Finicum Lawsuit

Post Reply
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9996
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#101

Post by Kendra » Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:27 pm

Curmudgeon wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:18 pm
Kendra wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:00 pm
Not a lawyer, but don't they have to provide proof? Plus discovery?
Not if the intention is to pile up so much cow poop that the government chooses to settle just to make it go away instead of going to trial. (I think :shock: )
When can we expect a response for all the parties?

Spotted on BJ Soper's page:
► Show Spoiler



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9996
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#102

Post by Kendra » Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:44 pm

89. As of December 2015, both Ammon Bundy and LaVoy Finicum had used their
experience at Bunkerville to educate the public, to advocate their political ideas and to spread the
message of responsible citizen activism against federal government overreach. LaVoy had
written and published a book on June 20, 2015
, and had been conducting small group
symposiums on the principles of freedom, and in particular related to western land issues.
'

And a fictional book is relevant to this suit?



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9996
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#103

Post by Kendra » Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:53 pm

91. On January 1, 2016, LaVoy received a phone call from Ammon’s brother Ryan
explaining that large groups of protesters in Harney County, Oregon had planned a protest
parade and a show of support and love for the Hammonds and their family. Later that day,
LaVoy Finicum traveled with Ryan Bundy and others, more than 700 miles to Burns, OR, so that
they could participate in the planned parade and show of support for the Hammonds
.
Later in the day would be when the protests are already over and they still had 700 miles to drive?
Edit: N/M, I think I got my dates wrong
:bag:



User avatar
Curmudgeon
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 7:14 pm
Location: Washington County, Oregon
Occupation: Retired

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#104

Post by Curmudgeon » Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:54 pm

Kendra wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:44 pm
And a fictional book is relevant to this suit?
Good question.
If it can be inferred that defunct Finny was living out a roman à clef, let's see.


Delusion: A poot who thinks that he/she is one of "we the people." ;)

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9996
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#105

Post by Kendra » Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:57 pm

Curmudgeon wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:54 pm
Kendra wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:44 pm
And a fictional book is relevant to this suit?
Good question.
If it can be inferred that defunct Finny was living out a roman à clef, let's see.
I was reading that book leading up to the stop and shooting. I saw a lot of similarities between his character and what Finny was doing in RL.



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9996
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#106

Post by Kendra » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:01 pm

Page 25 and on and on all about the lawful adverse possession. :bored:



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9996
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#107

Post by Kendra » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:04 pm

Wait, I don't recall them changing the utility billing to them.
107. As part of this adverse possession, the protestors changed the name of the Refuge
to the Harney County Resource Center (the adverse possession was being undertaking in the
interests of the residents of Harney County, Oregon), they published new signs, changed
responsibility for the payment of utilities and services
, and took other specific steps the they
understood were required by law to establish the legitimate control and use of the Refuge
property, as outlined in standard adverse possession law treatises.



User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18198
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#108

Post by Volkonski » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:08 pm

Kendra wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:04 pm
Wait, I don't recall them changing the utility billing to them.
107. As part of this adverse possession, the protestors changed the name of the Refuge
to the Harney County Resource Center (the adverse possession was being undertaking in the
interests of the residents of Harney County, Oregon), they published new signs, changed
responsibility for the payment of utilities and services
, and took other specific steps the they
understood were required by law to establish the legitimate control and use of the Refuge
property, as outlined in standard adverse possession law treatises.
Since the occupation was widely reported would the utility companies have honored a request to change the account holder information? Most likely not.


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 17253
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#109

Post by RTH10260 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:14 pm

Kendra wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:59 pm
RTH10260 wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:46 pm
Kendra wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:22 pm
I wonder why - perhaps they had common contractual obligations :?:
I don't know the answer to that :?:
Like Finicum had some grazing rights on BLM managed land iirc?



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9996
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#110

Post by Kendra » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:14 pm

Poots lie and twist the truth? :swoon:

I vaguely recall some chatter during the occupation why the government didn't shut off the power and stuff, and that the remote location and the need of access to the power poles would leave workers somewhat of a sitting duck with all those armed men out there. But, after two years, my memory isn't so good.



User avatar
Curmudgeon
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 7:14 pm
Location: Washington County, Oregon
Occupation: Retired

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#111

Post by Curmudgeon » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:15 pm

Let's all get together, round up our own militia and go adversely possess Ranch Davidian, whoops, I mean Bundy Ranch.


Delusion: A poot who thinks that he/she is one of "we the people." ;)

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9996
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#112

Post by Kendra » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:16 pm

RTH10260 wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:14 pm
Kendra wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:59 pm
RTH10260 wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:46 pm


I wonder why - perhaps they had common contractual obligations :?:
I don't know the answer to that :?:
Like Finicum had some grazing rights on BLM managed land iirc?
Oh, I get your point now. :bag:

Didn't he rip it up or otherwise disavow it?



User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1373
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#113

Post by neeneko » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:20 pm

Kendra wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:04 pm
Wait, I don't recall them changing the utility billing to them.
They probably tried to change the name of the place the bills were being sent to, but I doubt they paid any.



