Pretty harsh punishment for burning 139 acres of brush. This is one of the reasons I do not burn my pastures off, as easy as it would be. If it gets away and into the National Forest they would hang my butt for every single tree, bush, weed and sapling, even if the NFS and TFS were going to burn the same area the next week, and Lord help me if I let it happen during mating season of the Red Cockaded Woodpecker. I'd get off lighter if I murdered someone or ran over a busload of school kids. One of their rules are, I can cut limbs of theirs that hang over or protrude thru my fence, but I MUST throw the cut limbs back over the fence into the National Forest. Creates a fire hazard from all the dead stuff but their idea is they would lose some decaying biomass if I hauled them off and burned them in one of my trash or brush piles--as if they needed anymore rotten, stinking, soggy biomass out there.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-03-2016).]
Bundy is involved with the militia, but the Hammonds are the ones going back to prison because a judge decided they didn't spend enough time in prison 2 years ago.
Militiamen Occupy Oregon Wildlife Office in Protest of Ranchers’ Prison Terms
By LIAM STACKJAN. 2, 2016 Photo Protesters marched in Burns, Ore., on Saturday in support of two ranchers who were ordered to serve more time in prison. Credit Les Zaitz/The Oregonian, via Associated Press
A group of activists and militiamen protesting the federal prosecution of two ranchers occupied a remote federal building in the rural southeastern corner of Oregon, the authorities said.
The building seized by the group houses the offices of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and is operated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, about 30 miles southeast of Burns, in Harney County.
The occupation began after a demonstration in support of Dwight Hammond, 73, and his son Steven Hammond, 46, who were to report to California prison after a federal judge ruled that the sentences they had served for arson were not long enough under federal law.
Among the occupiers were Ammon and Ryan Bundy, two sons of Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher who became a symbol of anti-government sentiment in 2014, according to The Oregonian. A lawyer for the Hammonds said, however, they did not welcome the Bundys’ help, according to The Associated Press.
“Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond family,” the lawyer, W. Alan Schroeder, wrote to David Ward, the Harney County sheriff.
An email to the sheriff seeking comment was not immediately returned.
In a video posted to Facebook on Thursday, Ammon Bundy called on the members of “different militia groups” to participate in the protest on Saturday.
“This is not a time to stand down,” he said. “It is a time to stand up and come to Harney County. We need your help and we are asking for it.” The Hammonds admitted they lit fires in 2001 and 2006, but said it had been to protect their property from wildfires and invasive plant species, The A.P. said. They were convicted three years ago, and the father served three months in prison, while the son served one year.
The Harney County Sheriff’s Department said the Oregon State Police was handling the incident. Beth Anne Steele, a spokeswoman for the F.B.I. in Portland, said the agency was “aware” of the situation, but declined to comment further.
The Bundys have been organizing opposition to the government case against the Hammonds on social media in recent weeks, which they described as a tyrannical use of federal authority.
“We’re out here because the people have been abused long enough,” Ammon Bundy said in a separate video posted to Facebook on Saturday.
He called the prosecution of the Hammonds “a symptom of a very huge, egregious problem” that he described as a battle over land and resources between the federal government and “the American people.”
“The people cannot survive without their land and resources,” he said. “We cannot have the government restricting the use of that to the point that it puts us in poverty.”
Mr. Bundy described the federal building as “the people’s facility, owned by the people” and said his group was occupying it to take “a hard stand against this overreach, this taking of the people’s land and resources.”
He said the group would remain there indefinitely and told an interviewer that he hoped more supporters would join them. “We have a facility that we can house them in,” he said, referring to the occupied building.
“We pose no threat to anybody,” Mr. Bundy said. “There is no person that is physically harmed by what we are doing.” He added that if law enforcement officials “bring physical harm to us, they will be doing it only for a facility or a building.”
However, in an interview with The Oregonian earlier on Saturday evening, Mr. Bundy and his brother said they would not rule out violence if law enforcement officers attempted to remove them from the building.
“The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds,” Ammon Bundy told the newspaper. He said he planned to remain in the building for “years.” Cliven Bundy previously galvanized conservative critics of the federal government after a standoff with agents from the Bureau of Land Management, who attempted to confiscate cattle he had illegally grazed on federal land since 1993.
I have been following this for a few days now. Bundy is mentioned in almost every story. His Son is one of the protesters.
If you follow a link or two of what Dennis has been posting, there is a lot more happening around the country than you or I know. Individuals are being prosecuted for little to nothing. Defense is not an option. Legal fees are exorbitant to say the least.
One of the Militia members, goodbye and statement video.
That is the same guy who led the protests against the mosque here in Phoenix. I believe his heart is in the right place, but he has a penchant for over-dramatization. He likes to be on camera.
Also, for perspective on what we are getting truth wise...
The federal building is the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. We keep hearing of this "federal building". Here it is...
Yeah, its not exactly the most impressive, and it was closed for the weekend when the militia (occupied) it. However, it is federal property and no one who is there, will walk out without charges and if they are armed, they have used a firearm in commission of a crime. So, they will most likely be barred from legally owning firearms again. I am unsure how many of them, will accept those terms, this may go down like Ruby Ridge. I think some of them want that, they may plan on being martyrs to get the people to fight for the Constitution.
