Page 80 of 82 FirstFirst ... 30707879808182 LastLast
Results 1,581 to 1,600 of 1625

Thread: Armed Protest

  1. Back To Top    #1581
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,765
    NDA Points
    5,497
    NDA Level
    31
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,627
    Given: 1,087

    Rowdie go back a ways in the thread to were espringers argued the same thing.

    Then realize from where the FBI agent was that fired the shot that hand that you have mistaken for a gun was not visable until it was raised above his head.

    Here is a you tube clip of the gal that refiled charges on the Hammonds and ultimately got the right of first refusal for the govt to buy the land the Hammonds were not willing to sell written into their plea agreement.


    1 Not allowed!

  2. Back To Top    #1582
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,765
    NDA Points
    5,497
    NDA Level
    31
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,627
    Given: 1,087
    Well at least they are investigating it.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/06/fbi_agent_indicted_accused_of.html

    FBI agent indicted for alleged false statements in LaVoy Finicum shooting

    Updated on June 27, 2017 at 10:42 PMPosted on June 27, 2017 at 6:46 PM















    0shares

    BY MAXINE BERNSTEIN
    mbernstein@oregonian.com
    The Oregonian/OregonLive

    An FBI agent has been indicted on federal accusations that he lied about firing at Robert "LaVoy" Finicum last year as police arrested the leaders of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation.
    The agent will face allegations of making a false statement with intent to obstruct justice, according to sources familiar with the case.
    The indictment stems from a more than year-long investigation by the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Justice. The agent will be identified when he's summoned to appear in U.S. District Court in Portland at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday.
    Investigators said a member of the FBI's elite Hostage Rescue Team fired at Finicum as his 2015 Dodge pickup truck crashed into a snow bank at a roadblock on U.S. 395. Finicum had just sped away from a surprise traffic stop on the rural highway as the occupation leaders traveled off the refuge to a community meeting Jan. 26, 2016.
    The agent's bullets didn't hit Finicum, 54, an Arizona rancher who was the spokesman for the armed takeover of the federal sanctuary near Burns in Harney County. Moments later, state police troopers shot Finicum three times after he emerged from his white truck and reached for his inner jacket pocket, where police said he had a loaded 9mm handgun. One bullet pierced his heart, an autopsy found.
    Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles Gorder Jr. revealed in court papers last June that a grand jury was reviewing the FBI actions. Gorder was explaining the government's desire to keep its memorandum about the inspector general's investigation out of the hands of defense lawyers representing other occupation leaders on federal conspiracy charges.
    The FBI and state police had moved in on Ammon Bundy and other key figures as they were driving in two vehicles from the refuge to a meeting in John Day. Finicum initially stopped but then raced off from police, and less than a minute later swerved into the snow to avoid the roadblock set up by FBI and state police.
    As Finicum left his truck, an FBI agent shot twice at Finicum, though none of the hostage team members admitted to discharging their firearms, the Deschutes County sheriff alleged. The county sheriff's office was tasked with investigating the Finicum shooting.


    FBI agents under investigation for possible misconduct in LaVoy Finicum shooting
    Investigators find evidence that an FBI agent fired at Finicum, but later denied it. His bullets didn't hit Finicum or contribute to his death. The investigation found two state troopers were justified in shooting the occupation spokesman three times in the back.

    The Oregon investigators concluded that one agent fired at Finicum's truck, hitting it in the roof and missing on the second shot. A state trooper later described to investigators seeing two rifle casings in the area where the FBI agents were posted. But detectives called to investigate didn't find the casings, police reports indicated.
    Federal law prohibits "knowingly and willfully'' making any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation or concealing information.
    Less than two months after the shooting, the FBI acknowledged that a federal agent was under investigation for firing shots and four other members of his FBI team were under investigation for covering up the gunshots. The status of the investigation into the four other FBI team member is unclear.
    At a news conference in March 2016, Portland's-then FBI Special Agent in Charge Greg Bretzing told reporters, "The question of who fired these shots has not been resolved.''
    It's unclear if the indicted agent is on leave or has been dismissed from his job. The hostage team is part of the FBI's Critical Incident Response Group, based out of Quantico, Virginia.
    Oregon's U.S. Attorney Billy J. Williams has scheduled a news conference later Wednesday afternoon at the federal courthouse. His spokesman Kevin Sonoff declined any comment, and Portland's FBI spokeswoman Jennifer Adams said she was unaware of the matter.
    The indictment follows two federal trials against refuge occupiers accused of conspiring to impede U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management employees from doing their work at the refuge through intimidation, threat or force.
    Ammon Bundy, older brother Ryan Bundy and five other defendants were acquitted last fall of conspiracy and weapons charges. A second trial of four other occupiers resulted in split verdicts earlier this year, with defendants Jason Patrick and Darryl Thorn convicted of conspiracy and others convicted of damaging government property and misdemeanor charges, including trespass.
    Finicium's widow, Jeanette Finicum, has said she plans to sue Oregon State Police and the FBI for civil rights violations in her husband's death. The suit will allege that state police and the FBI used excessive force in the confrontation that could have ended peacefully and that improper police procedures and lack of communication between state police and FBI agents at the scene contributed to his death, her lawyer said.


    0 Not allowed!
    Last edited by gst; 06-28-2017 at 09:50 AM.

  3. Back To Top    #1583
    VIP Member
    Obi-Wan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Bismarck
    Posts
    798
    NDA Points
    21,822
    NDA Level
    64
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 935
    Given: 598
    It concerns me when the government tries to prevent the facts from getting out in any criminal case.

    " Gorder was explaining the government's desire to keep its memorandum about the inspector general's investigation out of the hands of defense lawyers representing other occupation leaders on federal conspiracy charges "

    I also believe the rounds fired at Finicum as he exited the truck with his hands up influenced his mindset when he went for his weapon.

    1 Not allowed!

  4. Back To Top    #1584
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,765
    NDA Points
    5,497
    NDA Level
    31
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,627
    Given: 1,087
    Yeah I don;t get how people think that if you are getting out of a vehicle with your hands up having a shot fired at you shattering a pickup window inches from your head while other gunfire simulators (ninebangers) are going off is not going to put in your head...." hey maybe these guys are trying to kill me"

    Finnicum should have stayed in the vehicle. He should not have left the first traffic stop. Ultimately his actions led to his death.

    But how the FBI handled it was designed to end in that outcome. The FBI, under a president that wants to increase restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms, wanted an example made of those that would question the govt by embracing the 2nd amendment.

    Remember the Gov. of Oregon spoke with the administration and head of the FBI and DOJ over this issue and wanted a quick and decisive ending.

