ROADBLOCK 862 FEET, 574 FEET, 386 FEET See for yourself.
WE NEED TO SHARE THIS EVERY WHERE!
When the PIO for Deschutes County Sheriff said in the press briefing that the roadblock could be seen from 862 feet with plenty of time to stop, I saw a lie.
Having been there several times viewing, driving it, and studying it, It was obvious to me they were issuing another false narrative. I’ll add some video view at 70 mph later but just looking at the still shots, it’s pretty easy to tell that the roadblock wasn’t really visible until he closed within 386 feet of the ambush.
His Brake lights come on at the Horse Camp Jct. when he see’s the Roadblack. At nearly the same time shots ring out and strike his vehicle three times.
There are four distinct landmarks that I referenced and the distances are as follows;
1. The pullout – This is on the East side of the Hwy just as he enters the turn at 9:06 in the attached FBI video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAGxDWKrjPQ
At this location, in contrast with the DSCO press release the Road block is NOT visible at all. Standing still in the middle of the roadway, you can barely make out the second sign (Southbound sign) to the Joaquin miller Camp. It’s harder to see in the video because of the snow but its the dark spot on the shoulder at 9:06 in the video.
2. The First Joaquin Miller sign – For Northbound traffic, this is the first sign you see in the video. It is 574 ft from the roadblack. From this vantage point, standing in the center of the road, you can aarely make out my Black SUV parked on the left (Southbound) shoulder. It’s very difficult to see and the park lights were on. While driving it is not really visible and his brake lights are still not on at this location
3. Horse Camp entrance – The entrance to the Camp is at 386 ft from the roadblock and it is at this jct. that he begins to apply brakes. The roadblock location is somewhat visible at this point.
4. The second Sign – This is the Southbound sign on the west side of the hwy. As you see in the video, he applies his brakes midway between the first sign (574 ft) and the second sign (250 ft)
directly in front of the entrance to the camp (386 ft.)
The Sheriff PIO also stated that the OSP police van following him at the same speed of 70 MPH was able to stop with no problems.
This is a ludicrous statement because he obviously had the advantage of KNOWING about the roadblock and seeing the brake lights on the vehicle ahead of him.
This was a very insulting statement as was the one of 862 feet visibility.
It’s clear what their doing, simply putting the lies out there and a vast number will believe it because he’s an “Official” with a shiny piece of tin on his lapel.
Many however, are beginning to see and understand what the game is. They put it out there and people accept it as gospel regardless of truth or accuracy they believe they can do whatever they wish and explain it away with misinformation.
I had hoped as many of you did that our distinguished members of law enforcement would tell the truth and give us facts. Instead, they gave us misinformation and TRIED to lead us astray.
Once again, this deadmans roadblock is illegal use of deadly force prior to any of the shooting events. They clearly violated his 4 th amendment rights with illegal search and seizure methods and in my opinion gave him and the occupants of the truck lawful ability to defend themselves.
They also fired 3 shots at him in their estimation at the location of the second sign. It appears further back to me but I cant measure their timing as I don”t believe that the videos are properly synchronized.
More details later, but this should debunk their claims of 862 feet, it was less than half that amount. It appear they are using stationery methods of visibility from the right shoulder of the road straining to see some object at the roadblock location.
Mr. Finicum was not stationery nor was he on the east shoulder, he was clearly on the incoming side of the centerline and moving at a brisk 70 mph and watching his rearview mirror to see if they were continuing to shoot from behind as they had already done.
The 1861 Civil-War era law (H. R. 45) isn’t applicable to prosecute the Bundys and the other protesters. The feds IN FACT have no jurisdiction.
Are you a one man militia buying bullets…prepping to protect your home and family? That won’t do against the FBI and DHS. You and your family won’t survive unless WE RISE UP TOGETHER NOW, not on tyranny’s agenda. Do you really believe that another election is going to change the minds of all the enemies arrayed against us? There really is no better time and place to begin Constitutional restoration than to insist the feds release the peaceful protesters, including Cliven Bundy, they have jailed in Portland, Oregon. They all had good reason to feel wrongfully (unlawfully) threatened by the feds and were in fact within their rights to be armed and at the Malheur Refuge while protesting and teaching our Constitution to the citizens in Oregon.
