full Story About What’s Going on In Oregon, on their website.  The short summary says: 

"In an effort to draw attention to a ridiculous arrest of a father and son pair of Oregon Ranchers (“Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46,) who are scheduled to begin five year prison sentences (turning themselves in tomorrow January 4th 2016), three brothers from the Cliven Bundy family and approximately 100/150 (and growing) armed militia (former U.S. service members) have taken control of Malheur Wildlife Refuge Headquarters in the wildlife reserve.  They are prepared to stay there indefinitely."

The rest of the blog post provides details going back over a century including how the takeover by the Bureau of Land Management occurred in recent decades and shows how the BLM has treated and taken action against ranchers in the area, specifically the Hammonds.  I highly recommend you read the Bundy's blog post.

From Tri-State Livestock News:

The Hammonds were charged with nine counts in the original court case. 
The BLM accused the Hammonds of several 2006 fires, including a large one known as the Granddad, which blazed about 46,000 acres. 
According to the 2012 sentencing document, the jury found the men innocent or were deadlocked on all but two counts – the two fires the men admitted to starting – burning a total of about 140 acres.
“I think that’s the biggest point of all of this – how can you prosecute people as terrorists when they aren’t a terrorist?”
Property rights attorney Karen Budd-Falen from Cheyenne, Wyoming, agrees. 
“What totally amazes me is what these guys did – they burned 140 acres. If you compare that to the EPA spill in Colorado, it amazes me that nothing will happen to those EPA employees. You have cities down there with no drinking water. The Hammonds didn’t do anything like that,” Budd-Falen said.

In August, the Western Livestock Journal provided this summary:

Dwight and Steven admitted to having started two fires, for which the court found them guilty. One of the fires was a prescribed burn in 2001 that, according the court record, accidentally spread onto 139 acres of BLM land. Those 139 acres happened to be located on one of the family’s federal grazing allotments. The other fire, from 2006, was a back-burn. Steven had set the fire on the family’s private property in order to protect their winter feed from a lightening fire that had started on adjacent BLM land. That fire accidentally spread to one acre of BLM land.
The trial court sentenced Dwight and Steven Hammond, father and son, to a combined three months, one year and one day in prison. They served their time in 2013 and are now under three years’ “supervised release.” The court additionally revoked their firearms and Dwight lost his pilot’s license.
The Hammonds are also paying $400,000 as part of a separate settlement agreement with BLM.
They may be forced to sell part of their ranch to BLM to make the payment. BLM has additionally refused to renew the family’s federal grazing permits for two years running. This means Hammonds can use neither their BLM allotments nor thousands of their private acres, which are intermingled with BLM land. It should be noted that the civil settlement and the BLM’s refusal of Hammonds’ grazing permits are, technically, unrelated to the criminal case.

The last paragraph of Monday's lengthy blog post on the Bundy website links to details regarding the Hammonds as posted on November 12, 2015, as well. 

The November entry, titled, Facts & Events in the Hammond Case, concludes:

Conclusion
The abuses and corruptions affecting people like the Hammonds are symptoms of a more encompassing problem.  Government employees (fulltime & elected) have changed their culture from one of service to, and respect for the people, to the roll of being a masters. On the subject of the land, it is evident that government employees are no longer assisting the people in claiming, using and defending property. Instead, they have become the people’s competitor to the benefits of the land, and are willing to use force on those who they erroneously compete against.
The federal government adversely controls over 582,000,000 acres of the western lands, 51% of the entire western land mass. They also have recently begun claiming over 72% of western resources such as the sub-surface minerals, forestry and waters. This is in comparison to 4.29% federally controlled land in the east.
The impact of the federal government controlling the land and resources inside the western states is hard to calculate. The negative impact on the people can be seen economically, politically, and socially. In order for any people to survive, let alone prosper, it takes the land and resources to do it. Everything we eat, the clothing we wear, the homes we live in, the cars we drive, and so on, come from the earth. All physical comfort and prosperity originates from the earth. Individuals composing the federal government, understanding the origination of wealth, are reserving these resources for themselves and are willing to use force to retain them. The ramifications of their action are slowly forcing the people of the west into poverty.
Due to the fact that people cannot survive without land and resource, the federal government’s action in administering the lands for their own benefit will be the cause of public discontent and unrest until it is corrected.
The solution is very simple, the land and resources must be made available to its rightful owners, the people. This can be done peacefully if the states & counties would check and balance the federal government as designed. When this happens, the people will begin to prosper and much of the economical, political and social problem of the west will diminish. Prosperity, peace and tranquility will be the results.