    0 Not allowed!

  5. Back To Top    #1585
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,765
    NDA Points
    5,497
    NDA Level
    31
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,627
    Given: 1,087
    Allen do you mean handling things in courts like this one with this judge?

    https://redoubtnews.com/2017/07/judg...bundy-retrial/

    On Monday, the judge eviscerated the defense’s legal strategy, putting off limits a whole host of issues that might make it more difficult for the government to win convictions. The defendants will be forbidden from arguing that they were exercising their constitutional rights to peaceably assemble and bear arms. They may not highlight the actions of BLM agents in the days leading up to the incident or mention federal gaffes such as the ill-advised “First Amendment” zone created for protesters.
    And if imposing these restrictions on the defense wasn’t enough, Judge Navarro ruled that prosecutors may introduce testimony about the four accused men and their associations with so-called militia groups.

    http://freerangereport.com/index.php...angaroo-court/


    Court spectators such as John Lamb, an unrelated party who traveled from Montana to watch the trial, spoke each day on a live Facebook video, after proceedings had adjourned, with notes in hand. Every afternoon, Lamb’s recounting of the trial day became more disturbing as he reported that even the most basic rights were ignored in the federal courtroom in Las Vegas. Judge Gloria Navarro told one defendant he had only three rights in her courtroom: to plead guilty, to testify on his own behalf, and to appeal his conviction, according to Lamb. Meanwhile, witnesses for the prosecution – most of them government agents – could remain in the courtroom before their own testimony. Defense witnesses were told to leave.
    Other spectators confirmed Lamb’s account and more. Many of those in the courtroom carried pocket-sized Constitutions; Judge Navarro subsequently ruled that the Constitution was not allowed in the courtroom unless it was turned face-down. On April 10, a man named Neil Wampler was escorted out of the courtroom and his things collected by a U.S. marshal because he had a copy of the U.S. Constitution in his pocket that was visible to the judge.
    Maureen Peltier, another trial watcher, took to Facebook April 10 after a long day in court to warn others that according to remarks made by prosecutors, “to hit ‘like’ on comments or posts or give a ‘thumbs up’ can be considered evidence to criminalize you.”
    Other abuses reported by Lamb, Peltier, and others who attended the last six weeks of the trial include the following:

    • The defense was allowed to call only three witnesses; others were denied the opportunity to testify. The prosecution called over thirty and was given carte blanche to discuss any topic it deemed necessary.
    • Judge Navarro instructed defense witnesses that they were not allowed to show emotion on the stand. They could not discuss their faith, their fear during the standoff, or anything else that “might tug the heartstrings of the jury.”
    • Some federal agents for the prosecution testified under false names and were allowed to obfuscate information regarding informants they were handling at the time.
    • The defense was not allowed to cross-examine some of the prosecution’s witnesses.

    0 Not allowed!

  6. Back To Top    #1586
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Bismarck
    Posts
    228
    NDA Points
    2,462
    NDA Level
    20
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 247
    Given: 42
    Gst, do you know for a fact that what you just posted is actually even true? I read your links and decided to do a quick google search of the websites. They aren't know for objective writing. That doesn't mean these stories are false but I am personally highly suspicious. I then googled the named sources for their information, in particular Maureen Peltier and John Lamb. Both of them appear to be sympathizers of the Bundys and Hammonds. Hardly objective people imo. Again, that doesn't mean their accounts are wrong but I personally take their accounts with a grain of salt and would suggest to anyone to at least do a quick check on who is writing these articles and who their sources are. Then again, I tend to do that with pretty much anything I read or hear about before I'm willing to just accept what is being presented by people I've never heard of. Incorrect information is dangerous imo. Again, it doesn't mean their accounts are wrong but I'm not willing to just accept that this judge is shady just because a few people (who happen to be sympathizers to the parties accused in this case) said so.

    0 Not allowed!

  7. Back To Top    #1587
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,765
    NDA Points
    5,497
    NDA Level
    31
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,627
    Given: 1,087
    Marble.........you claim "incorrect information is dangerous"............in the same post that you insinuate a story is not true.......without any proof it is not true........while admitting it may be true..........

    Can you provide a historic pattern of those two sources posting information that is not fact?

    If you can not, would an insinuation they may not be "incorrect information" which by your own admission is "dangerous"??

    The media source writing the story believes strongly in the Constitution so it makes sense that they would be supportive of those holding the govt to the limitations within the Constitution.

    But your usage of the term "sympathizers" is designed for the same effect as your insiunaion of untruth you did not prove.

    If you have proof what was posted was not fact, please provide it as I do not wish to same what is not true.

    If you can not, it seems you are merely engaging in "dangerous" actions by your own standards.

    - - - Updated - - -

    There are a few other news sources out there that also mention the judge allowing "dozens" of prosecution witnesses while limiting defense witnesses by ruling against their legal strategy.

    There have also been audio accounts from those in attendance which shared the same information listed.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Marble out of curiousity did you know that Harry Reid recommended this Judge for her Federal position?

    The same Harry Reid that labeled the Bundys "domestic terrorists" publically?

    The same Harry Reid whos sons are involved in the land deal with Chinese investors that have been directly linked to the BLM lands the Bundys were grazing on?

    https://lasvegassun.com/news/2010/feb/11/navarro-confirmation-hearings-under-way/

    "Reid's glowing testimony came despite the fact that Navarro is one of the lowest rated of the federal judicial nominations made by Obama since March. A substantial majority of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, meaning 10 to 13 of its 15 m,embers, rated her as qualified whereas a minority determined her to be not qualified. Only one other nominee among the 45 made by Obama since he took office was determined to be not qualified by at least some members of the committee."

    - - - Updated - - -




    - - - Updated - - -

    The above is a filing from the prosecution that was granted by the judge limiting defense witnesses essentially removing their case that action by Federal agents violated the civil rights of those protesting that are on trial.

    This is tied directly to the concern of the prosecution over a jury nullification result.

    0 Not allowed!

  8. Back To Top    #1588
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Bismarck
    Posts
    228
    NDA Points
    2,462
    NDA Level
    20
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 247
    Given: 42
    Quote Originally Posted by gst View Post
    Marble.........you claim "incorrect information is dangerous"............in the same post that you insinuate a story is not true.......without any proof it is not true........while admitting it may be true..........

    Can you provide a historic pattern of those two sources posting information that is not fact?

    If you can not, would an insinuation they may not be "incorrect information" which by your own admission is "dangerous"??

    The media source writing the story believes strongly in the Constitution so it makes sense that they would be supportive of those holding the govt to the limitations within the Constitution.

    But your usage of the term "sympathizers" is designed for the same effect as your insiunaion of untruth you did not prove.

    If you have proof what was posted was not fact, please provide it as I do not wish to same what is not true.

    If you can not, it seems you are merely engaging in "dangerous" actions by your own standards.

    - - - Updated - - -

    There are a few other news sources out there that also mention the judge allowing "dozens" of prosecution witnesses while limiting defense witnesses by ruling against their legal strategy.

    There have also been audio accounts from those in attendance which shared the same information listed.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Marble out of curiousity did you know that Harry Reid recommended this Judge for her Federal position?

    The same Harry Reid that labeled the Bundys "domestic terrorists" publically?

    The same Harry Reid whos sons are involved in the land deal with Chinese investors that have been directly linked to the BLM lands the Bundys were grazing on?

    https://lasvegassun.com/news/2010/fe...ngs-under-way/

    "Reid's glowing testimony came despite the fact that Navarro is one of the lowest rated of the federal judicial nominations made by Obama since March. A substantial majority of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, meaning 10 to 13 of its 15 m,embers, rated her as qualified whereas a minority determined her to be not qualified. Only one other nominee among the 45 made by Obama since he took office was determined to be not qualified by at least some members of the committee."

    - - - Updated - - -




    - - - Updated - - -

    The above is a filing from the prosecution that was granted by the judge limiting defense witnesses essentially removing their case that action by Federal agents violated the civil rights of those protesting that are on trial.

    This is tied directly to the concern of the prosecution over a jury nullification result.

    In all of that rambling you just did, you never did answer my question...and it wasn't a complicated one. I'll ask it again, "do you know for a fact that what you posted is actually even true?



