Fogbow

The entire affair had great effect on me and our family, for reasons perhaps obvious via my past writings on the subject and certainly not obvious due to family work situations.

I became further appalled at law enforcement, the echo chambers of experts, and newly appalled at the profession of journalism.

Our (my kids and I) 1/13/16 meet with Finicum’s was to document there was no perimeter and that they were recruiting. Later, I crashed their first SOR 3 days before the shooting in order to document it. At the time, MacNab and I were communicating, later she blocked me because of my insistence this was a unified, coordinated, funded, fundamentalist LDS theoconstitutional network (she vigorously protects her echo chamber).

I wrote this to her the night of Finicum’s death. Sorry for the long post.

He wrote a revelatory book built upon the snake oil sold by rackets. His was a bit different and should be very personal to you.

He was an LDS monk taught by salesmen in the oil of prophecy, constitution, the bigotry of being chosen, and an infectious kindness.

The enablers. Local con radio was livid, pious hosts spouting bullshit mispronouncing his name while saying guns weren’t the issue. Fuck that. It was and will continue to be the issue. Guns and explosives.

Enablers. Skousen LDS JBS BYU training attorney generals to motivate footsoldiers for their war. Ivory is a semi legal one who just looks like a snake. The one in the grass is MacFarlane, the bigger financier Bert Smith - for 3 decades.

Skousen, McKay and Benson would be proud of their achievements two generations into their master plan.

And, the elected pukes like Mike “there will be bloodshed” Noel, Chaffetz, Bishop, Hansen before him, and…..we can go on.

Pernicious. Insidious. They got their simple foot soldiers. They are lucky there was only one causality. But, the war goes on, to Boise, to Montana, and a decade more because the machine will chug on even after the 95 year old bastard’s money runs out.

I understand there is more to the sovereign movement than just mormons. A journalist friend said I want to blame all western land problems on mormons. I said no. Just 75%. About the landmass of Deseret in the West.

Regarding the released video, you not only see great restraint on behalf of LE but the wheels in the head of Finicum asking The Lord what to do, all the thoughts of Kanab, his family, movie sets and revelations. You can “hear” the panic conversations with God and each other of what to do next in the 5 minutes they are allowed to decide to run.

That the truck wasn’t a hail of immediate bullets when he floored it is an illustration of that restraint - the same LE had for almost a month.

He ran. They ran. Testimony of that heard conversation will be known someday. But he vigorously nodded and took off.

That he/they thought they could get away is indicative of the faith this ¾ filled truck had in their God’s purpose for them. Maybe just Finicum, as the monk tells everyone the Lord will protect them like MacFarlane’s promises to ranchers or Ivory’s to fellow politicians.

There’s the roadblock and he guns it as an officer jumps out and, instead of hitting him and and the LE vehicle but staying on the roadway swerves to miss, getting stuck in the deep ditch snow.

I see him immediately get out of the truck and run a few steps with hands up. Still not shot. Such restraint. He reaches once to his coat - still not shot that I see - then twice, turns while reaching a third time. Enough.

The pose was as Edward Abbey intended.

Fucking enablers.

Tragic.

Thanks for hanging with me. You are much more professional than myself. Fate brought us all together. No damn god.

I’ve got a lot of writing to do. So do you. My perspective on life - my family - is forever changed because of the fate of Finicum.

He was a bad good guy. Or, a good bad guy.

Both.

ZinWhit wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 1:07 pm If I were a lawyer advising Jeanette (and beyond the race overtone of LE response).

* Jeanette went to Malheur 1/6/16 with a delegation to get LaVoy out (that included his brother, Guy). Unfortunately, that delegation double crossed her (MacFarlane and SOR) and LaVoy stayed.

* The Feds had a duty to secure the compound/site. If this were a bank, court house, or other facility, the area would have been secured. Instead, it never was . Jeanette never demanded one, weakness in her case.

* The feds let the principles roam for 24 days, the only arrest Mendenbach for driving a federal vehicle in Burns while others drove federal vehicles in the compound and still others left to recruit and plea to the LDS Church - one group with an ethically questionable journo testing if there was a FBI perimeter (imagine if that journo wasn't along; would this first traveling group have been arrested?).

* Had a permiter been in place, nobody would have left and everyone who left would have been arrested. Everyone would have explicitly been given such notice and there would never have been a stop.

* Instead, as stated, the feds were derelict in their duty to secure their facility, relying on a local Sheriff and later OSP with FBI - all of whom choose (by FBI pressure) to not wear body cams in the era of body cams during the stop, illustrating intent to cover from public view (only a shitty drone?).