From CNN:  "We feel like we need to make sure that the Hammonds are out of prison, or well on their way. We need to make sure that there is some teeth in these land transfers, and also that those who have committed crimes ... those are exposed as well."

"There is a time to go home. We recognize that. We don't feel it's quite time yet," he said.

In his own words, here is Ammon Bundy explaining to reporters why they have taken control of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon:

SUMMARY OF REASONS WHY

1.   Make sure the Hammonds are out of prison.
2.  Transfer ownership and control of the land from the federal government to the state and local governments.
3.  Expose those that have committed crimes.

Notice he's not making "demands" for himself.  He's not some radical anti-government scary militant holding people hostage and disrupting people's lives, injuring anyone, threatening anyone or infringing on anyone's rights.  

IS THE MEDIA INTERESTED IN WHY THEY'RE THERE?

Most of the media is focused on pushing a narrative with words like "militant" and "an armed militia."  Watch this ABCNews segment calling them "anti-government" while pointing out their American flag.  Listen here as the reporter pauses emotionally and says, "some, openly armed" with a graphic pointing out their scary guns.  Oregon, by the way, is an open-carry state.

Don't fall for it, though!  These are your fellow Americans!  They aren't a bunch of deranged killers taking people hostage and causing a commotion or disruption.

If you want to see actual disruption, see #BlackLivesMatter hereherehereherehereherehere and here (to name only a few). 

Simply stated:  All Ammon Bundy wants is justice and he wants the federal government to follow the Constitution.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

According to this Washington Post article, titled, "The Oregon occupiers’ land dispute, explained in 9 maps, "More than half of Oregon is owned by the federal government, with a large percentage of that land owned by the Bureau of Land Management -- an agency widely reviled in the West and known by its acronym, BLM."

Where is the Malheur Wildlife Refuge?

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is a national wildlife refuge located roughly 30 miles (48 km) south of the city of Burns, Oregon.

The refuge is located in Harney County, OR, which lies just West of Malheur County.  Here's a map of Oregon counties.
 

IS THERE MORE TO THE STORY?

Of course there is.

Erin Maupin is "a former BLM range technician and watershed specialist and rancher in the area."  A Tri-State Livestock News article had this to say:

During her tenure as a full time BLM employee from 1997-1999, Maupin [former BLM employee] recalls other fires accidentally spilling over onto BLM land, but only the Hammonds have been charged, arrested and sentenced, she said. Ranchers might be burning invasive species or maybe weeds in the ditch. “They would call and the BLM would go and help put it out and it was not a big deal.” 
On the flip side, Maupin remembers numerous times that BLM-lit fires jumped to private land. Neighbors lost significant numbers of cattle in more than one BLM fire that escaped intended containment lines and quickly swallowed up large amounts of private land. To her knowledge, no ranchers have been compensated for lost livestock or other loss of property such as fences. 
Gary Miller, who ranches near Frenchglen, about 35 miles from the Hammonds’ hometown, said that in 2012, the BLM lit numerous backfires that ended up burning his private land, BLM permit and killing about 65 cows. 
A YouTube video named BLM Working at Burning Frenchglen-July 10, 2012 shows “back burn” fires allegedly lit by BLM personnel that are upwind of the main fire, including around Gary Miller’s corrals. The fire that appeared ready to die down several times, eventually burned around 160,000 acres, Miller said. 
Bill Wilber, a Harney County rancher, said five lightening strikes on July 13, 2014, merged to create a fire on Bartlett Mountain. The fire flew through his private ground, burned a BLM allotment and killed 39 cows and calves. 
While the fire could have been contained and stopped, BLM restrictions prevent local firefighting efforts like building a fireline, so only after taking in 397,000 acres did the fire finally stop when it came up against a series of roads. 
The issue isn’t limited to Oregon. In 2013, two South Dakota prescribed burns started by the U.S. Forest Service--over the objections of area landowners-- blew out of control, burning thousands of acres of federal and private land. Ranchers that suffered property damage from the Pautre fire in Perkins County, South Dakota filed extensive tort claims in accordance with federal requirements, but will receive no compensation because USDA found the U.S. Forest Service not responsible for that fire.