The use of the 1861 Civil-War era law by Greg Bretzing, other FBI agents and their “partners,” most notably the nastiest whore in Oregon, Kate Brown, in their conspiracy to ambush and murder LaVoy Finicum and falsely arrest the other peaceful protesters IS IN FACT BASED ENTIRELY on the premise (false claim) that the peaceful protesters had been “occupyinga federal building on federal land, (i.e., what the federal government and their “partners” call the “Malheur National Wildlife Refuge”), and as falsely charged “with threats of violence were preventing federal officers from performing their duties.”
FBI “Special agent” Greg Bretzing unlawfully took charge of “law enforcement” in Harney County, Oregon. He either knew he was unlawfully following illegitimate orders, or did not take the time to read our Constitution, i.e., acted irresponsibly.
The ambush and premeditated murder of LaVoy Finicum, and false arrests of numerous other protesters, all now charged with “conspiracy,” is the federal government’s claim that there is a “conspiracy” against the federal government (not against the United States, but against the federal government). Apparently, the feds have decided that their best attempt at prosecution is to accuse the protesters of “conspiracy,” because it is easier to prosecute than an actual crime (where there is no victim, there is no crime) and their claim of “conspiracy” is a classic example of evil claiming to be good and accusing good of being evil.
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil…” Isaiah 5:20
NOTE: The protesters are accused of “arming up and threatening federal officers with violence to prevent them from performing their duties.” But in fact the “duties” that the feds claim DO NOT EXIST and LaVoy Finicum and other peaceful protesters threatened and injured no one. The feds are in fact claiming to be a victim, but the “duties” they claim are wholly illegitimate. The feds were NOT victims, NOR were any of the citizens of Harney County.
“Our rulers can have no authority over natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted. We are answerable for them to our God. Thelegitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as injurious to others. ” Thomas Jefferson
The facts clearly reveal that, with their premeditated murder of LaVoy Finicum, false arrests and false charges against the other protesters (all victims of a crime) that the feds are attempting to conceal their unlawfully taking (theft) of state lands, i.e., that the feds and their “partners” are in fact the ones who have been conspiring, and with their overt assembling and unlawful use of an army (their private army) are in fact LEVYING WAR against the United States, i.e., in fact COMMITTING TREASON against the United States.
The 1861 bill (H. R. 45) was signed into law by Abraham Lincoln to arrest what were labelled as “secessionists” who had taken the federal government’s forts, naval bases, post offices, and federal court buildings.
First of all, the “secessionists” in 1861 had not taken a “wildlife refuge.” They had only taken buildings that the federal government had erected in accordance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution. Nowhere in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 does it say the federal government is to own or manage lands or to erect buildings on a “wildlife refuge.”
In fact Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 does not even include the word “land” in it: The very name “Bureau of Land Management”(“BLM”) is IN FACT an act of fraud. As Justice Antonin Scalia stated:
“The Constitution is a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”
Was Justice Scalia murdered…to hide the murder of Lavoy Finicum? Was Justice Scalia going to speak out regarding the feds’ theft of lands?
Second, LaVoy Finicum, the Bundys and all the other protesters in Oregon do not oppose federal power. What they do oppose (and did so peacefully) is the abuse of power by the federal government, including the federal government’s unlawful taking of millions of acres of state lands, including the building that the federal government erected on the “national wildlife refuge”—having nothing to do with the legislative authority granted the federal government in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.
Third, the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was taken by Teddy Roosevelt byExecutive Order No. 929, NOT “purchased” as required by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of our Constitution. In other words the federal government has no jurisdiction in the lands the protesters have been are accused of “occupying”. The FBI and its “partners” had no authority to ambush LaVoy Finicum and other protesters — the federal courts have no jurisdiction, NONE WHATSOEVER. In regards to the feds lack of jurisdiction also see US v. Cornell.