    Here are some possible answers to your questions:

    https://www.google.com/amp/www.facta...-land-grab/amp

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...dy-ranch-pers/

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp

    http://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/a...t-sen-harry-r/

    https://www.google.com/amp/www.thebl...situation/amp/

    - - - Updated - - -

    And yes gst, I did know Harry Reid nominated judge Gloria Navarro. Did you know the senate confirmed her 98-0?

    0 Not allowed!

  9. Back To Top    #1589
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,765
    NDA Points
    5,497
    NDA Level
    31
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,627
    Given: 1,087
    Marble just time now to do a quick comment on your first link to provide the "facts" as you seem concerned with.

    http://www.factandmyth.com/conspirac...eral-land-grab

    Lets just take this one statement from your seeming liberal leaning site which leads one to possibly wonder of their "bias"

    From the article."Grazing rules were also changed in order to accommodate restoration needed from years of overgrazing and recent fires. These new rules would include Bundy having to reduce his number of cattle."

    It was interesting when clicking on the underlied blue language that it went to a LA Times story

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-vegas-blm-range-war-20140407-story.html#axzz2z7aS8dzj

    Hmmmm, lets read a biot in that story that is supposedly given to privde some sort of fact and expertise on "over grazing and recent fires".

    Lets examine exactly who is providing this "fact based" expertise on the over grazing priotion of this statement.

    From the LA Times article above...."Environmentalists say it’s time for Bundy to get his cattle off federal land because they are endangering the habitat of creatures who have been there for eons."Despite having no legal right to do so, cattle from Bundy’s ranch have continued to graze throughout the Gold Butte area, competing with tortoises for food, hindering the ability of plants to recover from extensive wildfires, trampling rare plants, damaging ancient American Indian cultural sites and threatening the safety of recreationists,” the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity said in a statement.


    At this point marble I simply will ask is this and example your unbiased "fact" based information you demand?

    Later if you wish we can break down the statement about the BLM grazing rules.....I have already extensively explained them and provided the links that show what was posted as fact.

    Mean while perhaps you could examine the Centers position on grazing public lands and wonder how your statement "I personally take their accounts with a grain of salt and would suggest to anyone to at least do a quick check on who is writing these articles and who their sources are. Then again, I tend to do that with pretty much anything I read or hear about before I'm willing to just accept what is being presented by people I've never heard of" fits here. Have you heard of the Center for Biological Diversity before marble? if not perhaps you can study a few other policy beliefs of the Center as well before you hold them up as an example.

    hopefully when I have time ot read your other links they are a bit less of the environmental "sympathizer" ideology and full of a bit less biased "fact".


    - - - Updated - - -

    Oh hey, just another tidbit from one of the "sources" hilited in blue from, your first article.....
    As The Wildlife News writes:
    We hope to write more about the history of America’s public lands because the public’s lack of knowledge plays into the hands of political and media manipulators..


    Here is a bit more from that "source" you share as unbiased fact......... and interesting read for those sportsmen and predator hunters on here Marble.

    "Added Nov. 14, 2014.One conclusion I have slowly come to is that I cannot justify the hunting of carnivores, at least with modern weapons. Carnivore hunters rarely eat a significant portion of a kill. Many of them hunt out of a misplaced animosity toward their quarry, as though it was pest extermination. For example, those who hunt elk almost never hate the elk. Today in North America and over most of the world, carnivores are no longer a meaningful threat to life or limb. Even if they were, killing an animal in proactive or actual defense of a person’s life, is not hunting.
    There is no scientific agreement that carnivores are a threat to herbivorous game animal populations. Of course, carnivores influence, affect game populations. That is not the same is threaten or deplete.
    Trophy is the only possibility, but there is almost no danger to a person with today’s weapons. A trophy would be deserved if a large carnivore was killed in a traditional way such as an arrow or spear. One good of hunting is the recapitulation of the struggle humanity had at a time when it lacked advanced technology. Handicapping the human hunter of today would make a difference.
    Finally, recent studies of wolf hunting in the United States shows that rather than hunting building tolerance for wolves as wildlife, the opposite is true. Hunters should not be haters.
    Ralph Maughan, editor
    The Wildlife New

    http://www.thewildlifenews.com/about-hunting/ "

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Marbleyes View Post
    - - - Updated - - -

    And yes gst, I did know Harry Reid nominated judge Gloria Navarro. Did you know the senate confirmed her 98-0?
    Yes I did Marble, as is customary in these lower court appointments....who would oppose a Latino woman being appointed to a judicial seat...........

    Oh hey just in case you did NOT know this, here is the stance of the Center for Bioplogical diversity (you know the org from your "unbiased" fact based article, on grazing of public lands........


    http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/grazing/
    GRAZING

    The ecological costs of livestock grazing exceed that of any other western land use. In the arid West, livestock grazing is the most widespread cause of species endangerment. By destroying vegetation, damaging wildlife habitats and disrupting natural processes, livestock grazing wreaks ecological havoc on riparian areas, rivers, deserts, grasslands and forests alike — causing significant harm to species and the ecosystems on which they depend.


    OUR CAMPAIGN

    Since our founding, the Center has led efforts to reform overgrazing on public lands in the West. Our work protecting endangered species has removed cattle from hundreds of vulnerable riparian areas in national forests in Arizona, New Mexico and California over the years; in 1999 and 2000 alone, we brought pressure and lawsuits resulting in cows and sheep being removed or restricted on more than 2.5 million acres of habitat for the desert tortoise, southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo in the vast California Desert Conservation Area, and in 2012 legislation was passed to allow permanent retirement of grazing privileges in the California Desert Conservation Area to offset impacts from development of large-scale industrial solar projects — an unequivocal acknowledgement of the significant impacts that public lands grazing has on the arid western landscapes.
    Center legal action has compelled the Forest Service to do an environmental impact statement on the impacts of grazing on more than 13 endangered species; in the late 1990s, our work persuaded the Bureau of Land Management to remove cattle from all or part of 32 allotments along the middle Gila River and the Forest Service to remove cattle from 250 miles of streams on 52 allotments in the upper Gila.
    The Center also played a leading role in the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, including drafting of a report criticizing the proposed “Ranch Conservation” element of Pima County’s Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and promoting alternative recommendations to stop grazing in critical habitat for imperiled species. In 2010, Center work helped stop domestic sheep grazing on 7,500 acres in and around the greater Yellowstone ecosystem to protect grizzly bears, lynx, wolves and bighorn; we also halted grazing on a quarter-million acres of Oregon’s Malheur National Forest to protect steelhead trout. In 2011, Center appeals stopped grazing on 33,000 acres of national forest land in Arizona.
    The Center and allies sued the federal government to compel it to fix agency budget woes by reforming the grazing program, which loses money just as rapidly and consistently as it destroys habitat. Unfortunately, in 2014 the Obama administration announced it would refuse to increase grazing fees to levels reflecting grazing’s true financial and environmental costs.
    Livestock grazing is also a major threat to greater sage grouse across Sagebrush Sea. In 2014 and 2015 we worked to reign in livestock grazing to protect sage grouse habitat and the myriad other species that this beautiful ecosystem supports in new land-management plans across about 60 million acres of federal public lands.

    0 Not allowed!

  10. Back To Top    #1590
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Bismarck
    Posts
    228
    NDA Points
    2,462
    NDA Level
    20
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 247
    Given: 42
    Neat story gst. Again, you still did not answer my question. You are doing everything you can to avoid answering it. Why is that? I'll ask it for a third time. Do YOU know for a fact that what YOU posted is even true?