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9996
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#114

Post by Kendra » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:20 pm

If you guys think there should be a separate thread for quotes, I'm game. Otherwise I'll keep spamming posting them here.
112. However, Defendants Greg T. Bretzing, Katherine Brown, Ronald Lee Wyden,
David M. Ward, Steven E. Grasty and other John Doe defendants worked intentionally and
deliberately to control the official narrative, and never once publically admitted the true nature of
the occupation as an attempted lawful adverse possession, and never once candidly explained to
the public that the normal legal remedy against an adverse possession claimant was formal notice
and possible trespass charges
. Further, these defendants ignored legal advice and counsel that
suggested that the appropriate course of action would be legal notice and possible trespass charge
– by local law enforcement and local civil court actions. These same defendants also ignored
advice from local legal authorities, that no law had been broken by the attempted adverse
possession.4
Of course it was their fault not knowing about the adverse possession defence months before the idea was ever cooked up as a defense.



User avatar
Curmudgeon
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 7:14 pm
Location: Washington County, Oregon
Occupation: Retired

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#115

Post by Curmudgeon » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:21 pm

Kendra wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:16 pm
Didn't he rip it up or otherwise disavow it?
He didn't pay, but apparently the widder has paid up.


Delusion: A poot who thinks that he/she is one of "we the people." ;)

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9996
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#116

Post by Kendra » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:23 pm

Curmudgeon wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:21 pm
Kendra wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:16 pm
Didn't he rip it up or otherwise disavow it?
He didn't pay, but apparently the widder has paid up.
That's right, and didn't they refuse to let her have her allotment back?



User avatar
Curmudgeon
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 7:14 pm
Location: Washington County, Oregon
Occupation: Retired

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#117

Post by Curmudgeon » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:28 pm

Kendra wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:23 pm
That's right, and didn't they refuse to let her have her allotment back?
Apparently so.
The government has been quite gracious and humanistic, perhaps too much so.


Delusion: A poot who thinks that he/she is one of "we the people." ;)

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18198
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#118

Post by Volkonski » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:29 pm

Kendra wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:14 pm
Poots lie and twist the truth? :swoon:

I vaguely recall some chatter during the occupation why the government didn't shut off the power and stuff, and that the remote location and the need of access to the power poles would leave workers somewhat of a sitting duck with all those armed men out there. But, after two years, my memory isn't so good.
That is correct. There was a single electric supply line serving that area so the power company could not disconnect the power from the refuge at a safe distance without shutting power off to other customers.


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9996
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#119

Post by Kendra » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:31 pm

119. Specifically, Defendant Katherine Brown (Governor of Oregon) directly
communicated with staff members that they were to work with other John Doe defendants to
control the public narrative, and she further prioritized the use of force, and she did this by
ignoring readily available legal advice that the Refuge occupation by itself was not an illegal
activity
.
So, it sounds like it's everyone's fault?
121. As such, Defendant Bretzing, deliberately continued the politically biased, antiMormon,
anti-Bundy, “punitive and ego driven” agenda of Defendant Love – who had openly
admitted that it was his goal to exact violence against Cliven Bundy and his supporters.



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9996
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#120

Post by Kendra » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:56 pm

153. Almost immediately upon impact in the snow, LaVoy intentionally exited the
vehicle in an apparent attempt to draw away fire, vocally expressing that he realized he was
being targeted for assassination
.
Is that the legal version of just shoot me?



User avatar
Whip
Posts: 2739
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#121

Post by Whip » Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:07 pm

maydijo wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:24 pm
Wow, the ebil gubmint is slow. You'd think with all that power and all that money, if they decided to kill Fini on 14 April 2014, he'd have been dead by 15 April 2014, at the latest.
well, tax deadline and all that.



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9996
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#122

Post by Kendra » Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:07 pm

201. Additionally, Defendants, acting under color of state and federal law (excluding
The Center for Biological Diversity), deprived Plaintiffs of their right to a familial relationship
without due process of law by their sue of unjustified and fatal force against LaVoy Finicum
with the deliberate intent to cause LaVoy Finicum harm so that he could not and would not
return to his family in his home state of Arizona, in violation of rights, privileges, and
immunities secured by the First and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.
:?: :?:



User avatar
Whip
Posts: 2739
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#123

Post by Whip » Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:11 pm

Kendra wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:42 pm
77. Nevertheless, this false and misleading information, this history of widespread
misconduct, and the deliberate activities and actions taken by Defendant Love and the other
above-named defendants, contributed directly to the subsequent shooting death of LaVoy
Finicum in January 2016.
I am not following their logic.
just give me money.



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9996
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#124

Post by Kendra » Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:13 pm

Boy, do they want money.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as
follows:
1. For general damages in an amount according to proof, but no less than $5,000,000 for
each plaintiff,
but as permitted by law;



User avatar
Whip
Posts: 2739
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#125

Post by Whip » Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:20 pm

Kendra wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:07 pm
201. Additionally, Defendants, acting under color of state and federal law (excluding
The Center for Biological Diversity), deprived Plaintiffs of their right to a familial relationship
without due process of law by their sue of unjustified and fatal force against LaVoy Finicum
with the deliberate intent to cause LaVoy Finicum harm so that he could not and would not
return to his family in his home state of Arizona, in violation of rights, privileges, and
immunities secured by the First and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.
:?: :?:
again, they had no issue with them leaving to takeover the refuge 'for as long as it takes'. they could have still been there today far all anyone knows.



Post Reply

Return to “Bundy Ranch/Malheur NWR”