The federal prosecutors claim that the protesters had no right to oppose federal enforcement officers whether or not they believed that the federal government has no constitutional jurisdiction over the lands. Such a claim is LUDICROUS in light of the fact that all administrative and “legal remedies” have been entirely exhausted. The federal courts (federal judges) have revealed they are politically motivated and have no intention of following the rule of law—willfully violating and alienating the United States Constitution… and even worse they refuse to acknowledge our Natural Rights to self-defense. It is with their refusal to acknowledge our Natural Rights that they have accused the protesters of being violent simply because they were armed. And yet, not once did LaVoy Finicum nor the other protesters, ever point a gun at anyone. Quite the opposite, they were in fact peacefully and patiently teaching our Constitution to the citizens of Harney County and had been invited to also do so in Grant County when the FBI and its “partners” suddenly decided to be violent, in fact forced LaVoy Finicum and his fellow protesters into what is known as a “killing field”.
NOTE: The 2nd Amendment of our Constitution supports our Natural Rights to self-defense and the feds and their “partners” have in fact falsely accused law abiding Americans who felt threatened of “arming up”.
The fact is that the protesters were protesting against individuals in the federal government and their “partners” who have been conspiring, not only against the United States, but against the federal government, i.e., against the constraints on the federal government established for us by our Founding Fathers. Any federal officer, official, judge, agent, or employee, or officer, official, judge, agent, or employee in any of the 50 states who does not speak in the first place in support and defense of our Constitution and subsequently in support and defense of LaVoy Finicum and the protesters now imprisoned, is today committing treason against the United States and MUST BE REMOVED FROM OUR OFFICES !!!!! They do not have a “duties” to violate and alienate our Constitution !!!!!
If the federal court in Portland Oregon (for lack of jurisdiction) does not release all the Bundys and the other protesters who have exposed the feds’ unlawful taking (theft) of the Malheur “Wildlife Refuge” in Harney County, Oregon and the millions of other acres of land belonging to various states, and arrest warrants are not issued for Greg Bretzing, other FBI agents and their “partners,” for the ambush and murder of LaVoy Finicum, and false arrests of the other protesters, (i.e., acts of treason), I will begin returning fire. I cannot sit quietly when war is being levied against the United States !
I have never met Jon Ritzheimer, though I have spoken and worked with Jon on various enterprises. I found him to be quite affable, and perhaps more importantly, a willing learner.
I had hoped to finally meet Jon when I arrived at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in the late afternoon of Sunday, January 24. Unfortunately, Jon had left for his home in Phoenix, earlier that day. However I have no doubt that Jon and I will finally shake hands, in friendship, in the near future.
So, we know when Jon left Burns, Oregon, on January 24, but that is really not the point. The real question is; When did Jon arrive in Burns, Oregon and the Refuge?
Well, the FBI has their answer as to when Jon was in Burns. It is clearly stated in the “Redacted Criminal Complaint“. (Why the Complaint is Redacted will be discussed later in the article.) The Complaint is in the form of the “Affidavit of Katherine Armstrong”, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
However, that is not all that is rather curious about SA Armstrong. This quote, from her credentials, “I have also acquired knowledge and information pertaining to violations of federal law from numerous other sources, including: … informants,” as if informants are a part of the educational curriculum of the “Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity” agency of our government.
Now, the Affidavit was signed on January 26, however, it excluded LaVoy Finicum from those named. So, we must assume that the Complaint was prepared and filed AFTER LaVoy was murdered on the side of US Highway 395.
The Affidavit, with the exception of reference to videos and the arrest of Brian Cavalier (Budda) on January 11, both of which don’t require strong investigative skills, as the former only requires an internet connection, in the latter, access to the NCIC (National Crime Information Center) database, based upon events that occurred prior and up to January 7, 2016. It would seem that the government, then, has had well over a month to prepare their case. So, why do they want to deprive the accused patriots their constitutionally protected right to a speedy trial? After all, the government has unlimited agents, lawyers, resources, and money (ours) with which to prepare their case. The have already delayed “discovery”, removing time for preparation by the defense attorneys, who have limited manpower and resources.
So, let’s look at the “public trial“. Suppose you were charged with a crime. Suppose, also, that the government wanted more time to make sure that they had all of the dirt that they could get on you. Suppose, further, that the government wanted to see if they could find evidence of a crime that they weren’t even aware of, by taking a little fishing trip to the Refuge. And, suppose that they did everything they could to prevent the defense attorneys from looking over their shoulders to see what sort of fish they might catch, maybe even planting some fish to justify the rather feeble case they already have.