    Here are my exact words in reference to the links I posted. "Here are some possible answers to your questions". That is a far cry from your claim of "you know the org from your "unbiased" fact based article". Please show me where I stated they were "unbiased" fact based articles". Your lack of comprehension is astounding.

    I have dealt with you enough to know your way of "debating" with others. I think everyone on this site is aware of your tactics. There is a reason I posted 5 links from different sources. All of which you will try to discredit and specifically the reason I posted an article from the blaze and from the Las Vegas sun. You will have a hard time trying to paint the blaze as "a seeming liberal site". You will also have a hard time trying to discredit the Las Vegas sun article as well considering you just used them yourself as a source to try to prove a different point but I'm looking forward to watching you try. I am also looking forward to hearing an answer to the question I asked you multiple times already, which is, "do YOU know for a fact that what YOU posted is even true".

    2 Not allowed!
    Last edited by Marbleyes; 07-17-2017 at 06:54 PM.

  11. Back To Top    #1591
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,765
    NDA Points
    5,497
    NDA Level
    31
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,627
    Given: 1,087
    Marble go back thru the this thread and others relating and you will find links to various other references of what has been occurring. I shared other links that provided court documents showing a petition ot the judge to limit testimonies as was reportedly done.

    Given the fact I have had somone that I know speaking directly with people within the court room and this person has played audio on public radio sharing people making these same claims as far as I know this is true.

    As I also said, if you have anything opther than your "gut feeling" and natural skeptisima it is not PLEASE share with us so we can know for certain. Otherwise all you have offered is speculation. ....

    Oh and some links with sources like the Center for Biological diversity as your "authority" of fact on grazing.

    And I to are familiar enough wth your style of debate.you demand others post fact based provable information and yet when you post information that was easily and quickly proved not to even mean your own demanded standards you deflect away form what you demanded in the first place.

    So please answer the question I have now asked you multiple times.....do you know for a fact what I have posted is not factually accurate?

    And please no more Center for biological diversity or Wild life news sites okay.......

    - - - Updated - - -

    Well lets move on to the second site link you offered...........

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...dy-ranch-pers/

    Politifact leaves out a few pertinent "facts" that have been share numerous times on this site and others of the history of Harry Reids involvement. Perhaps this site is a bit less of a "sympathizer" type site.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...87U06D20120831

    "Nevada's Largest Law Firm

    To advance the Nevada project, ENN retained the state's largest and most prestigious law firm - Lionel Sawyer & Collins, where Rory Reid works. It is headed by Richard Bryan, a former Nevada attorney general, governor and member of the U.S. Senate.
    Rory Reid faced a one-year cooling off period from lobbying the Clark County commission after leaving his post in January 2011, and Bryan took the lead on ENN's negotiations with the county.


    The two Reids deny discussing the ENN project.
    "I have never discussed the project with my father or his staff," said Rory Reid. Kristen Orthman, a spokeswoman for the senator, said he had not discussed the project with his son.

    Indeed what are the odds the two "never discussed" something such as that...........

    Now it seem neither Politifact nor you understand mitigation. Lands do not have to be connected or even nearby to mitigate the usage of one with the other.

    Actually millions of public lands under Obama were opened up for solar energy development under mitigation agreements with environmental and wildlfie activist groups.


    http://freebeacon.com/issues/blm-des...ent-in-nevada/


    The solar project, the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone (SEZ), will occupy 15,649 acres 15 miles northeast of Las Vegas, roughly 60 miles south of Bunkerville.
    In preparation for the mitigation strategy report for Dry Lake, the BLM held four workshops, which featured a presentation by Brightsource Energy, a politically connected solar company that received a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the Energy Department for a solar farm in California.
    Brightsource CEO John Woolard has visited the White House 10 times since Obama took office, and held a fundraiser and donated $2,400 to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) in 2010.
    The "Redefining Mitigation: Solar Industry View" presentation was delivered by Clay Jensen of Brightsource on Aug. 29, 2012. Jensen discussed mitigation efforts for "maximizing land efficiency" and "minimizing footprint."
    Another presentation, by Michael Dwyer of the BLM, on an action plan for Dry Lake referenced the 1992 book Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future by Donella H. Meadows. Dwyer is the project manager for the Dry Lake zone.
    The book’s premise is: "If the world settles for two children per couple and the per capita income of South Korea, we can avoid collapse and find an equilibrium at 7.7 billion people through 2100."
    Another solar project was proposed just north of the Bundy Ranch, in Lincoln County.
    The East Mormon Mountain SEZ, which would have been built on 8,968 acres just 13 miles northwest of Bunkerville, was eliminated in the 2012 final environmental impact statement because of "visual impacts" of a solar plant on the landscape of the Mormon Mountains.
    The proposed project was also canceled due to concerns that the Gourd Springs grazing allotment, located just north of Clark County, would be reduced by 9.1 percent.
    The allotment was "previously reduced" by 38,262 acres, or 40 percent, in September 2000 to protect the desert tortoise.
    "Because the SEZ would occupy the best grazing land in the allotment, it is likely that the grazing operation would become economically infeasible and all 3,458 AUMs currently authorized would be lost," the BLM said.
    However, environmentalist groups pushed for the solar project to go ahead as planned.
    The Wilderness Society, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club–Toiyabe Chapter, and others supported the project.


    - - - Updated - - -

    The "presentation" on mitigation has some interesting stuff in it marble...it even kinda blows a pretty big hole in the politifact reasoning that proximity was the reason there was no connection......

    From page 22 of the presentation of "new mitigation stratagies"...... http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/upl...sentations.pdf

    "BLM should explicitly state that proximityto impacts should not be primary factor forprioritization"



    But yet this is what your fact based information source claims......

    "
    • Reid’s son had represented a Chinese firm that had been interested in developing a solar energy array, but the deal involved land far from the Bundy property and collapsed a year ago.
    • The Bureau of Land Management has identified a desert area for solar power development, but it is about 50 miles away from both the Bundy ranch and the federal land where he likes to graze his cattle.


    Do you wish me to keep on disecting your "fact" based links you provided?

    You do know marble that Sen Harry Reid used the "nuclear option" to appoint his aide Neil Kornze as head of the BLM by passing several other more qualified individuals right?

    But hey Sen Reid has such a stellar record of transparency and integrity there likely is really nothing to it as you suggest.

    taake a few days and go back thru the entire thread Marble. answers to your questions (and accusations) lie within.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Marbleyes View Post
    You will also have a hard time trying to discredit the Las Vegas sun article as well considering you just used them yourself as a source to try to prove a different point but I'm looking forward to watching you try.".
    Well okay........ once again......From page 22 of the presentation of "new mitigation stratagies"...... http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/upl...sentations.pdf

    "BLM should explicitly state that proximityto impacts should not be primary factor forprioritization"


    From your Las Vegas Sun link marble......same "fake news" given what we now know from the text of an ACTUAL BLM presentation that proximity is not a factor..........

    It also seems this author does not understand mitigation. You see they do not need the ranch site for the actual solar energy site......the lands where ever the site is located must be "mitigated" to ease Environ=mental impact by limiting environmental impact on the lands ot be mitigated.

    As you have read (I hope) part of easing this environmental impact on mitigated lands is to remove or severely reduce grazing. I understand how some gal from Las Vegas metro may not quite understand that to get it "FACTUALLY" right.............