Yeah, its not exactly the most impressive, and it was closed for the weekend when the militia (occupied) it. However, it is federal property and no one who is there, will walk out without charges and if they are armed, they have used a firearm in commission of a crime. So, they will most likely be barred from legally owning firearms again. I am unsure how many of them, will accept those terms, this may go down like Ruby Ridge. I think some of them want that, they may plan on being martyrs to get the people to fight for the Constitution.
I agree with all of this.
This will be labeled as terrorism. The two fine islamic folks that peacefully murdered those in Cali a few weeks back will not be.
Edit: In regards to the building... Just pointing out how the media make it sound as if they invaded the FBI or something. Or took over the White House.
[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 01-03-2016).]
Originally posted by Tony Kania: I agree with all of this.
This will be labeled as terrorism. The two fine islamic folks that peacefully murdered those in Cali a few weeks back will not be.
Edit: In regards to the building... Just pointing out how the media make it sound as if they invaded the FBI or something. Or took over the White House.
Completely agree, and I understood your comment about the building, just agreeing. All my other comments were to members who might not understand why this will probably go south. When it comes to governmental over reach, and Islam, you and I have similar opinions.
The Hammond Family Does NOT Want an Armed Stand Off, and Nobody Has a Right to Force One On Them
We cannot force ourselves or our protection on people who do not want it. Dwight and Steven Hammond have made it clear, through their attorney, that they just want to turn themselves in and serve out their sentence. And that clear statement of their intent should be the end of the discussion on this. No patriot group or individual has the right or the authority to force an armed stand off on this family, or around them, against their wishes. You cannot help someone who does not want your help, and who are not willing and ready to take a hard stand themselves.
I think the Oath Keepers are wrong on that statement... The Hammonds requested help, until prosecutors threatened to put them in the worst section of prison and harsher sentences if they talked to the Militia. This is called Duress, they are refusing help because of fear.
I am not going to post links to controversial sites...
#BLM (black lives matter) supporters are blowing up the internet about how the "12 white men" took over a building in domestic terrorism and have not been shot yet. They are calling for the murder of those involved in "retaliation" of the Michael Browns of the world.
My biggest problem with this, from reading posts elsewhere from people close to the situation is the clause that the Brannons had to agree to regarding their fine. If paying it necessitates selling their ranching property, BLM gets first option to purchase it. I believe that was probably the intent behind this whole thing including increasing the sentence than what one usually gets for setting a wildfire, or letting one get out of hand. IIRC, the fine is $400K. my 2 cents anyway. http://www.oregonlive.com/p...l#incart_river_index
quote
The punishment
The Hammonds' pending return trip to prison deeply troubles ranchers and others.
"There's nobody in history who has gone to federal prison for burning a few acres of public property," said Melodi Molt, a Harney County rancher and former president of Oregon CattleWomen. "It's not right."
The Oregon Farm Bureau said the second prison term is "gross government overreach and the public should be outraged."
And then there is what some locals see as a government land grab.
The Hammonds in late 2014 agreed to pay the federal government $400,000 to settle a lawsuit seeking to force them to pay more than a $1 million in costs for fighting fires they set. The Hammonds paid $200,000 right away and paid the rest Thursday.
The settlement also required the Hammonds to give the land bureau first chance at buying a particular ranch parcel adjacent to public land if they intended to sell. For some, this was evidence that the government all along was after the Hammond ground to add to its Steens Mountain holdings.
"One thing that upsets cattle people is that provision," said Bob Skinner, a Jordan Valley rancher representing the Oregon Cattlemen's Association. But federal attorneys said the land provision was inserted in case the Hammonds felt they had to sell ranchland to pay the settlement. The Hammonds apparently won't face that prospect because they intend to pay the balance.
As the men pack for prison, the family faces challenges to keep the cattle business going.
The federal land bureau last year decided not to renew grazing permits because of the criminal convictions. A Boise lawyer appealing the decision said the loss will strain the ranch.
Molt said ranchers are ready to support the Hammond outfit.
"All they have to do is call on community members if they need help," said Molt.
But at this point only President Obama can spare the Hammonds from serving their full sentence. A pardon isn't expected, and clemency takes years to process.
Bushue, the farm bureau president, noted Obama earlier this year commuted sentences for drug offenders.
"I hope the president looks as kindly on community members as he does with drug offenders," Bushue said.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-03-2016).]
I think the Oath Keepers are wrong on that statement... The Hammonds requested help, until prosecutors threatened to put them in the worst section of prison and harsher sentences if they talked to the Militia. This is called Duress, they are refusing help because of fear.
So you think the Hammond's should be forced to accept armed resistance against their will because they were under duress from the government? At what point do you let them make their own decision? They requested help, and now they have said they don't want help.
I am not going to post links to controversial sites...
#BLM (black lives matter) supporters are blowing up the internet about how the "12 white men" took over a building in domestic terrorism and have not been shot yet. They are calling for the murder of those involved in "retaliation" of the Michael Browns of the world.
Sure, right after all the BLM rioters are killed for domestic terrorism. Clarification, BLM in this statement refers to #BlackLivesMatter, rioters refers to those who participated in violent attacks and robberies. This does not mean peaceful protesters, only violent ones. I am calling #BLM on their double standard and not actually calling for the killing of anyone.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 01-03-2016).]
So you think the Hammond's should be forced to accept armed resistance against their will because they were under duress from the government? At what point do you let them make their own decision? They requested help, and now they have said they don't want help.