It bugs me greatly that Malheur was so badly bungled. Further, that journalists were so deferential to LE, others assisting for professional glory, all feckless in demanding even FBI pressers. None ever asked about the lack of a perimeter.

While LaVoy made bad choices and should have complied in the stop, the feds negligence contributed to his form of death, as the scenario might have played much differently had they been starving come March.

For what it's worth.

IAAL, and IMHO your legal advise was worth less than Giuliani's was to trump.

MacFarlane liked this piece.

Ironically, he republished the only two that I have allowed to remain on the interwebs. I couldn't get them to delete.

I no longer write nonfiction- in part because of cyber cesspools.

http://rangefire.us/2016/08/27/another- ... standoffs/

ZinWhit wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 1:07 pm If I were a lawyer advising Jeanette …

… I’d familiarize myself with the law enforcement exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Then I’d probably advise her that, at least with respect to the federal government, she has no case because there is no waiver of sovereign immunity.

But that’s just me. And maybe a lot of other lawyers.

Yes.

An entity given rights through an ideal of the supposed consent of the governed, the Government or its agents can do harm through negligence or malfeasance yet never be held to account, untouchable.

The tie that binds BLM and Bundy, the left and right, behind the LEO / prosecution discussion in the U.S. at this point in our history.

The United States is hardly the only government to have a form of sovereign immunity.

I understand: it is a remnant of feudalism.

ZinWhit wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 1:19 pm Yes.

An entity given rights through an ideal of the supposed consent of the governed, the Government or its agents can do harm through negligence or malfeasance yet never be held to account, untouchable.

The tie that binds BLM and Bundy, the left and right, behind the LEO / prosecution discussion in the U.S. at this point in our history.

Fine. But you started your post with, “If I was a lawyer advising Jeanette...” You’d have to advise her on the law as it is, not the law as you wish it to be.

If you don’t like sovereign immunity, take it up with your congressional representatives.

Indeed. No lawyer. My background only Poli Sci and a graduate degree in public administration, the only legal training related to due process and administrative proceedures, what half the law is based upon and where most cases end. The same is true here, with Finicum's terrible attorney(s).

I don't know the other half as well, it is true. However, it's my understanding most of that other half is where arguments are made.

My argument wouldn't initially be about sovereign immunity - something that can be dealt with through civil proceedings (my spouse has insurance). My argument would be FBI/DOJ didn't follow established administrative procedures (i.e. one being establish a secure perimeter) and if they have none (which is unlikely), why.

Of course then it gets to sovereign immunity- the card that Trumps (pun intended) justice.

At what distance would a safe secure perimeter be put on place at MNWR? How many personnel would be required to man it 24/7 in winter time and where would they be sourced from? It can be assumed that apart from possibly escalating the situation and putting lives in danger, the political, monetary, and resource issues created attempting to do so would quickly result in calls to terminate the operation or “storm” the refuge.

Also I do not see how the lack of a “safe perimeter” can have any legally arguable effect related to the sequence of events that led to the waste of Finicum’s life.

Uninformed wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 4:39 pmAlso I do not see how the lack of a “safe perimeter” can have any legally arguable effect related to the sequence of events that led to the waste of Finicum’s life.

Too also: The feds were keenly aware of prior, similar situations, i.e., Ruby Ridge and Branch Davidians. I have no doubt the feds feared a siege would ultimately end in a shootout.

And there were basically right: The only one who died was one of the few people who refused to comply.

(As a presumably unanticipated bonus, the lack of a siege likely lured Cliven into attempting to visit.)

Uninformed wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 4:39 pm At what distance would a safe secure perimeter be put on place at MNWR? How many personnel would be required to man it 24/7 in winter time and where would they be sourced from? It can be assumed that apart from possibly escalating the situation and putting lives in danger, the political, monetary, and resource issues created attempting to do so would quickly result in calls to terminate the operation or “storm” the refuge.

Also I do not see how the lack of a “safe perimeter” can have any legally arguable effect related to the sequence of events that led to the waste of Finicum’s life.

From what I remember the "safe perimeter" could have been the lockdown of the two roads leading up to the MNWR at a safe distance (the fire watch tower was manned with outlooks with guns). The sage brush under snow cover was not passable for vehicles including ATVs. Re the watch tower: law enforcement could have picked out any shooter, the SWAT teams have the more powerful rifles to shoot at longer distance and they could have hidden in any spot. The discussion at the time was why they did not just isolate and hunger out the crew at MNWR but let visitors and food pass freely.

I would have just stopped them going into town for supplies and sitting in coffee shops, to be honest. That would have done the job pretty well.

