Lots of things need to be understood about this situation. We've each mentioned some aspects of it. I think the most important thing to do, is to realize that there isn't one SINGLE aspect, which we should declare overrules all the others. As Sassyeuro observed, EVERYONE has a stake in this.

The part of it which appears to involve abuse of authority on the part of the BLM isn't simple. The BLM does need to exist, and does need to have most of the authority it does. We don't know for sure yet, whether the particular BLM officials involved did their jobs correctly or not, or if the actions they took which set this off, were or were not, legally and technically correct. All we do know, is that a lot of people (including me) don't like what we've been told that they did.

The part that involves the self-appointed militias isn't simple either. The motivations of the first group are not just to come to the aid of the ranchers at the center of it all. They have a separate agenda of their own, which is clear from the fact that they didn't leave promptly when the ranchers themselves said that they didn't want this kind of help.

The behavior and intentions of the FBI are not simple or obvious. it is ALLEGED that the FBI is trying to make it appear that the militias are bad people, there is as yet zero actual evidence to support that. We only know that they are present, and appear to be trying to disguise themselves as militia members.

Even the people making accusations against the FBI, the militias,the ranchers, the BLM, and even the other thread posters, have motivations that extend beyond the immediate situation.

All that means to me, that we would all be wise NOT to leap to conclusions about it all too quickly.

Oregon Governor Asks Federal Government to End Armed Militia Takeover

http://gawker.com/oregon-governor-asks-federal-government-to-end-armed-mi-1754303084?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

no worries,the Feds will get to you!
Right now they are just a Tad busy in Oregon!

I am not sure I posted on this Op ... its a government bird sanctuary they took over ... and its really cold ... I believe their working on it in ways they are not telling the public ... Government have got this ... is a waiting game ... and I am sure the Government is winning at this point ... since it is been so long ...

another unconstitutional Landgrab by the Federal Government!

not sure what you mean ... I understand how the government can take anyone's land ... but if lets say its the peoples land then why did they not pay taxes on it ... when they had the chance ... I just feel their has to be civilized way to handing all of this ... it really is a who said did what story ... an can't find the truth anywhere in what each have said ... and have said instead of holding stand offs take them to court ... having the right to bare arms does not give them the rights to declare a stand off ...

they(government) already own 50% of the land in the 12 western states, because of the natural resources and national parks... if they want more, than they should buy it like we would have to, not like the king of England did in the 12th century...

Wrong. Obviously. What you and Might Mo seem to have a bit wrong, is who actually owns the land in question.

* Bottom line, the Federal Government ALREADY OWNS THE LAND BEING ARGUED ABOUT. Have done so for over a hundred years now. The Ranchers (still at the center of this, but being ignored by the people who are pretending to be fighting for them) do NOT own the land in question, and never have done.

* What land USED TO BE OWNED by other private citizens in that area WAS bought and paid for by the Government. THERE HAS BEEN NO LAND GRAB, NO EMINENT DOMAIN CLAIM MADE.

* There is nothing at all unconstitutional about the Federal OR State government "grabbing" land, and paying for having done so. A specific, already Constitutionally vetted procedure is in place for them to do so. And again, nothing like that has been even attempted in this case.

What DOES appear to be happening, is that the BLM, in an effort to pursue some as yet not directly talked about agenda to change how the particular land in that area is being used, has taken various actions which APPEAR to be designed to make the ranchers WANT to sell their land and leave.

This is unconscionable, no matter what the as-yet unrevealed agenda is, but it isn't ILLEGAL, unfortunately. Private enterprises do the same thing every day, and no "militias" ever show up to stop THEM.

If anything, the ENTIRELY ILLEGAL ACTIONS of these self-appointed defenders of America, are going to make it much EASIER for the BLM to get away with whatever it is they are trying to do. Because now the force of the American support for the rule of Law is firmly on the side of the government.

you might want to check your Constitution as to what Lands the Feds are supposed to own!
Just because they stole it a hundred years ago doesn't mean they didn't steal it!
Theft is Theft,even if it is committed by Government!
Actually it is even more egregious,since those "Servants" of the Public ought to know better!
And they are even encroaching onto Private owned Land now!
Illegal Landgrab,regardless how you are sugarcoating it!
Besides,you might want to check out what Minerals are on that Land,and it should be even become clear to you why the Feds are trying to get everybody off!