    But wait a minute YOUR site says Reid identified for the solar plant".......so how can he not be involved???

    Geography: Bundy’s ranch is in Bunkerville, about 75 miles northeast of Las Vegas. The land that Reid identified for the solar plant was about 90 miles south of Las Vegas in Laughlin. That puts the Bundy ranch and the solar plant site about a three-hour drive apart. They’re simply not in the same part of the state.

    Another project comes close. But not that close: Bundy’s home in the Mojave desert is closer to the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone, a corridor that has been slated for renewable energy development. The BLM is planning a mitigation strategy that may stretch toward the area where Bundy has been grazing his cows. But even there, the maps don’t match up closely enough to suggest that Bundy’s specific grazing land was the intended site of a solar facility. Also, the Chinese company ENN had not been planning a facility in the Dry Lake area.

    |

    Wait a minute, wasn;t there some stuff about combining conservation areas along with purchased private lands with mitigation lands in that presentation......So this would actually seem to support those theories of the BLM coveting the lands the Bundy cattle were grazing on for conservation areas. You seem marble, tens of thousands of acres of grazing allotments are being cut or eliminated for conservation areas for the desert tortoise and other endangered species it is a ploy the Center for Biological Diversity loves to file law suits for. And when that reduction happens it impacts the required usage of 50% (or more in some cases) of the grazing fee lands being used to IMPROVE GRAZING OPPORTUNITIES as the law requires.

    Where Reid’s agenda and Bundy’s cattle grazing do overlap: Bundy’s cattle have been grazing on land that Reid and Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nev., have targeted for future wilderness protections. Both Reid and Horsford have filed legislation to turn the Gold Butte area into a national conservation area. But this is entirely separate from the solar project. A conservation status discourages development, and it’s near impossible to greenlight a solar project on conservation land.

    The start of the Chinese solar project: Reid went to China in 2011 to lock down the deal. The ENN Mojave Energy project was supposed to help yank Southern Nevada’s flailing economy out of the recession and into the foreground of renewable energy development in America. Clark County fast-tracked the required reviews and approvals. But construction never started.
    Where it got stuck: In June 2013, ENN said it was dumping the project because the “market will not support a project of this scale and nature at this time. So right now, there is no massive Chinese-backed solar project in the works and certainly not one that requires the removal of Bundy’s cows.
    The timelines don’t line up: Bundy’s battle with the BLM started in 1993 when he stopped paying his grazing fees, 18 years before anyone talked about putting Chinese money into the Nevada desert for renewable energy. Talk about the Chinese solar project started in 2011 and ended in 2013. And the Bundy-BLM confrontation came this month, long after the solar project died.

    "at this time"..........sounds like this was NOT the dead in the water deal this author is trying ot portray it as now is it marble......and now that we KNOW that millions of acres of Federal public lands were going ot be opened up for solar energy development and "green projectsunder Obama, perhaps they thought this policy would continue under Hillary?

    And one last one marble........
    More on Kornze: It’s not exactly true that this was the first move of Reid’s former aide as BLM director. The roundup started April 5, and Kornze wasn’t confirmed by the Senate as BLM director until April 8.

    The author leaves out just a bit of history of Mr Kornze and the job he had as Sen Reids Aide.
    Senatorial staff[edit]

    Kornze worked in the office of Nevada Senator Harry Reid from 2003 until 2011,[3] where he worked on a variety of public lands issues, including renewable energy development, mining, water, outdoor recreation, rural development, and wildlife.[4] During his tenure, Kornze participated in the design of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which designated 2 million acres of wilderness, codified the National Landscape Conservation System, and added 1,000 river-miles to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.[1]
    Seems like Mr Kornze may have had the connections to involve himself even more than three days earlier than his official confirmation.



    - - - Updated - - -

    Not so much marble.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Marble, logging in to two of your sites within two clicks I was directed to a piece from the Center for Biological Diversity. They were behind all the wolf hunting season lawsuits as well.

    Just a little advice..........when your posting on a hunting site.....I don;t think people will give much credibility to sites where they are involved as authorities on anything............just sayin, take it for what it's worth.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Well hell, lets take a look at The Blaze site you offered and see if we can raise a few questions. So okay then I likely do not have to repeat the "proximity" myth that was debunked again do I??

    But doesn;t your own site (the hilited red comments) seem to confirm Reids were working with the Chinese and the BLM was seeking ot mitigate the Federal lands the Bundy grazing allotments were on?????

    Now the rest of it is once again already covered waaaaayyy back in this thread where the rules governing the required use at least 50% of the grazing fees to "improve grazing opportunities" as well as the courts ruling in Wayne Hages favor that grazing rights are tangible properties as well as a link that shows the IRS considers them transferrable property that has a value to be taxed upon generational transference thru estates.



    6. Is Harry Reid working with the Chinese to force the Bundys out?

    The facts don’t support it.
    Reid and his son, Rory, were both deeply involved in a deal with the Chinese-owned ENN Energy Group to build a $5 billion solar farm in Laughlin, Nevada. But that is roughly 177 miles away from Bundy’s 150-acre ranch in Bunkerville, Nev., and 213 miles from the federally owned Gold Butte area where Bundy ‘s cattle graze, according to Google Maps.


    Image source: Google MapsIt’s worth noting that Rory Reid is the former chair of the Clark County commission (Clark County is located near the Gold Butte area). He left in 2011 to work for a Las Vega law firm representing ENN.
    But despite the Reids’ best attempts to secure the land for ENN, and despite the Bureau of Land Management expressing concerns that “trespass cattle” could complicate plans to use land in the Gold Butte area for “offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development,” it was all in vain: The Chinese company eventually shelved the project in June 2013 when it failed to find a customer. The deal is over and the proposed construction will not happen.





    - - - Updated - - -

    It will be interesting to see what Judge Navarro does during the retrial of those the jury would not convict. Perhaps you should travel to the hearing yourself marble to get it straight from the horses mouth.

    Mean while men whom never threatened law enforcement with a fire arm rot in jail prohibited from bail while folk like these walk free.

    "oink oink bang bang".....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feY0diCOp-Y

    0 Not allowed!
    Last edited by gst; 07-17-2017 at 11:23 PM.

  12. Back To Top    #1592
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Bismarck
    Posts
    228
    NDA Points
    2,462
    NDA Level
    20
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 247
    Given: 42
    "Given the fact I have had somone that I know speaking directly with people within the court room and this person has played audio on public radio sharing people making these same claims as far as I know this is true."

    There we go, you finally answered my question, "as far as I know this is true".

    Not sure why you couldn't answer the question in the first place. You instantly got defensive (as you tend to do) and ramble on and on about anything and everything except answering a simple yes or no question. Then you accuse me of saying things I did not say. I guess for me a fact is indisputable evidence and that has not been provided. Sorry but "as far as I know" doesn't equal a fact for me.

    I would like to see proof with indisputable evidence as to whether each point and timeline in those links are correct or not. I have already read multiple links you shared and they only show one side of the story and that's bundys side. The links I shared (along with a few other articles I have read) dispute a lot of what you have shared and what bundy and their supporters have claimed. I do not and have not claimed that every point or any point for that matter in those articles are indisputable evidence. Having said that, they do make a lot more sense to me than bundys claims though.