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 4:57 pm From what I remember the "safe perimeter" could have been the lockdown of the two roads leading up to the MNWR at a safe distance (the fire watch tower was manned with outlooks with guns). The sage brush under snow cover was not passable for vehicles including ATVs. Re the watch tower: law enforcement could have picked out any shooter, the SWAT teams have the more powerful rifles to shoot at longer distance and they could have hidden in any spot. The discussion at the time was why they did not just isolate and hunger out the crew at MNWR but let visitors and food pass freely.

Indeed.

Add negative temperatures. I lived in Lakeview- eastern Oregon in winter is one of the most inhospitable places in the U.S. Nobody from the east - and few from the west - would show.

And, while Waco and Ruby Ridge were also bungled, SOP was (maybe still is) to establish a perimeter.

ZinWhit wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 4:20 pm
My argument wouldn't initially be about sovereign immunity - something that can be dealt with through civil proceedings (my spouse has insurance). My argument would be FBI/DOJ didn't follow established administrative procedures (i.e. one being establish a secure perimeter) and if they have none (which is unlikely), why.

As the plaintiff, it is completely irrelevant that your “argument” wouldn’t be about sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity isn’t a defense to a tort available to the government. The waiver of sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional prerequisite. If there is no waiver of sovereign immunity, there is no jurisdiction in federal court to hear the case.

Let’s say for the sake of argument you’re right and the federal government had some “duty” to put up a secure perimeter (although I don’t think they did have such a duty). So what? There’s still no jurisdiction.

To me, all of this discussion about tactics, etc. is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of LaVoy's death. There is one person, and only one person, ultimately responsible for his death -- LaVoy. He chose to broadcast ahead of time that he was armed and that they would have to kill him to arrest him, he refused to be peacefully arrested, he got out of the vehicle and he reached for his weapon. IMHO, he truly religiously believed that, just like his fantasy character in his book, he would "spalm" the gun, killed all of the LEO, and ride off with the woman whilst a halo shone over his head. He wanted a gunfight, he just didn't anticipate reality. Fuck him and his fellow right wing terrorists.

Uninformed wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 4:39 pm Also I do not see how the lack of a “safe perimeter” can have any legally arguable effect related to the sequence of events that led to the waste of Finicum’s life.

Had SOP been followed in establishing a perimeter (within 24 days of the crime), Finicum would never been stopped in the fashion he was. Instead, he and the rest of the occupants would have been given a different opportunity to surrender, one less dangerous to himself and others - including law enforcement.

Again, shut the roads, cut off the power, Internet, visitors and starve them out.

Obviously LE did not share your opinion of the situation. That Finicum died is regrettable to say the least but hindsight was not available, indeed nobody can predict what might have happened had a perimeter been put in place. For my part I would have been happy if a perimeter had been put in place accompanied by a short deadline to vacate the Refuge followed by forceful action if required, but then it wouldn’t have been my life at risk and I wouldn’t be responsible for the possible dire consequences

ZinWhit wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 5:48 pm
Had SOP been followed in establishing a perimeter (within 24 days of the crime), Finicum would never been stopped in the fashion he was. Instead, he and the rest of the occupants would have been given a different opportunity to surrender, one less dangerous to himself and others - including law enforcement.

Again, shut the roads, cut off the power, Internet, visitors and starve them out.

What “SOP”? What specific statute or regulation are you saying created some “duty”?

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 6:07 pm

ZinWhit wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 5:48 pm
Had SOP been followed in establishing a perimeter (within 24 days of the crime), Finicum would never been stopped in the fashion he was. Instead, he and the rest of the occupants would have been given a different opportunity to surrender, one less dangerous to himself and others - including law enforcement.

Again, shut the roads, cut off the power, Internet, visitors and starve them out.

What “SOP”? What specific statute or regulation are you saying created some “duty”?

There is no statute and there is no duty, but you know that.

And there's been no evidence that a SOP exists. Even when there is, nonstandard operations can use nonstandard procedures.

Especially when the lessons learned from past sieges was "don't."

ZinWhit wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 5:48 pm

Uninformed wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 4:39 pm Also I do not see how the lack of a “safe perimeter” can have any legally arguable effect related to the sequence of events that led to the waste of Finicum’s life.

Had SOP been followed in establishing a perimeter (within 24 days of the crime), Finicum would never been stopped in the fashion he was. Instead, he and the rest of the occupants would have been given a different opportunity to surrender, one less dangerous to himself and others - including law enforcement.

Again, shut the roads, cut off the power, Internet, visitors and starve them out.

Like the Branch Davidians?