Here's an interview with a local rancher who has constant contact with BLM.  He emphasizes here that they are the bureau of "land management" not "land ownership."  This land belongs to the people even though thousands and thousands of acres are off limits.  He discusses how bureaucrats in Washington set policy for land in Oregon that should be set by local men on horses.

Mike Emry with TVOI News is on-location in Burns, OR in this interview with AVNetNews and explains what the rest of the media is missing.  In the exchange, they discuss that the current administration has taken over 260 million acres of land across the U.S. from private citizens.

WHY THE HAMMONDS?

Raquel Okyay wrote for The Rockland Times on January 6, 2016:

“The federal government is the terrorist,” said Michael Emry founder and publisher of The Voice of Idaho. “Everyone here in this town is terrified of them, and is begging for a proper redress of grievance.”
The Bureau of Land Management had closed off all the recreational areas of the refuge site in recent years, and was restricting access of the people, Emry stated. “Ranchers can’t graze their cattle. There is no more free range grazing. Their goal is to stop production. They want production only through the federal government, period.”
He said the refuge is rich with minerals, water, and natural gas. “Because the Hammonds are standing their ground and would not knuckle under the pressure, the federal government trumped up criminal charges.”

More from  Tri-State Livestock News:

“The story is like an onion, you just keep peeling back the layers,” Maupin said. 
In an effort to stave off what they feared was a pending Clinton/Babbitt monument designation in 2000, a group of ranchers on the scenic Steens Mountain worked with Oregon Representative Greg Walden, a Republican, to draft and enact the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act that would prevent such a deed. The ranchers agreed to work with special interest “environmental” groups like the aggressive Oregon Natural Desert Association and others to protect the higher-than 10,000-foot peak. 
A number of ranchers at the top of the mountain traded their BLM permits and private property for land on the valley floor, allowing Congress to create a 170,000 acre wilderness in 2000, with almost 100,000 acres being “cow-free.” 

“The last holdouts on that cow-free wilderness are the Hammonds,” said Maupin. Though some still have BLM grazing permits, the Hammonds are the last private landowners in the area. 

“It’s become more and more obvious over the years that the BLM and the wildlife refuge want that ranch. It would tie in with what they have,” said Rusty Inglis, an area rancher and retired U.S. Forest Service employee. 

The Hammonds also lost their ability to water cattle on one BLM permit when refuge personnel drained a watering hole that the Hammonds had always used. 
Maupin said the government scientists and resource managers working “on the ground” supported the Hammonds’ use of the water but that the high level bureaucrats backed special interest anti-grazing groups. “There is a huge disconnect between employees on the ground and the decision-makers.” She said that divide builds tension between ranchers and federal agencies. 
In the Hammonds’ plea agreement in the 2012 trial, the BLM obtained the first right of refusal should the family have to sell their private land, Maupin added.

Did you catch that?

In a plea deal the Hammonds had to accept that BLM now gets 'first right of refusal' should the family have to sell their property. 

Now that two of the family's main ranchers are going back to prison while they still owe $200,000, what do you think will happen to the ranch?

For another take at how BLM has treated other ranchers, please read this informative and damning article at National Review:  Oregon Standoff Reveals There Is No Adult Supervision of Federal Agencies in the West.  In an case unrelated to the Hammonds, but in dealing with a similar circumstance between a property owner and the federal government, Nevada Chief Federal District Court Judge Robert C. Jones said:

"Over the past two decades . . . government officials, and perhaps [others], entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive [the family members] not only of their [grazing] permits but also of their vested water rights. This behavior shocks the conscience.”

But again, I ask WHY?  Why intimidate, threaten, extort and torment a family ranch in that specific area with such veracity?  The rumor mill has surfaced and an investigation is certainly in order.

Meanwhile, The Oregonian reported WAY BACK on January 8, 2012 that:

Malheur County Targeted for Gold, Uranium Mines.