Now, we do have the Criminal Complaint, but as you will soon see, it is conjecture, not fact, at least in part. Most of the remainder is gross misrepresentation. The charges against the accused patriots are not based upon the Criminal Complaint, that is only justification for arrest warrants that were, demonstrably, issued after the arrests were made (hint: there was no arrest warrant for LaVoy Finicum, so the warrants would have been made out after they knew that they could not arrest a dead man.). Quite simply, they arrested six people and murdered one person, and without having the constitutionally required warrant. Within that Criminal Complaint (Redacted), we see that they have redacted (blocked out) only the month and date of birth, leaving in the years. Well, that is the first time in the federal judicial system (Beecher, Massey, Wolf, & Barbeau, etc.) where I have seen birthdates included, as they are really not relevant to the charges.
On February 3, 2016, the Grand Jury Indictment, consisting of only 3 pages, where the Criminal Complaint at 32 pages, is “Sealed”. However, the “Sealed” Indictment is readily available, at least the three pages, so we must look further to see what is really sealed. The Pacer system shows the Docket listing. The Docket listing is a numerical log of documents entered on the case before the court. Most often, the documents are logically entered (i.e. n, n+1. n+2, n+3, etc.), however we find that many entries are out of order in this case. We also find why the Indictment was Sealed, at least in part:
So, you can see, well, no you really can’t see, what is supposed to be a public trial. How can it be a public trial when we don’t even know what the specific charges are? Some will say, well, yes, we know that they are charged with violation of 18 U.S.C. §372. But, that statute is a general explanation, and, interestingly, was first enacted in 1861, during the Civil War. But, an Indictment should give the specifics of a charge. For example, the Criminal Complaint explains what the players did that just might constitute “probable cause” in violation of the statute, but the specifics are conspicuously hidden from the public, those of us who have every right to know what our fellow citizens are charged with.
We must ask ourselves, first, why the FBI wants these crucial explanations of criminal activity hidden, and, secondly why the judge should allow such devious and unconstitutional practices?
We can possibly assume that the specifics that were presented to the Grand Jury, were in the same form as they were in the Criminal Complaint. And, it is safe to assume that they were probably presented by the experienced FBI Special Agent Armstrong that learned so much from “informants”. That being the case, we can look to the Criminal Complaint, particularly item number 14, which reads:
On December 18, 2015, a citizen (hereafter Citizen) of Harney County was shopping at the Safeway grocery store in Burns, Oregon. Citizen was wearing a BLM shirt. Citizen was confronted by two men, one whom she identified as RITZHEIMER. Citizen reported to law enforcement that she heard yelling, and when she turned around, the second individual shouted “you’re BLM, you’re BLM” at her. That person further stated to Citizen that they know what car she drives and would follow her home. He also stated he was going to burn Citizen’s house down. RITZHEIMER and the second individual left the area in a black pick-uptruck with black canopy and no visible license plate. Since the incident, Citizen has observed asimilar vehicle outside her residence. Citizen was unable to identify the driver of the vehicle when she later saw it. The following week, a second vehicle, described as a white truck with apink license plate and a big rebel flag sticker on the back window, aggressively tailgated Citizen,flashing lights and driving erratically. Citizen believed the second incident was related to the first. Citizen also saw the black pick-up truck outside of her place of employment early in the morning hours of Christmas Day.
Oops, where is the accuser? Back to the Sixth Amendment, which also states, “and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Both of these elements, the cause and the witness, are obscured under some court rule that is in obvious violation of the protected rights in the Constitution. But, then, that begins to move us to the heart of just why these patriots chose to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge; to bring to light the fact that the government seems to be operating, in many areas, outside of the powers and authority granted by the Constitution.
Now, the FBI, with all of their resources, should have no problem accessing security films from Safeway, or to find others who were witness to the events described at that location on December 18. However, their diligence in pursuit of justice seems to fail in recognizing their responsibility to protect a person from unwarranted charges.
Let’s look at some facts. Remember, the FBI and NSA have access to all of our records. They have used credit card tracking to locate and arrest criminals, in the past. So, we will use those same sources to dispute the sworn affidavit of our very professional FBI SA Armstrong.