    The heart of the issue here is the bundys stopped paying grazing fees on PUBLICALLY owned lands for 20 years or so and ignored multiple courts rulings. If you can prove this is factually incorrect, I would be glad to change my opinion that the bundys are in the wrong. Are those not facts? Is anyone even disputing this? To me that is stealing from the public. Should any other claim made by the bundys and their supporters even matter?

    There is a lot of other noise and disputed "facts" that muddy up this issue between what the bundys side claim and enteties disputing their claims but there can only be one set of actual facts based on reality. Sorry but "as far as I know" is a far cry from a fact.

    I can see why the bundys and their supporters might be motivated to muddy up this issue, like trying to discredit a judge, fact checking websites, local employees, marbleyes on nodakangler, the blm, a senator and other government employees and anyone else who might be suspicious of the bundys motivations but it's much harder to see the motivation for websites etc. who's sole job it is to fact check these kinds of disputes. They need to be credibile to even exist and the bundys don't IMO.

    0 Not allowed!

  13. Back To Top    #1593
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,765
    NDA Points
    5,497
    NDA Level
    31
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,627
    Given: 1,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Marbleyes View Post
    "Given the fact I have had somone that I know speaking directly with people within the court room and this person has played audio on public radio sharing people making these same claims as far as I know this is true."

    There we go, you finally answered my question, "as far as I know this is true".

    Marble over the years I have tried to develop a reputation of not posting things I am not reasonably sure are fact. Sometimes things such as those posts that are first hand accounts are a bit harder but as you have seen, I have posted a couple other links that seem to back up what was said when it comes ot this judge placing limitations on the defense.

    Not sure why you couldn't answer the question in the first place. You instantly got defensive (as you tend to do) and ramble on and on about anything and everything except answering a simple yes or no question. Then you accuse me of saying things I did not say. I guess for me a fact is indisputable evidence and that has not been provided. Sorry but "as far as I know" doesn't equal a fact for me.

    But wild ass claims by groups like the Center for Biological Diversity does "equal fact to you" ?? If not why would YOU post shit like that while DEMANDING others post "indisputable" truth??

    I would like to see proof with indisputable evidence as to whether each point and timeline in those links are correct or not. I have already read multiple links you shared and they only show one side of the story and that's bundys side. The links I shared (along with a few other articles I have read) dispute a lot of what you have shared and what bundy and their supporters have claimed. I do not and have not claimed that every point or any point for that matter in those articles are indisputable evidence. Having said that, they do make a lot more sense to me than bundys claims though.

    And there it is again you DO NOT PROVE WHAT YOU INSINUATE IS NOT TRUE IS NOT TRUE WHILE CLAIMING YOU BELEIVE THE CRAP FROM THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IS TRUE..........marble please share where I have claimed the information I shared you have taken exception to is "indisputable evidence". It is a first hand account of someone that was in the hearing room that a portion of has been backed up by actual court documents.


    The heart of the issue here is the bundys stopped paying grazing fees on PUBLICALLY owned lands for 20 years or so and ignored multiple courts rulings. If you can prove this is factually incorrect, I would be glad to change my opinion that the bundys are in the wrong. Are those not facts? Is anyone even disputing this? To me that is stealing from the public. Should any other claim made by the bundys and their supporters even matter?

    No one has ever disputed that in these discussions. What has been disputed and ignored is that the BLM those fees were to be paid to stopped following the law as to how those fees were to be used. ie at least 50% to improve grazing opportunities.unless you think cutting allotments to the point over 50 ranchers were driven off grazing lands in Clark County alone is "improving grazing opportunities.

    And what is fact is the judge has ruled those prior acts of the BLM and their agents can not be brought up in her court room.

    There is a lot of other noise and disputed "facts" that muddy up this issue between what the bundys side claim and enteties disputing their claims but there can only be one set of actual facts based on reality. Sorry but "as far as I know" is a far cry from a fact.

    +Marble, I am pretty sure from years of being involved directly in the livestock industry and making a point to become as informed on this particular issue (Federal agencies record of impacting grazing as a multiple use promise) by speaking directly with people that have FAR more expertise, knowledge and direct involvement than either you or I, that the information I share is historically factual and more informative that your wild ass claims and links from sources like the Center for Biological Diversity...........


    I can see why the bundys and their supporters might be motivated to muddy up this issue, like trying to discredit a judge, fact checking websites, local employees, marbleyes on nodakangler, the blm, a senator and other government employees and anyone else who might be suspicious of the bundys motivations but it's much harder to see the motivation for websites etc. who's sole job it is to fact check these kinds of disputes. They need to be credibile to even exist and the bundys don't IMO.
    Oh for Christ sake marble, are you really that stupid?

    Are you suggesting that it is soley the Bundys and their supporters that are "discrediting" a Senator that has earned the nick name "Dirty Harry Reid??????

    It is clear you have not read the information shared in this thread or you wouldhave seen video of actual govt employees laughing about cheating two little old minersout of the true value of their mining claim.

    As well as example after example of the BLM operating outside their prescribed limitations as a Federal agency.


    Who here is "muddying up the issue??? You have came to this thread after how many pages you obviously have not read insinuating facts are not facts yet have provided no "facts" that "are credible" (unless you actually do believe the Center for Biological Diversity is "credible"............

    Even your Las Vegas Sun link you claimed would be so hard to discredit was easily shown to be inaccurate and questionable at best in their "reporting" and yet here you are insinuating others information is less than the standard you demand.

    There was an actual former govt employee of one of these agencies that came on this site and shared the same information as I have that these groups (like the one you embrace as factually informative ...the Center for Biological Diversity )are filing law suit after law suit to force these govt agencies to manage these lands in accordance with these groups agendas and impacting promised multiple usages such as grazing .

    I thought I would be polite and engage in your "debate" here but now we will just get down to brass tacks.

    1. Once again, all you have done here is whine and bitch and insinuate what was shared was not fact making demands that people provide unquestionable proof to backup their information.

    2. You were politely asked to prove what was shared was not fact and you tried using information that came nowhere near your own standards that was easily discredited by language from actual BLM documents which sources were shared.

    3. You seem to want to stand by your usage of links using the Center for Biological Diversity as "credible unbiased" sources of fact for issues such as grazing on federal lands

    Can you share in a fact based post with us where this group is credible and unbiased?????

    If not are you not doing exactly what you malign others for doing??????????

    Do you not see that?????

    As I have asked if you can show actual direct information that this judge has not done the things shared please do so the record can be set straight.

    If you can not, you have shown yourself to be willing to engage in EXACTLY what you accuse others of which moves you hard into the whiney ass bitch category.



    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Marbleyes View Post
    . They need to be credibile to even exist and the bundys don't IMO.

    Demands others use only hard proven fact...........shares his "opinion" ..............


    Really marble stop and think about that one for a bit

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Marbleyes View Post


    I would like to see proof with indisputable evidence as to whether each point and timeline in those links are correct or not
    . I have already read multiple links you shared and they only show one side of the story and that's bundys side. The links I shared (along with a few other articles I have read) dispute a lot of what you have shared and what bundy and their supporters have claimed. I do not and have not claimed that every point or any point for that matter in those articles are indisputable evidence. .


    So once again you demand others provide "indisputable fact"...........yet admit what you are claiming disputes this information is not "indisputable fact".........possibly NONE of it is.

    Alrighty then............you are aware how foolish this back pedaling appears right??