Sure, Jan.

MF jumped out of a car, ran towards a cop holding a phuckin canon and got shot, multiple times until he assumed room temperature. What SHOULD have happened? Well FFS SParky, maybe LaVoy should have stayed in Cincinnati and watched this shit on TV. He would still be alive today if he had NOT gone 2,000 miles, taken enough weaponry to outfit a squad of infantry and taken over a Federal Facility. You do realize that he did, in legal temrs, pretty much the exact same thing as the guys in Charleston who took over Ft Sumpter, and if he would have been reading book instead of driving 2,000 miles with a truck load of guns that make his dick look bigger, he might have known that the thing in South Carolina didn't end well either.

Fucked around, Found out.

The end.

The widow would have a better case of wrongful death suing:

“Gun it” Shawna

“The idiot” Ryan

“the surrender monkey” Ammon

Etc

But none of them have deep pockets
And
Suing them would dry up her grift.

I mean, you know they have an actual video where "Free and Dead to Prove it" screams no less than 20 times either "Go ahead and shoot me" or "you're gonna have to shoot me" and in fact his last words "You'll have to shoot me" and as Aldo the Apache once said "We got a German PATRIOT here who wants to die for his country! Oblige him!"

The "SOP" is to shoot the bad guy when he runs ar you with a gun screaming "you're gonna have to shoot me"

Can we sue tha gubiment for excessive restraint?

ZinWhit wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 5:48 pm Had SOP been followed in establishing a perimeter (within 24 days of the crime), Finicum would never been stopped in the fashion he was. Instead, he and the rest of the occupants would have been given a different opportunity to surrender, one less dangerous to himself and others - including law enforcement.

Again, shut the roads, cut off the power, Internet, visitors and starve them out.

I know it's just a movie, but, it does not appear that having a single SOP worked very well for the FBI in Die Hard. In an active engagement, acting in only a singular way lets the occupiers know exactly what you are going to do and is not a useful strategy.

The job of the FBI and OSP was simple, end the occupation with the fewest injuries and deaths on either side as possible. This is not, and can never be a one size fits all situation. I wouldn't mind hearing Sugar's take on how LE deals with standoffs and hostage situations.

IMHO, the FBI's strategy for ending the occupation was impressive and could have even saved all lives had Levoy gotten out of his vehicle as Ryan Payne did at the first stop. He chose to gun it and his passengers encouraged him in that. He also chose to leave the car and keep walking even when told to stop.

I look with favor at their methods because of the following (though done with hindsight).

1. Ruby Ridge and Branch Davidians. They still haunt the feds. Whether what they did at those was right or wrong, there were some heavy consequences.

2. The refuge had a large armed group together, with their leadership (both physically and emotionally). It would have required a very long siege or a very bloody shootout.

3. There were at least some in that group who were long-time preppers, or like Ryan Payne, well experienced in survival (not to mention a bunch of hunters). They would have been able to hold out a much longer time than the final four idiots did.

4. There were also some in that group that likely are suffering from PTSD from Iraq. A siege could have caused some nasty triggers.

5. This is Eastern Oregon. They had support from locals in the area and a Waco-style siege could have resulted in the FBI fighting not only their front but in their rear. In addition, had they secured the perimeter, the occupiers or their supporters not at the refuge could have put out a call to more supporters as they did during the Bunkerville standoff. This would have increased occupation supporters on both sides of the feds.

6. "All war is based on deception." They could have turned up the heat, and made the occupiers paranoid about when they might come. This can be useful but not necessarily with those who are already paranoid. Instead, make them complacent and feel invincible. That is when the adversary becomes vulnerable.

7. "If the campaign is protracted, the resources of the state will not be equal to the strain." The longer a siege goes, the more you will lose the public's support.

8. When the opportunity presented itself, the FBI acted. Because the leadership had become complacent and felt they were safe and untouchable, they left the refuge in separate vehicles. This allowed the FBI to cut off the head without a large frontal assault. Remember, Ammon, the people in his car, and Ryan Payne surrender then. Levoy would still be here today if he had done the same.

9. After they cut off the head, only then did they start tightening the perimeter. However, even then, they let chaos take over the group and allow them then to scatter. They could pick them up later when they were alone and away from a large group of armed people (and they did).

The only problem with the whole strategy was that Levoy ran, though even this was obviously anticipated since they had a second roadblock. The only large error LEOs made in the process was lying that the FBI had taken a shot. That was stupid.

They also managed to lure Cliven out of his bunker and into a secured area where he was not armed and had no armed backup. That was also impressive (the spoiled by their stupid lack of sharing evidence).