Do you allow a woman that is getting beat, to continue to be beaten nearly to death, because she says she doesn't want help, out of fear? Besides, this is about continual BLM and Federal violations of Constitutional law, there will never be a perfect time. There are times, when a victim of a violent crime, refuses to press charges, that the state will press charges regardless of the will of the victim. To prevent the attacker from harming other people. That is what the militia is doing. I am not so sure about the occupying a federal building part, but I commend them for standing up for our constitutional rights.
A accidental fire from a controlled burn, is not terror arson, like the BLM claimed. It is made worse by the fact, that the BLM has not been maintaining it's land by controlled burns, which is partially responsible for the Hammond's fire getting out of hand. That on top of the BLM being caught, trying to end grazing rights in the past to make mineral right deals with corporations.
This is a whole lot like the old days out west, where the banks tried to forclose, even if it required gunpoint to sell the land to developers. The BLM is the bank in this instance. Second, after being tried convicted, and serving your time. What makes it legal for another judge to determine that it wasn't enough time? We must now allow constitutional abuse to go uncontested, even if others are unwilling to stand. If we do, it will become the norm, even more so than now. - - - ....In the previous “held-at-gunpoint” example, the idea of duress was taken to an extreme. The actual definition of duress is simply a measurement of coercion or force not necessarily because a weapon has been drawn. Any type of threats, intended harm or stress put upon a person in order to get them to perform an act they would not normally perform would be considered duress. A contract is not validly signed unless it is signed by each participant’s own accord and own free will. https://www.lawguru.com/art...nder-a-contract-void - - Federal lawyers prosecuted the Hammonds under an anti-terrorism law that required a five-year minimum sentence, though they have declined to say why. After father and son were convicted of the arsons, the government declined to renew their grazing permit. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wi...t-sentiment-36048971
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 01-03-2016).]
The information below outlines the elements of arson.
Intention. You can only commit arson if you intend to burn someone else's property without their permission. This essentially means you cannot commit arson if you accidentally set fire to something. You must purposefully set fire to the property or intend that your actions lead to property becoming burned or damaged. However, a prosecutor does not necessarily have to show what you specifically intended to do when you started the fire or burned the property. You can be convicted of arson if the prosecutor can show that the circumstances show you intended to burn the property even if you never say what your intention was.
Recklessness. In some states, you can also commit arson if you damage property as a result of acting recklessly. Acting recklessly means you act knowing that what you are doing is dangerous and could result in fire or property damage, but you do it anyway. In other states, causing property damage by acting recklessly is charged as different crime than arson.
Direct or indirect. It's not necessary to directly set fire to property to be convicted of arson. You can also be convicted of arson if you take actions that indirectly lead to property getting burned. For example, if you use a match to set fire to a home, you have committed arson. On the other hand, if you drop a lit match in a dry area on your property and cause a wildfire which then damages someone else's home, you have also committed arson.
Fire or explosion. In many states, explosions are also included in arson laws. This means that if you use an explosive force to cause damage you can also be convicted of arson even if that damage is from debris and not from fire. In other states, property damage caused by explosions is charged as a separate crime.
Property damage. To be convicted of arson the prosecution must show that your actions lead to someone else's property becoming damaged. If no damage resulted from your actions no arson occurred. However, the damage can be very slight, and there is no requirement that the fire last any specific amount of time.
Property you own. While most arson crimes involve property that belongs to other people, you can also be charged with arson if you set fire to your own property. However, to be convicted of arson by burning your own property you must either set the fire for fraudulent purposes, or the fire must lead to someone else's property getting damaged. For example, burning down your home or business with the intent to collect on your insurance policy is arson. Similarly, if you intentionally set fire to your property and that fire then leads to someone else's property getting damaged, you may also be convicted of arson. http://www.criminaldefensel...es/federal/Arson.htm
Do you allow a woman that is getting beat, to continue to be beaten nearly to death, because she says she doesn't want help, out of fear?
That's a disingenuous comparison and you know it. Who is actively, right this minute, under physical attack to the point their life is in danger?
How about another example. You showed up to get a wife beater to back down so she can leave safely. Later she tells you she's moving back in with him and doesn't want your help. Do you forcibly prevent her from leaving against your will? (FYI, that's called kidnapping)
That's a disingenuous comparison and you know it. Who is actively, right this minute, under physical attack to the point their life is in danger?
How about another example. You showed up to get a wife beater to back down so she can leave safely. Later she tells you she's moving back in with him and doesn't want your help. Do you forcibly prevent her from leaving against your will? (FYI, that's called kidnapping)
The Americans people's rights are in immediate danger. However your comparison is valid too. The American people are unwilling to stand up to the beater, so I guess they get what they get.
The Americans people's rights are in immediate danger. However your comparison is valid too. The American people are unwilling to stand up to the beater, so I guess they get what they get.
Do you know of any law that allows you to use lethal force to defend your rights? Even when it was done in the American Revolution, it was an illegal act. Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting the BLM. I think the government's actions have stunk to high heaven. But I respect the fact that when and how to fight has to be their decision. You or I shouldn't make that decision for them, even if we think they're making the wrong decision.
And yes, I do agree that they're likely making this decision under duress. I believe they're trying to cut their losses and think this is the safest way to ensure the least amount of problems for them. Standing on principle may cost you more than what you stand to lose if you give in. That's not a decision to be made lightly.