You're going to have to point to where the Constitution says "All new lands which come into the control of the United States, automatically belong to the people who will want to run cattle on them two hundred years from now."

Here's a little help for you:

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

You'll see there, that the US government DOES own the land in question.

Theft,and even more so after they abolished the Homestead-Act!
The Constitution describes exactly what Properties the Federal Government is allowed to own,and all those Lands claimed as Federal Land these days are claimed illegally!
They are at best State-Lands,but definitely NO "Federal" Lands!
Now go and do some of your own research!

I gave you a link to support my side. Where's your supporting link?

Constitutional Lawyer KrisAnne Hall Discusses Final Moments of Oregon Standoff

The four remaining occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge have surrendered, ending the standoff on its 41st day. Rev. Franklin Graham and Assemblywoman Michele Fiore helped persuaded the four occupiers to surrender peacefully and convinced the FBI not to use aggressive force.

But why were the occupiers there in the first place? Farmers and ranchers have been battling the federal government for decades taking more and more of their land.

Listen here:
http://truthinmedia.com/krisanne-hall-discusses-final-moments-of-oregon-standoff/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=nl

Unfortunately, that is a collection of entirely unsubstantiated accusations. Worst of all, it contains more links to obvious Conspiracy Theory sites, which seriously undercuts how much we can trust what they do say.

This is Ben Swann's (of Reality Check notoriety) new business venture. They verify everything they present before airing, but they do offer links to supporters sites (some you might consider CT) like any other website as a source of revenue.

I wasn't referring to advertising links, I was referring to the sites which are used within the body of the article, as supporting sources.

I didn't have any luck finding an explanation of the primary claim, that the Federal government was actively trying to abscond with private citizens' lands, at least not for the reasons claimed.

There are claims that I have seen, that the BLM has been trying to expand existing parkland in various places, not because they want to conquer the world, but because they at least THINK that maintaining balance in the natural ecology of the region, requires that some of the surrounding land be incorporated into the park.

In a simplified way, this is akin to a private business, such as an airport, for example, recognizing that in order to run the Airport most effectively and safely, that they need to buy out certain nearby residential areas, for noise abatement or expansion needs.

Just stating that the BLM wants to expand protected areas, and that people who are currently getting a lot of profits by using that ALREADY PUBLICLY OWNED LAND in order to run a business, and the two of them logically come in to conflict, does NOT prove that anyone is "stealing" anything.

so these people just decided all at once to risk their lives over the government not stealing?... something changed where the government took some land from somewhere/someone...

That's what's been so messy about this whole thing. From the beginning, people have been playing fast and loose with how they define things like "stealing," and "ownership."

What the Oregon ranchers at the center of this latest mess were upset about, wasn't with how they were being required to deal with their OWN land, it was with how they were being manipulated by the BLM into either giving up ranching (so as not to NEED to use government land for grazing and so forth any more), or in to selling their ranch to the government outright.

It was NEVER about anyone STEALING land. But some of those who wanted to fight about the situation decided to claim that when the government doesn't allow private citizens to use government land in the way that they want to (and in the way that they have done in the past), that this is EFFECTIVELY an act of theft.

It isn't, so the opponents ended up confusing the situation, and making themselves appear to be radical anarchists or outright traitorous criminals, instead of being seen as protesting what is more of a local land-use policy shift.

This is why I argue against using POLITICAL PROPAGANDA to argue real life situations. The propaganda ALWAYS makes it more difficult to come to a genuine logical solution, or even to correctly understand what is and isn't going on.

Have we forgotten, that by the FBI's definition of terrorism, that George Washington was a "Terrorist". Thing is these days that the government wants to say that any time force is used against the government its automatically terrorism. What no one wants to admit is that it is the corruption of the government that leads to this crap in the first place. So once again, we are talking about this WHY..????

http://eaglerising.com/30219/federal-government-employee-tells-miner-that-his-authority-supersedes-the-constitution/

Federal Government Employee tells Miner that His Authority Supersedes the Constitution!

The Bureau of Land Management have been acting tyrannically for decades. As an unconstitutional agency, we have seen them in recent years not only violating the Constitution and the rights of the people, but we've also seen them take an armed violent stand against ranchers, both in Nevada and Oregon. All of it is unlawful. I want to share story that I ran across concerning two BLM employees and a miner in Idaho from 2012 during some research on the BLM. In a confrontation with the BLM, the Idaho miner asked, "You are telling me that you supersede the Constitution of the united States?" The BLM employee smugly replied, "Yes, I do."

