Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's "more to the story" but you don't know a lot about the situation. LOL
This was heading to the courts one way or the other, it's not a victory for anyone, that will be decided. I don't know what the point was of these needless threats by a bunch of rednecks.
I have to wonder what these Oath Keepers do for a living, are they retired on social security that they have this much time to travel around the country.
I'm at least willing to admit that I don't have all of the details of the story. I know enough about this situation to know that the media didn't touch on what this is really all about.
Post #8 in this thread by MTSilvertip was a nice overview of the situation.
I agree with you that there really isn't much of a story here unless the government does something stupid, and initiates a confrontation with the Oath Keepers.
White Hope Mine has a mining permit in the Helena National Forest in Montana. That permit places certain restrictions on surface operations. The operators built a garage and new road in the park without permission.
Armed Oath Keepers are now "protecting the mine" and the owners have blocked public roads and access to "their property" in the park.
U.S. Attorney Michael Cotter filed a civil suit Tuesday in federal court in Helena, Montana against George Kornec and Phil Nappo, owners of the White Hope Mine near Lincoln, Montana. The suit alleged the miners opened a road, built a garage and cut down trees on their mining claim without authorization, stored another individual's explosives on the site, and illegally turned members of the public away from the land by locking the gates to the property shut and posting no-trespassing signs.
The owners of a Montana gold mine sent a letter to the U.S. Forest Service earlier this month warning its employees to stay off the owners' property.
"Anyone entering onto the White Hope Mine, without previous coordination, will be charged" and arrested under Montana code, the letter read, according to court documents.
I'm at least willing to admit that I don't have all of the details of the story. I know enough about this situation to know that the media didn't touch on what this is really all about.
Post #8 in this thread by MTSilvertip was a nice overview of the situation.
I agree with you that there really isn't much of a story here unless the government does something stupid, and initiates a confrontation with the Oath Keepers.
The Oath Keepers went to the Bundy Ranch after several rulings by United States Courts already rendered an opinion that found him at fault.
There is really no need for them to elevate a situation that will be decided by the courts, this groups presence adds nothing. Lacking their presence this is a story played out across the US with little fanfare.
The Oath Keepers went to the Bundy Ranch after several rulings by United States Courts already rendered an opinion that found him at fault.
There is really no need for them to elevate a situation that will be decided by the courts, this groups presence adds nothing. Lacking their presence this is a story played out across the US with little fanfare.
If the Forest Service was simply going to use the courts to settle this issue, and not try to muscle the miners off their claim, then your are right, there is no need for the Oath Keeper to be there. However, there seems to be enough reason to believe that the FS intends to try to muscle them off the claim for the miners to call for the Oath Keepers.
The Bundy Ranch is a whole different issue all together. There was good reason to believe that large land developers were using the BLM to push ranchers out, so the they could develop their land.
If the Forest Service was simply going to use the courts to settle this issue, and not try to muscle the miners off their claim, then your are right, there is no need for the Oath Keeper to be there. However, there seems to be enough reason to believe that the FS intends to try to muscle them off the claim for the miners to call for the Oath Keepers.
The Bundy Ranch is a whole different issue all together. There was good reason to believe that large land developers were using the BLM to push ranchers out, so the they could develop their land.
I find it amusing that the Oath Keepers protested against the court decsion in Nevada but in this case they want the court to intervene. If the ruling once again goes against the property owner and this miner is kicked off his property will they walk away, or more of the same protests.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