Do you know of any law that allows you to use lethal force to defend your rights? Even when it was done in the American Revolution, it was an illegal act. Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting the BLM. I think the government's actions have stunk to high heaven. But I respect the fact that when and how to fight has to be their decision. You or I shouldn't make that decision for them, even if we think they're making the wrong decision.
And yes, I do agree that they're likely making this decision under duress. I believe they're trying to cut their losses and think this is the safest way to ensure the least amount of problems for them. Standing on principle may cost you more than what you stand to lose if you give in. That's not a decision to be made lightly.
I would cite what the declaration of independence states as to what should be done with when a government becomes tyrannical. I don't believe they are fighting for the Hammond's. I believe they are trying to stop further blm tyranny. I also believe the government will become violent first.
I don't agree with them occupying a federal building, despite Occupy wallstreet nonsense. I also don't believe this was the breaking point that required action, but they did. However, I do commend people for standing up what they believe in, but I wouldn't suggest a PFF member to join them. It will most likely end badly, and the best possible outcome will end up with prison time.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 01-03-2016).]
For those of you negging me for this thread, consider the following...
Tim Brown December 15, 2015 BLM Burns Ranches and Destroy Cattle, but Ranchers Get Charged with Terrorism
I previously reported on the Hammond family, a family of ranchers in Oregon whose two patriarchs are being targeted in a government conspiracy to remove the ranchers from the land they have been on for decades. The family has been threatened by federal agents and fear for their lives. Now, the Bureau of Land Management is doing the very thing that the Hammonds did, which is burn off some of the land, only in the case of the BLM, they have killed more than 80 head of cattle, endangered the ranchers, injured other cattle, burnt homes and other structures such as fences and power poles and threatened an entire town! Yet, it is ranchers who are considered terrorists by the feds, not the BLM.
Ammon Bundy recently spoke out on the injustices and criminal activity of the BLM against the Hammond family.
Bundy claims that there was no due process, something that is specifically supposed to be protected under the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, and he went on to state that there was a tremendous amount of corruption involved in the sentencing, the re-sentencing and even in the present situation.
Bundy claims that he has confirmed that the Sheriff's Office has been providing information to the FBI on the Hammonds and others, including Bundy and his family. He has also confirmed that the threats that the Hammond family received came from the US Attorney's office. In fact, Bundy said that the threats claimed that if the Hammonds didn't break off communication with Ammon Bundy, they would be detained early and incarcerated in a "less desirable prison."
Bundy then went on to show a video of the BLM starting prescribed fires in July, something that normally doesn't take place at that time as the animals the ranchers care for are usually eating the very grass that the BLM set on fire. However, the video shows that the BLM didn't just burn grass. It killed and injured cattle, burned homes and destroyed other property. The video of land burning by BLM picks up around the 3:10 mark below. Warning: Some language.
The video was filmed less than two weeks from the day the Hammonds were sentenced for starting a similar fire. Keep in mind, as I reported previously, that the Hammonds have already spent time in prison and now are being labeled as "arsenal terrorists" for starting such fires. Yet, the BLM creates these fires with impunity.
Not only did they start the fires, but as the video shows, there was no one tending to the fires at various times. Not only that, but as ranchers attempted to make a fire break with water trucks and equipment, the BLM agents were building a fire around them! In fact, video captured BLM agents lighting fires within 100 feet of the corrals and those taking the video! Talk about deliberate terrorist acts!
But BLM won't be held accountable for their actions. No sir. It's the ranchers who are terrorists for setting fires at the proper time of year to try and deal properly in the maintenance of the property, and when a judge finds that they aren't terrorists, but lit the fires, he still sentences them to time in prison! Yet, because he did not give them the minimum sentence for arson terrorists, a federal judge has re-sentenced two men from the Hammond family to that minimum sentence, which is to be carried out in January.
This is not only unjust, it's a clear double standard! Every BLM agent involved in these fires should face the same punishment as the Hammons, or drop the charges against the Hammons altogether! Frankly, the Hammons should never have been imprisoned. No property damage was actually done. However, as you can see, the BLM have engaged in arson and destroyed property in the process.
Former Texas Congressman Ron Paul warned about an armed BLM and the kind of tyranny it would impose back in 1997. No one listened. They're listening now!
The entire premise for the attack on ranchers out West by the BLM is to obtain their land as part of Agenda 21. Without the men of the Hammond family around, how will the ranch survive? It won't, unless others help. And if that doesn't happen, the BLM is first in line to obtain the land. Convenient, isn't it?
Pass this one and let's get the word out about this injustice! Also contact those who are sworn to uphold the law, not be the puppets of tyrannical government and share with them the video. It is vitally important and time is running out for the Hammonds!
Sheriff David M. Ward 485 N Court Ave #6 Burns, Oregon 97720 541-573-6156 Dave.ward@co.harney.us
Frank Papagni, ESQ. US Attorney (Prosecutor) 405 East Eighth Ave Eugene, OR 97401 541-465-6771 Frank.pagani@usdoj.gov
First they came for the ranchers... and I didn't care... I often wondered how the Germans allowed the Nazis to come to power. I don't anymore. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Hammond family
Full Story on What’s Going on In Oregon – Militia Take Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge In Protest to Hammond Family Persecution… Posted on January 3, 2016 by sundance Grab a coffee, because this is soup-to-nuts. Many people will awaken today to the news of approximately 100 to 150 armed militia taking control of a closed Wildlife Park Headquarters, and not know the full back-story – so here it is: The short summary is: in an effort to draw attention to a ridiculous arrest of a father and son pair of Oregon Ranchers (“Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46,) who are scheduled to begin five year prison sentences (turning themselves in tomorrow January 4th 2016), three brothers from the Cliven Bundy family and approximately 100/150 (and growing) heavily armed militia (former U.S. service members) have taken control of Malheur Wildlife Refuge Headquarters in the wildlife reserve. They are prepared to stay there indefinitely.