    0 Not allowed!
    Last edited by gst; 07-18-2017 at 08:41 AM.

  14. Back To Top    #1594
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Bismarck
    Posts
    228
    NDA Points
    2,462
    NDA Level
    20
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 247
    Given: 42
    Quote Originally Posted by Marbleyes View Post
    Gst, do you know for a fact that what you just posted is actually even true? I read your links and decided to do a quick google search of the websites. They aren't know for objective writing. That doesn't mean these stories are false but I am personally highly suspicious. I then googled the named sources for their information, in particular Maureen Peltier and John Lamb. Both of them appear to be sympathizers of the Bundys and Hammonds. Hardly objective people imo. Again, that doesn't mean their accounts are wrong but I personally take their accounts with a grain of salt and would suggest to anyone to at least do a quick check on who is writing these articles and who their sources are. Then again, I tend to do that with pretty much anything I read or hear about before I'm willing to just accept what is being presented by people I've never heard of. Incorrect information is dangerous imo. Again, it doesn't mean their accounts are wrong but I'm not willing to just accept that this judge is shady just because a few people (who happen to be sympathizers to the parties accused in this case) said so.
    gst, here is my first post asking you a simple question. Since you clearly have a selective comprehension problem, let me point out a few things to you.

    1. Asking if you know for a fact that what you posted is actually even true is far from a "demand" of facts. Do you know what a question mark even means?

    2. The article you posted that raised my question (again, not a demand) only listed sources that after a quick search revealed they went to Oregon in support of the bundys and Hammonds. They can easily be viewed as not being objective sources, maybe not by you but that raises a red flag with me. That is explained pretty well in my post. If you can't comprehend that, it's not my problem.

    3. Do you know what imo means? In case you don't, it means in my opinion. Opinions are quite different from facts.

    4. Most people ask questions if they are trying to learn what the facts of a situation are. It appears me asking you a question made you uncomfortable. Suck it up.

    5. Instead of just answering my question (which was not complicated by the way) you start doing what you always do and that is trying to see things that just aren't there and trying to discredit the person who may just be skepticle of your position.

    6. You then just travel down the path of ridiculous accusations by asking people questions that are not related to the initial point, also known as side stepping. This is where I posted 5 articles from various websites that directly contradict your premise of the side stepping you did. Here are my direct words "here are some possible answers to your questions". Do you know what possible means because you have repeatedly stated that I was passing them off as facts. Possible does not mean fact in any stretch of your wild imagination.

    7. In your haste to try to muddy up reality and distort what is actually happening (me asking a question because I do NOT know if what you posted is fact) you start trying to discredit me and the articles I posted. That's great and all but you didn't even comprehend the fact that one of the articles I posted (again with no claim of fact by me) was from the Las Vegas Sun, which is the exact source YOU used in post #1587. You then go on to claim they aren't credible because you disputed one of their points and wrote the whole article off as being "fake news". Again, that's strange that the very source You used to back up a point YOU were trying to make was credible then but as soon as you dispute one of their points then all of the sudden you try to paint them as not being reliable. That is laughable to me.

    8. This kind of bullshit you pull off over and over again fools no one. You get called on your bullshit tactics repeadly by almost everyone you try to pull this shit on.

    9. Go ahead and call me stupid. In fact I would give you that opportunity to do that to my face but anyone who read what I have posted and has even reasonable comprehension skills can see in no way did I ever claim or even insinuate that I had the facts. In fact, I repeatedly said I did not know if the articles I posted were factual (again my literal words were "possible" answers to your questions).

    10. When I read from the article that you posted that sparked my initial question that the judge threw Neil Wampler (who after a quick google search appears to have been convicted of killing his dad decades ago. I said appears so I do NOT know that as fact) out of the courtroom only because he had a mini version of the constitution in his pocket that was barely visible to the judge. That seems like a ridiculous scenario to me and again raises a red flag imo. If that did indeed happen that is hard to understand that little of a thing would get you kicked out of her courtroom.

    11. Try to read what is written and let in sink in a bit before you go on your wild ass rambling tangents. Your lack of comprehension of literal words that I wrote only further made me skepticle of your ability to dissect fact from fiction. If you don't like being asked a simple question and giving a straight answer, either don't answer it or I guess continue to do what you always do and try to discredit everything and everyone who may be skepticle of your motives. If you don't like how I try to find facts, tough shit, go put on some big boy pants.

    1 Not allowed!

  15. Back To Top    #1595
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,765
    NDA Points
    5,497
    NDA Level
    31
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,627
    Given: 1,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Marbleyes View Post


    I would like to see proof with indisputable evidence as to whether each point and timeline in those links are correct or not.


    . I do not and have not claimed that every point or any point for that matter in those articles are indisputable evidence. Having said that, they do make a lot more sense to me than bundys claims though.


    marble this pretty well sums up the entire thing.

    You state you would like to see indisputable proof in what others post yet admit possibly NONE of what you post to dispute others posts might be indisputable truth.

    Stop and think about that for just a moment before you put your foot any further in your mouth.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Marbleyes View Post
    gst, here is my first post asking you a simple question. Since you clearly have a selective comprehension problem, let me point out a few things to you.



    7. In your haste to try to muddy up reality and distort what is actually happening (me asking a question because I do NOT know if what you posted is fact) you start trying to discredit me and the articles I posted. That's great and all but you didn't even comprehend the fact that one of the articles I posted (again with no claim of fact by me) was from the Las Vegas Sun, which is the exact source YOU used in post #1587. You then go on to claim they aren't credible because you disputed one of their points and wrote the whole article off as being "fake news". Again, that's strange that the very source You used to back up a point YOU were trying to make was credible then but as soon as you dispute one of their points then all of the sudden you try to paint them as not being reliable. That is laughable to me.

    Marble, please share where I stated the Las Vegas Sun was not a credible source.

    There may be different authors with different levels of credibility within a media source, which in fact is the case with the two stories. There may be different political ideals behind the writings of each different author.

    There may be different levels of research done by different authors in different stories.

    One story may indeed be credible while one is not. You do comprehend that I hope?

    I simply pointed out the aspects of the story in the link you provided that were questionable at best. and shared links ot actual BLM documents that source that

    If you want to lecture people on comprehension..........practice getting better at it yourself.

    - - - Updated - - -

    And yet have you proven what I shared is not fact Marble?

    Why not put a bit more effort than your "opinion" into that if you wish to have a bit of credibility in your insinuations and claims.


    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Marbleyes View Post

    10. When I read from the article that you posted that sparked my initial question that the judge threw Neil Wampler (who after a quick google search appears to have been convicted of killing his dad decades ago. I said appears so I do NOT know that as fact) out of the courtroom only because he had a mini version of the constitution in his pocket that was barely visible to the judge. That seems like a ridiculous scenario to me and again raises a red flag imo. If that did indeed happen that is hard to understand that little of a thing would get you kicked out of her courtroom.

    Marbles, a simple question. Have you heard any audio interviews with other people that have been in attendance at these hearings?

    I have.

    0 Not allowed!
    Last edited by gst; 07-18-2017 at 02:27 PM.

  16. Back To Top    #1596
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Bismarck
    Posts
    228
    NDA Points
    2,462
    NDA Level
    20
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 247
    Given: 42
    I am in no way shocked that my last post went right over your head.