First, Jon was in Arizona, all day, on December 18. Knowing that he was going to go up to Washington, then on to Burns, he took some pictures that morning, with his daughters. He had also arranged to see a movie with a friend, before he left on his trip. The date/time of the movie shows clearly:
Now, we can look at what Jon was doing the rest of the day, December 18, including dinner at a Mexican Restaurant. The transaction date appears in the left column on his Credit Union Credit Card (top), and in the items column in the Chase Debit Card (bottom).
You will note that the Debit Card entry for 12/21 shows that he was at “Eddies Truck and Auto Center”, in Hines, Oregon. If you look at the items entered on 12/21, you will see that he was in Washington, then went through Sandy, then Prineville, which would be enroute to Hines from Washington. So, the Hines entry had to be no less than the afternoon on the 20th.
We needn’t stop there. After all, many judicial decisions are based upon the preponderance of evidence. So, let’s look at Jon’s trip northward. First, we have him stopping in Meridian, Idaho, to spend a little time with an old friend. Then we can see the route he traveled, and finally, the picture log that gives the date and location of the pictures he had taken.
So, what we must now consider is whether this information, item #14 from the Criminal Complaint, was presented to the Grand Jury as factual information. There is no supporting statement by the “Citizen”, there is no evidence that the “Citizen reported to law enforcement…”, and there is nothing to suggest that SA Armstrong even knows of the existence of “Citizen”. Perhaps she made the whole darned story up to make Jon Ritzheimer look bad — when Jon Ritzheimer was, at least, hundreds of miles away.
While we are on the subject of the protected rights within the Bill of Rights, there is another provision of the Sixth Amendment that warrants our consideration, that the speedy and public trial be “by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law.” So, we have a crime allegedly committed in Eastern Oregon, a ranching, agricultural, forestry, and mining, community (if we exclude the excessive number of government employees in Harney County, that being about 46% of the non-agricultural workforce), which is in the EasternDistrict of Oregon, though we have a Grand Jury empanelled in the Western District of Oregon. Now, the western District is city-folk. It is industrial, commercial, and though it may have a few small farms and ranches, it is most definitely comprised of a totally different lifestyle than the Eastern District. Now, being unable to construe any reason for the inclusion of that phrase in the Amendment than that the justice system must operate where there are people of like mind, we can only wonder why the government had opted to go into the urban realm to seek an Indictment, and we must also presume that they have every intention of subjecting what happened in the rural Eastern District to the petit jury, the determination of innocence or guilt, comprised of those urbanites in the WesternDistrict.
What the Framers gave us to protect against injustice, the Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
New Video Slow motion from the Assassination of LaVoy.
This is the BEST Proof EVER til now, in slow Motion that LaVoy Finicum was ASSASSINATED By the FBI and Ambushed….CONFIRMED FROM THE FAMILY.. SHOT 9 TIMES….There is NO Sound on the FBI Video for a REASON!!
Please also see the following for more information on this:
It is time to dispel a few myths about what is going on.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown sat in her office Jan. 20 and drafted a letter to the U.S. attorney general and the director of the FBI. She wrote that negotiations with the “radicals” occupying the Malheur Wildlife Refuge had failed and insisted on a “swift resolution to this matter.”
Local officials, including Harney County Judge Steve Grasty, made similar demands. On Jan. 26, they got what they asked for.
Authorities, including the FBI, ambushed and arrested Ammon Bundy and others on their way to a meeting in neighboring Grant County. They shot LaVoy Finicum dead. He was not holding a weapon.
Awful. Grasty and Brown knew what might happen should the FBI decide negotiations had failed. Few have forgotten the standoffs at Waco and Ruby Ridge and that “swift” federal action often means people die — in many cases, indiscriminately.
It’s ironic, but the behavior of the judge and the governor goes a long way to make the refuge protesters’ case for them. Blind devotion to federal authority is terribly dangerous to lives and to liberty.
The protest in Harney County will certainly not be the last over federal overreach. Here is hoping people find reason next time, before demanding dangerous federal intervention.
To that end, it is time to dispel a few myths about what is going on.