Here’s the long version: including history, details, links video(s) and explanations:
Hammond Family
Hammond Family
HISTORY: (aa) The Harney Basin (were the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.
(ab) In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
(a) In 1964 the Hammonds purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.
(a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.
(a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told that, “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”. 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.
(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentional diverted the water to bypassing the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede and now the once thriving privately owned Silvies pains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.
(a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers that still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling fact about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study that was done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed that the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed that the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced 4 times more ducks and geese than the refuge did. It also showed that the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.
(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out that the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive towards the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found that the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*
(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.
(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.
(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds intended to still use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.
(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.
(g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sale their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later.
(h) The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.
(i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries.
(j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.
(j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff’s office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined that the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.
(k) In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges, they accused them of being “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death. Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over the news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”. Susan Hammond (Wife & Mother) said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me”.
(l) Shortly after the sentencing, Capital Press ran a story about the Hammonds. A person who identified as Greg Allum posted three comments on the article, calling the ranchers “clowns” who endangered firefighters and other people in the area while burning valuable rangeland. Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, soon called Capital Press to complain that he had not made those comments and request that they be taken down from the website. Capital Press removed the comments. A search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments revealed it is owned by the BLM’s office in Denver, Colorado. Allum said, he is friends with the Hammonds and was alerted to the comments by neighbors who knew he wouldn’t have written them. “I feel bad for them. They lost a lot and they’re going to lose more,” Allum said of the ranchers. “They’re not terrorists. There’s this hatred in the BLM for them, and I don’t get it,” The retired BLM employee said. Jody Weil, deputy state director for communications at BLM’s Oregon office, indicated to reporters that if one of their agents falsified the comments, they would keep it private and not inform the public.
(m) In September 2006, Dwight & Susan Hammond’s home was raided. The agents informed the Hammonds that they were looking for evidence that would connect them to the fires. The Hammonds later found out that a boot print and a tire tracks were found near one of the many fires. No matching boots or tires were found in the Hammonds home or on their property. Susan Hammond (Wife) later said; ” I have never felt so violated in my life. We are ranchers not criminals”. Steven Hammond openly maintains his testimony that he started the backfire to save the winter grass from being destroyed and that the backfire ended up working so well it put out the fire entirely altogether.
(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail that would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for 6 days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Much of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury. For example, Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings that the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.
(o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.
(p) Judge Michael Hogan & Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how the land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton everyday. Some drove more than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home.
On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict. Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision. Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual that has convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area, influenced by the prosecutors for 6 straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, made a verdict and went home.
(q) June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were found guilty of starting both the 2001 and the 2006 fires by the jury. However, the federal courts convicted them both as “Terrorist” under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. They were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Hogan overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commenting that if the full five years were required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The day of the sentencing Judge Hogan retired as a federal judge. In his honor the staff served chocolate cake in the courtroom.
(r) On January 4,, 2013, Dwight and Steven reported to prison. They fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months). Dwight was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014.
(s) Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM, and her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank Papagni exemplifying further vindictive behavior by filing an appeal with the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight’s and Steven’s return to federal prison for the entire 5 years.*
(t) In October 2015, the 9th District Court “resentenced” Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years. Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children. Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74) to be alone after 55 years of marriage. If he survives, he will be 79 when he is released.
(u) During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.
(v) Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their re-sentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them.
To date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of this year (2015). If the Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution. (more citations here) http://theconservativetreeh...-family-persecution/
This is the text of the applicable part of law they convicted the Hammonds on...
SEC. 708. ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR USE OF EXPLOSIVES OR ARSON CRIMES.
(a) In General.--Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (e), by striking ``five'' and inserting ``10''; (2) by amending subsection (f) to read as follows:
``(f)(1) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both. ``(2) Whoever engages in conduct prohibited by this subsection, and as a result of such conduct, directly or proximately causes personal injury or creates a substantial risk of injury to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties, shall be imprisoned for not less than 7 years and not more than 40 years, fined under this title, or both. ``(3) Whoever engages in conduct prohibited by this subsection, and as a result of such conduct directly or proximately causes the death of any person, including any public safety officer performing duties, shall be subject to the death penalty, or imprisoned for not less than 20 years or for life, fined under this title, or both.''; (3) in subsection (h)-- (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``5 years but not more than 15 years'' and inserting ``10 years''; and (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``10 years but not more than 25 years'' and inserting ``20 years''; and (4) in subsection (i)-- (A) by striking ``not more than 20 years, fined the greater of the fine under this title or the cost of repairing or replacing any property that is damaged or destroyed,'' and inserting ``not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title''; and (B) by striking ``not more than 40 years, fined the greater of a fine under this title or the cost of repairing or replacing any property that is damaged or destroyed,'' and inserting ``not less than 7 years and not more than 40 years, fined under this title''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 81 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``fined under this title or
[[Page 110 STAT. 1297]]
imprisoned not more than five years, or both'' and inserting ``imprisoned for not more than 25 years, fined the greater of the fine under this title or the cost of repairing or replacing any property that is damaged or destroyed, or both''. (c) Statute of Limitation for Arson Offenses.-- (1) In general.--Chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 3295. Arson offenses
``No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any non- capital offense under section 81 or subsection (f), (h), or (i) of section 844 unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted not later than 10 years after the date on which the offense was committed.''. (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
For those of you negging me for this thread, consider the following... ...