Sprawling Malheur County could soon be in the spotlight as a mining hub -- or a battleground of uranium and gold mining interests vs. environmentalists trying to protect its lonesome sagebrush landscape. 
Australian-owned Oregon Energy LLC hopes to mine 18 million pounds of yellowcake uranium from the southeastern Oregon high desert 10 miles west of McDermitt near the Oregon-Nevada boundary. The go-ahead to mine the so-called Aurora uranium deposit could bring up to 250 construction jobs to the county, followed by 150 mining jobs. 
Meanwhile, Calico Resources USA Corp., a subsidiary of a Vancouver, B.C., company, may seek permits this month to chemically extract microscopic gold from a high desert butte south of Vale called Grassy Mountain, a project likely to create another 100 jobs.

Could this be headed to Harney County, as well?

According to the state's website, it already is.  

The Department of State Lands (DSL) is responsible for the management, leasing, and sale of state-owned mineral rights on approximately 3 million acres throughout Oregon.
Because of its mineral endowment and varied geology, mining companies still look at Oregon as a place to explore for and develop mineral deposits.
DSL receives approximately $1.3 million per year in mineral royalties, the majority of which is derived from sand and gravel mined from state-owned submerged and submersible land.

Other minerals extracted from state-owned land include gold, rock, diatomite and natural gas. 

Most of the Department’s mineral rights are located in eastern Oregon, particularly in Lake, Harney and Malheur counties.

These mineral rights generally occur as a "split estate," underlying the surface of land owned by either a private party or another government agency, most often the Bureau of Land Management.

And when the judge couldn't believe they were being charged with these particular crimes, he reduced their sentences which they've served and completed by 2014.

Even federal Judge Hogan stated the prosecution under “terrorism statutes” itself was an overreach and he refused to assign ridiculously high sentences for behavior that almost every rancher has conducted for generations.
Those sentences were fulfilled by the father an son duo in 2013 with Steven Hammond exiting prison in January 2014.   However, it was a decision by the U.S Attorney for the State of Oregon, Amanda Marshall, who called for an appeal to the original sentencing.

AFTER SERVING THEIR TIME, THE HAMMONDS WERE SENTENCED AGAIN!

The Hammonds already served their prison sentence, but the U.S. Attorney, Amanda Marshall, called for an appeal to their sentencing.

The Oregonian:  Marshall recommended that the federal government challenge the Hammonds' original prison sentences. By law, the convictions come with mandatory five-year sentences, but U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan in 2012 balked at the punishment and instead sentenced Dwight Hammond to three months and Steven Hammond to one year. Marshall called Hogan's punishments "unlawful." The solicitor general authorized a rare appeal of an Oregon judge's order. The appeals court sided with the prosecution, and the Hammonds returned to federal court last year to face a second sentencing. At that hearing, U.S. Chief District Judge Ann Aiken ordered the pair to finish five-year terms.  

Who is Amanda Marshall?

The ConservativeTreeHouse reports:  First, she was an Obama appointee.  A very left-wing activist appointee who took office October 7th 2011.  Marshall had no experience at all as a federal prosecutor before being given the job as a U.S. Attorney for Oregon.
Marshall was plucked from a child advocacy legal job inside the Oregon Department of Justice.

March of 2015, however, she was removed from her position as she was accused of stalking a co-worker.  She said she was leaving "for health reasons" but according to The Oregonian, Marshall "was reportedly driving by his home and sending multiple texts, including several she sent telling him she knew what he was doing at the time."

At the time, according to this post, she was "was overseeing Oregon's highest profile public corruption investigation in decades: the investigation into alleged conflict of interest and influence peddling allegations involving ex-Gov. John Kitzhaber and his fiancé, former first lady Cylvia Hayes."


WHAT IS THIS REALLY ABOUT?

"This is not about the Hammonds.
This is not about the Bundys.
This is about a Federal Government that is operating outside the supreme law of the land!"
- KrisAnne Hall, former prosecutor, author, educator.

What KrisAnne Hall and many others throughout the country are saying is that the federal government is not only ignoring the Constitution, they're violating their oaths of office.  The Constitution was written to create the federal government, give it certain and defined responsibilities, limit what they can do and restrict how they can interact with a few of our natural God given rights.  

If an activity or authority is not listed in the Constitution -- if the power is not granted by We The People -- then the federal government has no jurisdiction.

When it comes to the question of why the federal government owns so much land, most people look to "the property clause" of the Constitution thinking that this is where Congress is delegated any and all responsibility to make laws regarding land they own. 

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
- U.S. Constitution, Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2

That, of course, is only part of the answer.