Nicole Crossman, one of the founders of the South West Idaho Mining Association, and her husband John, along with some others were at the family's camp on July 11th, 2012 when they were approached by two BLM employees, who were identified as Ann Marie Sharkey and Jeff Weiss.

Video evidence, which has now been removed and another video made private, shows what seems to be a friendly encounter between the employees and the Crossmans. However, once Sharkey spotted mining incident tools, she demanded that Mrs. Crossman produce identification. The text of the conversation comes from Mrs. Crossman.

Crossman did not comply, but rather asked Sharkey what he law enforcement status was. Sharkey claimed to be a federal BLM agent, but when asked to get her supervisor out to where they were, Sharkey called the Sheriff's Department on her radio and claimed that she owned the Crossman's claim by way of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which is an unconstitutional act.

Mrs. Crossman then informed Sharkey that she was now trespassing on a federal mining claim to which the agent demanded to see her mining corner posts, signs and notices.

"You are more than welcome to go and find them if you are so concerned of that, but the notice of location is located in that tree over there," Crossman replied.

The conversation then began to get even more heated.

"Ma'am, this is public land with a 14 day stay limit on it," said Sharkey. "How much longer do you think you will be staying? The rest of the weekend?"

"I am not sure," replied Crossman. "And this is actually public domain once I entered it to prospect. Especially because I have a claim here!"

Sharkey was having none of that. "This is public land," she said.

"It was public land," said Crossman. "It is now Public domain. Are you familiar with laws that have granted me to be entitled to this public domain?"

Sharkey snidely replied that she was familiar with the laws and when asked which ones, she said "The 1800 one."

"There isn't an 1800 mining law," retorted Crossman.

Then Sharkey made the absolutely ridiculous claim of ownership.

"I own and manage all of these minerals you are trying to mine for," she said. "I need to identify who I am speaking with. ID?"

Crossman asked, "You are telling me that you supersede the Constitution of the united States?"

Sharkey replied, "Yes, I do."

Crossman then educates Sharkey that she is aware of the law and of a BLM agent's status.

"No, you are a surface management agency, and what we are doing is extracting minerals from a SUB-surface area," she said.

When Sharkey threatened Crossman with arrest for not showing her ID, Crossman said, "You don't have that authority, you are a code enforcement, not a law enforcement officer."

"No," Sharkey shot back. "I am a federal agent and I get my authority from the FLPMA."

Even the Sheriff of the county would not stop what was going on and sent her to Ada County Jail.

The claim by the BLM agent and the Sheriff is that Mrs. Crossman was charged with obstruction, but they never said what she was obstructing.

John Crossman believes that what helped his wife was that she had her law binder that South West Idaho Mining Association (SWIMA) put together. Mrs. Crossman also happens to be a secretary for SWIMA.

BLM ThievesAs we have learned, no one is required to produce identification unless a crime has been committed or one is in the process of committing a crime. No crime was being committed and if Ms. Sharkey had actually known what was going on, she would have known Crossman had a lawful claim to the minerals on the land. She didn't. Not only is she an unconstitutional agent in an unconstitutional agency, but she overstepped the bounds that even that requires!

One person in the American Mining Law Forum pointed to a 2011 Idaho Code which actually demonstrates the Ms. Sharkey is the one in violation of the law. On top of that, the penalty for Ms. Sharkey would be a fine not exceeding $5,000 and imprisonment in the county jail for no longer than one year.

One thing is for sure, this is exactly why counties need good, constitutional sheriffs to deal with these out of control, criminal and unconstitutional agents and the agencies for which they work.

Sadly, even after Crossman had done no wrong, she accepted a public defender, followed that person's advice and pled guilty and was convicted by her own admission, according to a post dated November 28, 2014.

UPDATE: We spoke to John Crossman by phone following the publishing of this article. He told us that the quotes above and the full text of the confrontation, which was placed on the sites linked to in this article, are a matter of public record and were part of their court case. He also said that the charges of obstruction were dropped to a snow mobile infraction and they were fined $56. Crossman went on to explain that the cost of pursuing things further was more than they were able to bear and so that is why they took the deal.

I can understand that. It's a shame that in the land of the free and home of the brave, a nation of law, that justice has to cost so much money.