...
I watched this video several days ago. Please take the ten minutes out of your day to watch. It starts off slow, but the meat of the story hits quickly. Pertinent to this conversation.
I would cite what the declaration of independence states as to what should be done with when a government becomes tyrannical. I don't believe they are fighting for the Hammond's. I believe they are trying to stop further blm tyranny.
I guess the Hammond's are just a convenient excuse. I would remind you the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. The Founders had decided to break from the Crown and the Declaration was merely an explanation to the people of the world why.
quote
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
They also knew they were signing their death warrants if they should fail.
quote
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
They were representatives empowered by the people to make this decision for the people of the Colonies. The Hammonds did not empower anyone to make that decision for them.
I don't disagree with your assessment of the militia's motives, but for me it goes back to what the Hammonds want. You are right on the money that what the BLM is doing is wrong. The question is if this is the time for armed insurrection. That's not a question to be decided lightly. It's a decision that will have life changing impact on everyone involved.
I submit anyone who thinks a militia should be resisting the BLM right now - you should grab a rifle and stand with them. The gravity of the decision is a bit more weighty when your own life is on the scales. I think armed resistance at this point won't end tyranny. It will be another Waco and result in a lot of dead bodies, some water cooler conversation, then everyone who supported resistance but didn't do anything about it will go on about their life... because they didn't die for what they believed in. Others did.
I mean this with a great deal of respect. I just think it's too easy to be gung ho from the safety of our living room when we aren't the ones who have to live with the choices we advocate.
I haven't fact checked it but there is an internet story involving the Hammonds killing 7 dear and the starting the fire as a cover up. Could be BS. They take a really attractive family picture. The militia? I see no need for a Waco or Ruby Ridge. Not that there was a need for those either. A simple siege and wait for them to run out of food would be easy as can be.
I have already stated, I don't believe it was the breaking point, that requires armed resistance. I stated but the militia did. To that end, I respect their right to stand against tyranny, ill advised or not, and yes you are right it will end like waco, but that is their choice. I will not be joining them, because I do not believe this is the time to gather arms. However, I will not condemn them for their belief that it is. If the militia were in the wrong, I would not respect their decision to make a stand. Two innocent men have been falsely convicted. They were tried under a anti-terrorism law, that states Malicious. A accident is not malicious. They have been threatened, by the BLM that they would be placed in a prison they would not survive, if they continued to ask for support. Tyranny has been established, so the militia is no more right or wrong than the founding fathers.
You are also correct on war being terrible, and I advise no one to go and fight at Oregon, but I do ask people to research both sides, before taking the idiot boxes narrative as divine truth. As for forcing the Hammond's hand, the militia isn't. The Hammond's have washed their hands of the militia and are reporting to prison Monday.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 01-03-2016).]
Thank you for all the information you've shared about this.
Sorry, if my intentions haven't been clear. To clarify for anyone who may not understand.
1. I hope there is no blood shed, but that is not the most likely outcome. 2. I do not want anyone to raise arms against the government. 3. I do want people to understand the BLM's tactics against ranchers. 4. I believe in the natural right to resist tyranny, both peaceful and with arms. I do not believe this is the time for arms. 5. I do believe its time to get the Hammond's plight out there, and hopefully the court will reverse its unjust and lack of due process decision. 6. I would love for the BLM to be investigated, and for those found guilty to be tried and convicted, though that is a pipe dream.
Most importantly if you are a praying person, this is the time to do it. Pray no lives are lost here.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 01-03-2016).]
January 4, 2016, 5:05 AM FBI takes helm of efforts to end militia occupation
Last Updated Jan 4, 2016 8:27 AM EST
BURNS, Ore. -- The FBI has taken charge of law enforcement efforts to bring a peaceful end to the armed takeover of a national wildlife refuge in rural eastern Oregon.
The agency issued a statement late Sunday saying it is "working with the Harney County Sheriff's Office, Oregon State Police and other local and state law enforcement agencies."
Armed militia members took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge south of Burns on Saturday after participating in a peaceful rally over the prison sentences of local ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond.
The Hammonds were convicted of arson three years ago for fires that burned on federal land in 2001 and 2006. Though they served their original sentences for the conviction - Dwight serving three months, Steven serving one year - an appellate judge ruled in October that the terms were too short under federal minimum sentencing laws.
Both men were ordered back to prison for four years each. They have said they plan to turn themselves in Monday, and both were en route to San Pedro, California to do so, their attorney, W. Alan Schroeder, of Boise, Idaho, told CBS News in an email.
The decision to send the man back to prison generated controversy and is part of a decades-long dispute between some Westerners and the federal government over the use of public lands.