What's missing is the most important question:  What section of the Constitution enumerates what property the federal government can own?

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."
- U.S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17

WHAT THE BLM DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW!

Ken Ivory, President of the American Lands Council, says the federal government has not fulfilled its obligation to transfer land to the Western states according to their agreement upon entering statehood.  The enabling acts, he says, have not been enforced.


COULD THIS HAVE BEEN AVOIDED?

I believe it could have and certainly should have been avoided. 

In September, I released a book titled, Consent of the Governed - The People's Guide to Holding Government Accountable.  This book took over a year and a half to write where I compiled an incredible amount of research with over 340+ footnotes citing Supreme Court cases, law review articles, newspaper articles, textbooks and historical documents spanning more than 800 years.

I was determined to answer the question on everyone's mind:  Is there such a thing as accountability in government?  How are We The People supposed to hold our government accountable?

The good news is we don't have to wait for elections and I believe I found the answer.

Here's a quick excerpt from the Director's Cut Audiobook, Chapter 9 - The Tired Rallying Cry:

Here are the FACTS:

  • Our rights come from God, not man.
  • The purpose of the Constitution is to create the government, give it responsibilities, limit those responsibilities and make rules as to how they can and cannot interact with a few of our God given rights.
  • Every elected official and government bureaucrat swears an Oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution.
  • The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and no state law or state constitution may violate it.  They may add additional protections of our rights, but they may not remove those protected by the Supreme Law of the Land.
  • The Oregon Constitution recognizes that “all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper."
  • The U.S. Constitution protects our natural God given right to peaceably assemble and petition our government for redress of grievances.
  • Many state constitutions, including Oregon, go further protect the right to “instruct” their representatives.
  • The U.S. Constitution only gives the federal government the right to own land in the 10 square miles in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere "for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
  • Nowhere in Article 1 Section 8 is power enumerated or delegated to the federal government for a Bureau of Land Management.
  • The federal government owned the territory now known as Oregon before it became a state.  Upon becoming a state, the federal government should have relinquished control of the land to the people of Oregon, as it agreed to do upon Oregon joining the union.
  • The people of Oregon, including their representatives in government, should have demanded a long time ago that the federal government fulfill its obligation to relinquish control of their land.
  • The United States incarcerates more people per capita than any other country in the industrialized world.
  • 86% of those in federal prison, in fact, did not harm a victim.
  • It the responsibility of each juror to judge the justice of the law in question and to hold all laws invalid that violate the Constitution or conscience.
  • No instructions by judges or threats by prosecutors can trump the practice of judging the law from the jury box.  This has been done for centuries.
  • The Fifth Amendment says no one should be held to answer for crimes unless by a panel of We The People.
  • Nowhere in the Constitution did We The People delegate responsibility to control our grand juries.
  • Grand Juries have been around for over 800 years, since Magna Carta in 1215.
  • Grand Juries have been referenced throughout history and the present day as a Sword and Shield because of its power to protect the people from wrongful accusations and to reach inside the government to root out corruption.
  • The Supreme Court, in 1992 recognized that the grand jury was not assigned to the three branches of government as this institution is “separate from the courts, over who’s functioning the courts do not preside.”
  • The grand jury has the power to initiate investigations “in secrecy” and “unfettered by technical rules.”  
  • The grand jury, through the presentment power protected and expressed in the Fifth Amendment, has the ability to bring charges on their own initiative.
  • No laws can prevent them from peaceably assembling.
  • No fact tried by a jury can be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, according to the rules of the common law.

Click HERE for the YouTube Playlist to all three videos of the town hall.

The people of Burns, OR, in accordance with the rules of the common law, announced a town meeting and assembled on December 15, 2015 to form what they called the Harney County Committee of Safety where these six members were selected.

This is not new.  There is precedence for this even as far back as Jonn Hancock and the founders of this country.  Read here for a brief history on the Committee of Safety, FAQ's about the Committee of Safety, to see if one exists near you and how to start one in your area.

The people of Burns, OR, in conjunction with several groups throughout the area, assembled and compiled a list of “grievances.” This God given right is protected by both the United States and State of Oregon Constitutions. 

This list of grievances was published and distributed on December 11, 2015 to "Sheriff David Ward, Commissioner Dan Nichols, Commissioner Pete Runnels, Justice of the Peace Donna Thomas, District Attorney Tim Colahan, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, Governor Kate Brown.”