    As far as comprehension goes, my job for over a decade now has been to read through legal documents and decifer what is being stated and to use North Dakota title standards to form a report for dozens of different clients and brokerages. In those reports I have to directly convey my "opinion" through written word so that others can comprehend my reports. Not once has my comprehension been questioned by my clients or by the brokerages I have worked for so you'll have to excuse me for not taking you seriously. Being that I am self employed one would think I would not be asked specifically by name by multiple brokers and clients if my comprehension was suspect. There has been hundreds of millions of dollars spent by my clients based in part on my comprehension ability. Not bragging, just giving a little bit of my work background.
    Go right ahead and distract and dissect all you want. I am extremely comfortable with my own credibility. Have a good one.

    1 Not allowed!

  17. Back To Top    #1597
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,765
    NDA Points
    5,497
    NDA Level
    31
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,627
    Given: 1,087
    Well perhaps your bias does not include what you do for work.

    You have now avoided answering a couple questions yourself marble.......and yet you malign others for not answering. Do YOU know what the ? at the end of a sentence means?

    You insinuated that what I posted was not fact and yet post sites you admit may very well not be factual to dispute what I posted.

    Sites that I showed were incorrect based on an actual BLM document along with other information.

    You have yet to post ANYTHING that is "indisputable fact" including proof what I posted is not. Even going so far as to twice post articles with links to the Center for Biological Diversity one as an authority on grazing public lands....................

    You seem not to be able to comprehend that two different authors wrote two different articles for the same news source (Las Vegas Sun) and that one could be factually correct and one may not be. Not a hard concept to understand yet it seems to have gone "right over your head."

    I would guess if Racheal Maddoux and Thomas Sowell worked for the same paper there maybe a bit different bias in the stories they would author right? There likely would be a bit of difference i the factual nature of what they each write as well.

    Your credibility at work may very well be fine.........your internet credibility is starting to show some pretty good cracks.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Oh hey and a quick google search of the author of your LV Sun article shows she worked covering Sen. Reid........Yet one can not find one article authored by her on any of the improprieties and corruption Reid has been tied to......

    http://karoun.org/about-karoun/

    Karoun Demirjian is a multimedia journalist currently based in Moscow, where she is reporting on Russia and the former Soviet Union for The Washington Post and NPR. Until recently, Karoun worked as the sole Washington correspondent for the Las Vegas Sun, covering the White House, the federal courts, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Nevada congressional delegation through two election cycles and many national debates about the economy, energy, immigration, housing and defense

    . Perhaps her stint at National Public Radio shaped her bias similar to yours. She actually seems to want to defend Dirty Harry............

    http://karoun.org/obama-gave-reid-po...lash-on-syria/

    0 Not allowed!
    Last edited by gst; 07-18-2017 at 10:30 PM.

  18. Back To Top    #1598
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,765
    NDA Points
    5,497
    NDA Level
    31
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,627
    Given: 1,087
    Marble here is the break down of how BLM grazing fees are to be used. When the BLM doe sNOT use these funds in this manner they are in violation of the law.

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21232.pdf

    Distribution of ReceiptsFifty percent of grazing fees collected by eachagency, or $10 million—whichever isgreater—go to a range betterment fund in theTreasury. The BLM and FS grazing receiptsare deposited separately. Monies in the fundare subject to appropriations. The BLM hasbeen receiving an annual appropriation of$10.0 million for the fund, as it did forFY2010. The FS appropriation has beenapproximately $3 million to $4 million inrecent years, reflecting roughly half the feescollected and the agency’s budget requests.For FY2010, the appropriation was $3.6million.The fund is used for range rehabilitation,protection, and improvement, including grass seeding and reseeding, fence construction, weedcontrol, water development, and fish and wildlife habitat. Under law, one-half of the fund is to beused as directed by the Secretary of the Interior or of Agriculture, and the other half is authorizedto be spent in the district, region, or forest that generated the fees, as the Secretary determinesafter consultation with user representatives.9 Agency regulations contain additional detail. Forexample, BLM regulations provide that half of the fund is to be allocated by the Secretary on apriority basis, and the rest is to be spent in the state and district where derived. Forest Serviceregulations provide that half of the monies are to be used in the national forest where derived, andthe rest in the FS region where the forest is located. In general, the FS returns all range bettermentfunds to the forest that generated them.The agencies allocate the remaining 50% of the collections differently. For the FS, 25% of thefunds are deposited in the Treasury10 and 25% are given to the states (16 U.S.C. 500; see Figure1). For the BLM, states receive 12.5% of monies collected from lands defined in Section 3 of theTaylor Grazing Act11 and 37.5% is deposited in the Treasury. Section 3 lands are those withingrazing districts for which the BLM issues grazing permits. (See Figure 2.) By contrast, statesreceive 50% of fees collected from BLM lands defined in Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act.Section 15 lands are those outside grazing districts for which the BLM leases grazing allotments.(See Figure 3.) For both agencies, any state share is to be used to benefit the counties thatgenerated the receipts.


    Somewhere in the depths of this thread I believe there is a more in depth break down of the requirements for where these fees are required by law to be used.

    So when The BLM cuts grazing allotments and removes grazing from lands and move cattle off these lands and destroy fencing and water developments......without improving and increasing allotments elsewhere they are in violation of the law.

    But the author of your Sun article as seen in this video mentions nothing of that. Nor does she get her facts completely right especially about the "proximity" issue of mitigation lands which as we now know the BLM itself does not require "proximity" as she mentions in her defense of "Reid" with the Ranch being "200 miles" away....."serious separation"

    . She does mention some issues that are impacting in this such as the endangered species act but fails to expand on them or include what we k=now know the BLM seeks to use these conservation acres for mitigation as well.

    Watch the video marble and tell us there is no bias when she speaks of Reid and Bundys. Want to bet she voted for Obama ?

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21232.pdf

    0 Not allowed!
    Last edited by gst; 07-18-2017 at 11:21 PM.

  19. Back To Top    #1599
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Drifting the high plains
    Posts
    2,135
    NDA Points
    9,944
    NDA Level
    42
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,077
    Given: 1,330
    Classifieds
    1
    Marble here is the break down of how BLM grazing fees are to be used. When the BLM doe sNOT use these funds in this manner they are in violation of the law.
    I'm not interested in debate, but here is some food for thought. I think the first priority for the money collected is to pay for the administration of these lands. We passed that threshold in the 1960's when cheap grazing didn't provide enough money to even pay for administration. By the late 1980's grazing didn't even pay for half of the administration and taxpayers had to pick up the tab.
    The other thing to think about is what type of improvement needs to happen on these lands. Federal agencies are restricted in chemicals they can use and certainly can't use broad leaf indiscriminate herbicides. Often on overgrazed land they need to destroy plants responding to overgrazing. Here in North Dakota that would be what we commonly call buck brush and silverberry. In Texas it would be mesquite. The controlled burns that the people in Oregon don't like are actually improvements to the habitat and the grazing. Today a controlled burn cost more for a section of land than the renter pays for it. These agencies are spending taxpayer money to subsidize these ranchers and they don't perhaps realize it. Money far beyond the extremely low fees they pay in.

    0 Not allowed!

  20. Back To Top    #1600
    Ultimate VIP Member
    johnr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Dickinson
    Posts
    6,384
    NDA Points
    70,379
    NDA Level
    100
    Report Entries
    1
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 6,900
    Given: 6,171
    Classifieds
    1

    I like beef, its what's for dinner

    2 Not allowed!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


About Nodak Angler

    NodakAngler is a community of outdoors enthusiasts. Our primary focus is to provide a great place for North Dakota sportsmen to gather, discuss, and participate. All are welcome.

Business & Contact

Follow us on

Facebook Instagram Twitter