Brothers Ammon and Ryan Bundy are among those occupying the refuge. Their father, Cliven Bundy, was involved in a 2014 standoff with the government over grazing rights in Nevada.
In an interview with "CBS This Morning," Ammon Bundy said they're in Oregon because they believe the federal government has overstepped its bounds.
"They've been doing it for some time now and there's been some tremendous abuses," Ammon Bundy said. "They've used the courts to prosecute and to basically take the land and resources away from the people in this area, very similar to the other incidents is that it really happened across the country but its quite egregious here. And so we felt it was every necessary to take a stand to make sure that this doesn't continue to happen in other areas."
Ryan Bundy told The Associated Press Sunday he hopes to turn the land over to local authorities so people can use it free of federal oversight. He said he hopes the takeover of the property will prompt others to take action across the country to seize local control of federally managed land. Ammon Bundy has previously called on members of militia groups to take a stand with those at the refuge.
Play Video Armed militia occupies federal building in Oregon Ammon Bundy told "CBS This Morning" they're armed because "we need to defend ourselves." "There is an imminent threat towards us and it is our right to do that," Ammon Bundy said. "But also we are serious. We are serious about being here, we're serious about defending our rights and we're serious about getting some things straightened out, but we have no intention on using any type of force, intimidation. Those are not our methods."
The Hammonds say they don't want the protesters at the refuge, reports CBS affiliate KOIN in Portland, Ore.
On Sunday afternoon, several pickup trucks blocked the entrance to the refuge and armed men wearing camouflage and winter gear used radios to alert those at the refuge buildings when reporters were allowed onto the property.
A small flock of pheasants wandered across the refuge driveway, scattering as men driving utility vehicles traversed the property. Ryan Bundy declined to say how many people were at the site.
"The end goal here is that we are here to restore the rights to the people here so that they can use the land and resources. All of them," Ryan Bundy said. That means ranchers can graze their cattle on the land, miners can use their mineral rights, loggers can cut trees and hunters and fishers can recreate, he said.
He said they planned on staying at the refuge as long as it takes. If the situation turns violent, Bundy contends it will be because of the federal government's actions. "I mean, we're here to restore order, we're here to restore rights and that can go peacefully and easily," Bundy said.
Late Sunday, Ammon Bundy tweeted similar messages:
Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward said in a statement Sunday that the group of armed protesters came to town under false pretenses. "These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt to over throw the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States," Ward said.
The sheriff says he is working with local and federal authorities to keep the citizens in his county safe and to resolve the situation as quickly and peacefully as possible.
People in Burns are used to worrying about friction between the federal government and locals, but takeover is raising concerns to a new high.
Keith Landon, a longtime resident of Burns and employee at the Reid Country Store, said he knows local law enforcement officials who fear their kids will be targeted by angry militia members. The mother of one of his kids is now involved with an officer, Landon said, and they decided to send their children to another town after they were allegedly threatened by an angry protester.
"I'm hoping most of it's just muscle, trying to push," Landon said. "But it's a scary thing." At a restaurant near the refuge Sunday, a local man eating supper said he understood the sentiment but didn't necessarily support the methods of the group. He wouldn't give his name because he said he feared being caught between the federal government and the militia. Landon, who was a logger until the federal government declared the spotted owl a protected species in the 1980s, damaging the local logging industry, said he also sympathizes with the frustrations expressed by the Bundys. "The spotted owl started the downfall of our community, then (President) Clinton made the Steens Mountains a wilderness area or whatever. Five generations of ranchers that had been on the Steens, kicked them off. And then management of the wildfires, it totally changed the region," Landon said. "It's hard to discredit what they're trying to do out there. But I don't want anybody hurt."
He said on the surface, it doesn't look like much has changed in Burns, a high desert town of about 2,700 people.
Most of the hotels in the area are booked full, and he's noticed that law enforcement officers are now doing their patrols in pairs instead of singly. But the biggest difference since the takeover is the undercurrent of worry, he said.
"It's weird - I woke up this morning expecting the town to be crawling with this and that agency. But you don't see any of it. They're keeping a low presence," Landon said. Landon was happy the protesters seized land outside of Burns.
While most participants appeared friendly and harmless, a few have reputations within hate groups such as the Three Percenters and the Oath Keepers, The Daily Beast has learned. http://www.cbsnews.com/news...-militia-occupation/
How much looting and property destruction have they done so far?
quote
Originally posted by dennis_6:
While most participants appeared friendly and harmless, a few have reputations within hate groups such as the Three Percenters and the Oath Keepers, The Daily Beast has learned. http://www.cbsnews.com/news...-militia-occupation/
That's all you need to know to know who's in the right here. Oath Keepers a "hate group?" The New Black Panthers aren't a hate group. Black Lives Matters isn't a hate group. But a group dedicated to upholding their oath to support and defend the Constitution - they're a hate group.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 01-04-2016).]
The mysterious fires that led to the Bundy clan’s Oregon standoff Resize Text Print Article Comments 87 By Justin Wm. Moyer January 4 at 3:48 AM
It was a stark reversal of a scenario that Billy Joel outlined years ago: They did start the fire. But, beyond that fact, consensus on why the Hammond family of Harney County, Ore., set ranch land ablaze twice in the past 15 years remained elusive.