From what I’ve gathered, they’ve heard nothing in response.

Hundreds of people from Burns, OR peaceably assembled to protest on January 2, 2016 in Burns, OR against the injustice to the Hammonds for having to report back to prison to finish their mandatory minimum sentences.  They were joined by many in surrounding counties and states including Ammon Bundy from NV. 

After the protest, Ammon led a group 30 miles south to take control of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.  No federal employees were there at the time and no confrontation occurred.

Ammon’s point?  Justice for the Hammonds, bring light to the federal governments unconstitutional control of millions of acres of land and to punish those that have broken their oath to the Supreme Law of the Land.

So far, the Hammond family has made statements that they do not agree with Ammon’s occupation of the building.  

The Committee of Safety has a statement on their website that they do not agree with Ammon’s tactics.  

The national organization, Oathkeepers, who supported Ammon and the Bundy’s in their face-off with the BLM in 2014, has also made public statements against the occupation.

YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH AMMON BUNDY ACTIONS, BUT WE WOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT THE EGREGIOUS ACTIONS BY THE BLM IF HE DIDN'T

Even Harney County Oregon’s representative, Congressman Greg Walden, from the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 6, 2016, has addressed the situation with the Hammonds, the federal government’s overreach and the takeover of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in a 24-minute speech.

By the video, however, the House chamber looked empty.

BOTTOM LINE:

The people have the right to assemble.  The people have the right to petition the government.  The people have the right to instruct their representatives.  The people have the right, outside the control of the institutional branches of government, to gather in secrecy, to act as a sword by reaching inside the government to root out corruption, to initiate an investigation and to bring charges and hold our representative republican form of government accountable to the Supreme Law of the Land.  The people have a right to act as a shield in protecting their countrymen.  The people have a right to judge the law as a jurist and seek the whole truth based on their conscience, not based on the whims of a judge or prosecutor.  The people have the right to demand their representatives enforce their agreements, or face penalties for breaking their oaths of office.

People have been doing this for over 800 years.  

COULD THIS HAVE BEEN AVOIDED?

Sure.  Unfortunately, We The People fell asleep at the wheel decades ago.  We stopped learning History.  We’ve neglected our inheritance.  

But, I believe it is not too late to right this sinking ship, learn from our mistakes and implement the solutions that have been under our nose the entire time.  

The good news is that the Harney County Committee on Safety is meeting tonight.  Stay tuned here to find out what happens next.


SUPPORTING REFERENCES

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
- U.S. Constitution, Article 6 Section 2

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution"
- U.S. Constitution, Article 6 Clause 3

"Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
- U.S. Constitution, First Amendment

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."
- U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment

"Because the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside,…”
- U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. vs Williams 504 U.S. 36 (1992)

"The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.""In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.”
- U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. vs Williams 504 U.S. 36 (1992)

"The grand jury's functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised. Unlike a court, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not."
- U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. vs Williams 504 U.S. 36 (1992)

"The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation."
- U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. vs Williams 504 U.S. 36 (1992)

"In its day to day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses, and deliberates in total secrecy."
- U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. vs Williams 504 U.S. 36 (1992)

"Even in this setting, however, we have insisted that the grand jury remain free to pursue its investigations unhindered by external influence or supervision so long as it does not trench upon the legitimate rights of any witness called before it."
- U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. vs Williams 504 U.S. 36 (1992)

"Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said that the Fifth Amendment's constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge."
- U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. vs Williams 504 U.S. 36 (1992)

"Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.”
- Oregon Constitution, Article 1 Section 1

"Section 26. Assemblages of people; instruction of representatives; application to legislature.No law shall be passed restraining any of the inhabitants of the State from assembling together in a peaceable manner to consult for their common good; nor from instructing their Representatives; nor from applying to the Legislature for redress of greviances”
- Oregon Constitution, Article 1 Section 26

"To exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."
- Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
- Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2


Meanwhile:
75% of Americans think the U.S. Government is Corrupt

A staggering 75 percent of Americans say that “corruption is widespread throughout the government.”

"The perception that there’s widespread corruption in the national government could be a symptom of citizen disengagement and anger."
Jim Clifton, Chairman and CEO Gallup


Order yours TODAY!

Order yours TODAY!