OREGON STANDOFF: Sean and Sandy Anderson speak from inside the siege, ACLU defends Pete Santilli

SANDY ANDERSON: "We were peacefully protesting the injustices that were inflicted on the Hammonds and...SEAN ANDERSON Exercising our First and our Second..hey peace..SANDY ANDERSON:...Second Amendment exactly, so SEAN ANDERSON: So if that's possible, then the FBI just keeps lying to us because they want to make us give up um you don't give up on what's right..."

Four new videos were posted from inside the FBI siege at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge yesterday from the site labeled "Camp Finicum" located in the parking area of the refuge.

The quote above is from Sean and Sandy Anderson's video. They were noting that if its possible for a judge in Ferguson, Missouri to drop all warrants for arson, looting and other acts of rioting, violent acts, it should be possible for the federal authorities to drop charges for their non violent activities at the refuge.

In another part of the video Sean Anderson says: "....remember the saying that evil can only exist if good men do nothing, well we're doing something..."

David Fry also appeared in three videos yesterday including one where he discussed the Pacific Patriots Network and how promises they made fell apart when the killing of LaVoy Finicum and the arrest of people with him occurred back on January 26th.

Fry said: 'PPN, PPN they're supposed to be the buffer zone uh they said we'll stop another Waco if anything happens, but they cut tail and ran..."

Fry also said he got a phone call intended for Blaine Cooper from an FBI agent. Fry handed his phone to Cooper who spoke with the agent, then left the refuge on that fateful evening of January 26th. But Fry isn't making any final judgement on Cooper, although he is certain there were infiltrators among the group last month.

Earlier reports that Cliven Bundy will be in Burns, OR to protest this week are being qualified to say 'may' instead of 'will'.

Its not clear what's going on here, but one does wonder if Cliven Bundy showed up in Harney County on Thursday, he wouldn't wind up being involved in a 'traffic stop'.

But look for the delegation of state lawmakers from Western states to be in Oregon in the next day or two.

Attorneys for Ammon Bundy are defending themselves after two people filed ethics complaints with the Oregon Bar Association against them claiming they broke ethical standards when they went to the wildlife refuge and met with Bundy before his arrest.

Mike Arnold of the Arnold Law Firm in Salem, OR says his lawyers did nothing inappropriate.

Arnold told "OregonLive": "It was fairly obvious that a group holed up at a refuge probably should have an attorney available to answer any questions, particularly since their grievance appeared to be legal-or constitutional-in nature...We offered to be available by phone over the next couple of weeks to answer any questions for free, assuming we were not otherwise unavailable."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon has weighed in with a First Amendment defense in the case of Pete Santilli, the internet broadcaster arrested in Burns, Oregon on January 26th. Santilli was arrested separately shortly after the main group was taken into custody.

The ACLU of Oregon's legal director, Mat dos Santos, says "Americans have a fundamental right to freedom of speech" in a statement posted on its website.

Another part of the statement: "We can all agree that we should not hold members of the media or protestors in jail simply because they have shocking or abhorrent views. These are principles that we must stand by, even when we disagree with the message of the speaker."

Here is a good article, it explains the situation well. http://thelsvoice.blogspot.com/2016/02/lavoy-finicum-and-long-slow-death-of.html?m=1

Excerpt “Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

That is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The full text. Since 1791 those few words, that one sentence, has been the symbol of individual liberty that has been the hallmark of America.”

The article continues with additional information and concludes with the following,
“What happened at either the first traffic stop or the road block is unclear. By some accounts, police were shooting at LaVoy’s truck during the first stop, leading him to ‘run for his life.’ One passenger in the truck says that as soon as they crashed into the snow bank, law enforcement officers began shooting at the truck. The official story is that upon crashing, LaVoy leapt from his truck and charged at law enforcement officers who had to shoot him. The video released by the FBI contradicts this. It shows LaVoy standing outside his truck with his hands in the air, and trying to keep his hands up as he is shot by no fewer than 3 agents.

By any measure, this was a murder. And it was a murder intended to stop objections to government abuse at the hands of bureaucratic agencies. LaVoy Finicum was a sympathetic, well-spoken, rational and knowledgeable man. He was a threat to the power structure.

I am convinced that he had no idea how greatly he was feared until the first bullet entered his body. I am convinced that he believed that he could make people hear reason and that there was an outcome without blood that was possible. Right up to the end.

I don’t like the crass and ugly threats from ‘militia’ types that I see on line. That type of rhetoric is dangerous and ignorant. And they represent a very small, by their own estimates 3%, of the population.

What concerns me more is the response I get from my friends in government and in general. A US military officer I know has no sympathy. He chose to ‘live by the sword’ and thus chose his fate. Never mind the fact that LaVoy Finicum hurt no one.

An attorney has no sympathy. There is a right way to bring grievances before government. When one goes outside that channel, then killing that person is justified. Never mind the 8th Amendment or the 1st Amendment.

A liberal environmentalist has no sympathy. There was important work to be done on the Refuge and he was keeping them from it. When someone undertakes to obstruct government work, then killing them is okay.

A business executive has no sympathy. The guy was obviously a kook. Someone being a kook makes it okay to kill them.

The general understanding among these people seems to be that, in order for First Amendment rights to be protected, one must be socially acceptable, not speak or act against government, and use those rights only within established channels as dictated by law and tradition. This would be the first time I know of where the exercise of speech, assembly and petition were so narrowly applied.

I want to shake them and shout, “ARE YOU OKAY?!?! YOU THINK THESE GUYS HAD A SERIOUS CHANCE AT RESOLUTION THROUGH A SYSTEM THAT HAD BEEN TRYING TO DESTROY THEM FOR 30 YEARS?!?! WHAT GIVES YOU THAT IDEA? AND WHAT MAKES YOU THINK IT’S OKAY TO KILL SOMEONE WHO DISAGREES WITH GOVERNMENT ACTION?”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.