Myth 1: The armed people at the refuge were threatening violence. You wouldn’t know it by watching TV news, or reading Brown’s hysteric letter, but the refuge wasn’t an armed compound full of violent people. To find that, you needed to drive by the airport in Burns, Ore., where federal agents staged behind fences and a floodlit perimeter, with military vehicles, equipment and weapons.
Yes, the occupants at the refuge were armed and reserved the right to defend themselves. The difference between them and any other citizen claiming their Second Amendment right is they did so from inside public, and previously unoccupied, federal buildings.
They got little credit for doing virtually everything possible to minimize threats and interruptions to the community. They could scarcely have chosen a more remote location.
It was more like an open house than a compound. Locals could, and did, visit to see what the standoff was about. The protesters invited anyone who wanted to have an honest conversation.
For Oregonians, the much larger threat is their high officials writing letters and urging the feds to “swift” action.
Myth 2:Only nutty, right-wing militias from outside would stoop to such tactics. Brown and Grasty must know the protest included state and local residents. Plenty of community people were sympathetic enough to bring food and supplies. The storeroom overflowed, and locally grown beef had to be kept frozen in a snow bank outside for lack of adequate freezer space.
If they had visited, they would have found people there ready to talk calmly, rationally and intelligently about the issues. Tragically they felt there had been too much talking already. Now one of the most calm and rational leaders in the group is dead.
Federal supremacists like to marginalize anyone advocating local control as radical and dangerous. They want you to believe these people are motivated by crazy ideology.
They don’t talk much about history. These issues have been simmering for decades. The Sagebrush Rebellion made headlines in the 1970s and ’80s. There are smart folks stretching back to the nation’s founding who question the legitimacy of federal control over public lands.
Given how economically devastating the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service management has been for rural communities around Oregon, Brown and Grasty should be asking questions, too.
Myth 3:Anyone opposed to federal control of lands hates conservation. The philosophy of the national conservation groups is irrational. They insist the best way to protect public lands is to put unelected bureaucrats headquartered thousands of miles away in charge. That position is hard to fathom. Many conservationists see the value in “buying local” when it comes to food and services. Local is great, except when it comes to government?
It is a bit reminiscent of war. The propaganda department dehumanizes the enemy, branding ranchers and loggers as foolish and blinded by greed. And local citizens as if they are too inept to stand up to them and govern responsibly.
The truth is, there are wise people who care for the environment living right in Harney County. Included among them are cattle ranchers and forestry professionals. Many simply believe management decision-making would be better if it was done much closer to home.
Myth 4: Ranchers just want a free ride. It would be far more accurate to say ranchers want fair, not free. Many Western ranches have a federal grazing allotment attached. Most of the time ranchers acquire the permit when they buy a ranch, though they can also buy and sell them independently. The point is, cattlemen pay big money upfront for a right to the grass.
On top of that, they pay grazing fees annually. Some argue the fees are set way below the market rate to rent private pasture. But they don’t account for ranchers maintaining fences and water systems. These are key differences versus renting private pasture.
In any event, practically no rancher is complaining about the dollars involved.
They object to paying federal agencies who have a long history of treating them like tenant farmers and disrespecting legitimate property rights. Most support the idea of paying fees locally, and getting more accountable range management in return.
Myth 5: The federal government’s prerogative to own and manage the majority of lands in Oregon is beyond question. Now we get to the crux of the matter. Everyone raised in the U.S. is taught federal laws are supreme. What’s more, we learn the U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on whether a law is constitutional. Those arguing for state and local control of lands had their day in court. They lost. Case closed.
Not so fast. What we were all taught is nonsense. In fact, the States (capital S) are sovereign and supreme. They have the power — make that the sacred duty — to nullify unconstitutional laws and defend the liberty of citizens.
The kicker is that Brown herself already acknowledged this truth in another context. She signed a bill legalizing recreational marijuana last summer, in complete disregard of federal laws. She didn’t send a letter to Washington begging for federal storm troopers to batter the doors in at pot dispensaries. On the contrary, she determined Oregon’s authority trumps federal dictates and acted accordingly.
What a “radical.” May she and Grasty find that spirit of independence before calling on the FBI to crush the next protest.
Clint Siegner is a director at Money Metals Exchange, a precious metals dealer in Eagle, Idaho. He grew up in a cattle ranching family in Fields, Ore.