This, as armed anti-government activists stormed and seized a federal wildlife refuge in the name of the Hammonds. Never, it seemed, have two groups of people looked at the same conflagration and come to such different conclusions. Armed occupiers in Oregon say they are 'prepared' to fight Play Video1:34 A group of armed men who seized a federal facility in Eastern Oregon say they are "prepared" to fight, but they won't say what they would actually do if federal authorities try to remove them by force. (AP)
According to Ammon Bundy — leader of anti-government protesters now occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, about 30 miles southeast of Burns, Ore. — the Hammonds are victims of the long arm of the federal government, gentleman ranchers punished for raising cattle on their own land. In other words, they are American heroes.
[Armed men, led by Bundy brothers, take over federal building in rural Oregon]
“The Hammond family has been battered and abused by the federal government for over a decade,” Bundy wrote in an email in November, according to BuzzFeed reporter Jim Dalrymple II. “Now they have been declared as ‘terrorist’ and sentenced to 5 years in prison. For what? … using their ranch.” Who are the Bundys? Play Video2:05 Ammon Bundy and a group of armed supporters, including his brother Ryan, took over the an Ore. wildlife refuge over the weekend. Here's a look at the Bundy family's history of anti-government actions. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
“We have not destroyed any property, businesses, or harmed any citizens,” Bundy added in a tweet early Monday. “This is truly a peaceful protest.” Bundy also appeared to contrast his action with protests against police brutality in Ferguson, Mo., Baltimore and elsewhere: Unlike other protests “that have taken place in this country over the last year and a half we have not put anyone in danger,” he tweeted.
The federal government, of course, told quite a different tale of the fires that led to Bundy’s action. It declared — and, in 2012, a jury agreed — that Dwight Lincoln Hammond Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, are arsonists, criminals now on their way to federal prison to serve five years for an elaborate scheme to cover up wrongdoing that put lives in danger.
“Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison,” acting U.S. attorney Billy Williams said in a statement in October. “These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.”
The trouble with the Hammonds and fire began in 2001. That year, the government showed, Steven Hammond went hunting, killing deer on land under control of the Bureau of Land Management. What to do to erase evidence of this game violation? Break out the matches.
“Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out ‘Strike Anywhere’ matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to ‘light up the whole country on fire,'” a Justice Department account of the trial read. “One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson.”
The result: More than 100 acres of public land were destroyed. But, the government said, Steven Hammond was ready with an explanation. Sure, he had started the fire, he said. But he never meant to burn any land his family didn’t own.
“After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon, and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands,” the Justice Department wrote. “Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.”
[What the armed occupiers in Oregon really want, in 1 paragraph]
Susan Hammond, Dwight’s wife, explained the family’s version of the story. “They called and got permission to light the fire,” she told the Tri-State Livestock News — which bills itself as “what ranchers read.” “… We usually called the interagency fire outfit — a main dispatch — to be sure someone wasn’t in the way or that weather would be a problem.” Livestock News called the fire “a routine range improvement practice” and said proof that the family got permission was documented in a recording of the phone call played in court.
If the government’s story and the Hammonds’ story weren’t divergent enough, a similar scenario played out in 2006. That year, the Justice Department said, Steven Hammond purposefully set a fire again without permission — this time to prevent wildfires started by lightning strikes from spreading to his property. The practice, called “back burning” or lighting “back fires,” can be effective, but it also endangers public property that abuts private ranch land. Firefighters were already battling blazes started by the lightning, and a “burn ban” was in effect. Click here for more information! “Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several ‘back fires’ in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed,” the government wrote. “The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.”
Susan Hammond again explained her family’s thinking. “There was fire all around them that was going to burn our house and all of our trees and everything,” she said to Livestock News. “The opportunity to set a back-fire was there and it was very successful. It saved a bunch of land from burning.”
Protester Ryan Bundy. (Rebecca Boone/AP)
The Hammonds’ fires, part of an obscure beef between ranchers and BLM, might seem tangential — not the real center of a national news story about the Bundys’ hostage-free, would-be armed rebellion. But at least one federal judge opined that the Hammonds have been unfairly treated. “It just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality,” U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan, who declined to impose the five-year sentence mandated by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, said. “I am not supposed to use the word ‘fairness’ in criminal law. I know that I had a criminal law professor a long time ago yell at me for doing that. And I don’t do that. But this — it would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me.”
Hogan — who sentenced Dwight Hammond to three months in prison and Steven Hammond to one year and one day — was overruled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which upheld the five-year mandatory minimum sentence in October and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced accordingly. Yet, the Hammonds, on their way back to federal prison, have chosen to distance themselves from the Bundys.
“I have received information that Ammon Bundy has communicated with you or your office about the Hammond Family,” W. Alan Schroeder, an attorney for the Hammonds, wrote to David M. Ward, Harney County’s sheriff, in December. “… I write to clarify that neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family.”
The ranching community seems caught in the crossfire. Sure, the Hammonds broke the law. But did they need to be prosecuted as terrorists? Then again, even if they are technically terrorists, do they need the likes of the Bundys — anti-government agitators — speaking on their behalf? “I fear it reflects badly on the ranching community and the local community, or at least has the potential to,” Barry Bushue, a friend of the Hammonds and president of the Oregon Farm Bureau, which condemned the sentence, told the East Oregonian last week before the occupation began. “We are incensed by the fact that [the Hammonds] have to go back to prison, but in the end, the rule of law has to be followed.” https://www.washingtonpost....ans-oregon-standoff/
.
