Posted by Tina
By now you may have heard about the protest in Oregon in support of two local ranchers who will go to jail on terror arson charges. The protest held yesterday has morphed into another “armed standoff.” (Dewey alerted me to the protest and his position in comments yesterday.) This morning Dewey’s position becomes even more ludicrous…more in just a minute.
Decades of government overreach through the EPA, Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, long endured by the Hammond family are revealed in a carefully recorded history by the family. It’s now come to the fore thanks to the good work of Sundance over at The Conservative Treehouse.
The Hammond family saga attracted the attention of Ammon Bundy, of Nevada “Bundy Ranch standoff” fame. Ammon Bundy has been joined by other armed protesters and they have taken control of the buildings at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge which was closed for the holidays. 
I hope you will read the extraordinary history and timeline of events, compiled by Sundance. It demonstrates how progressives win by taking one bite after another over time. Bureaucratic overreach has brought two American ranchers, “Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, an incredible amount of grief over several decades before the final indignity, charges of terrorism and jail, were issued by our so-called justice system this week. The outrageous jail sentence is being visited upon two productive, contributing, law abiding American citizens via a tyrannical, unaccountable government department filled with bureaucrats who act as agents for the radical environmental/global warming lobby.
This is disgraceful…The Hammonds have done more to preserve the environment than most citizens! Incredibly, Dewey and our government liken these private, law abiding citizens to terrorists. Note to Dewey and our government: It’s “we the people,” not we the bureaucrats or we the radical zealots!
Yeah, well, this is what the feds have to say about it:
EUGENE, Ore. – Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon in Harney County, were sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for arsons they committed on federal lands.
A jury sitting in Pendleton, Oregon found the Hammonds guilty of the arsons after a two-week trial in June 2012. The trial involved allegations that the Hammonds, owners of Hammond Ranches, Inc., ignited a series of fires on lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on which the Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them for their cattle operation.
The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. 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.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. 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. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.
The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. 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 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.
By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.” The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced “in compliance with the law.” In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.
***
It’s a bummer, but it’s the law. I’ve said it before … the quantities of malice abroad in the land are nothing … nothing … to the quantities of stupid, and that’s what most guys go to jail for … stupid.
The two ranchers, father and son, we’re not convicted of terror. They were convicted of arson. They set fire to BLM land on which they had grazing rights. They were sentenced and served time. I believe the father served about 90 days and the son a year.
The prosecution appealed the sentences based on federal sentencing laws and that appeal was upheld by the court forcing the men back to prison.
Nice try Tina You MISSED THE WHOLE POINT AGAIN
I can find instances where the BLM has been dead wrong and instances where they have been correct. But Bundy has another motive PERIOD. Bundy’s group are domestic terrorists who want to overthrow the gov.
They were going to have a peaceful rally then the out of state domestic terrorist crazy idiots showed up with an alternative motive. Many locals are upset and stayed inside afraid to protest because of these terrorists.
Harney County Sheriff David M. Ward said Sunday that authorities from “several organizations” are working to peacefully resolve the siege.
“These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers,” Ward said in a statement. “When in reality these men had alternative motives, to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States.”
In the end this is a land grab and this movement is a bigger picture to strip federal land away from the public so in the end corporations own it. Privatize away all public assets for the fascist utopia of greed and profit. Bundy’s group are just the sheeple buying into the conspiracy theories.
You realize the Kochs and others are working hard in congress to dismantle laws that protect land. Koch really wants Yosemite to tear up for profits.
Fascism is what we have, This land belongs to taxpayers….. The founding fathers were trying to also protect us from corporate greed when they wrote the Constitution.
The privatization of our national parks. Yellowstone – Yosemite – and Acadia all sold off to the highest bidder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrbmJITtnRw
http://linkis.com/usuncut.com/news/KABjq
In the end though I expect you to be on the Bundy wagon as this is the “Real” Tea Party Movement funded by Koch and international corporations fueled by Pete Santili, & Fox crazy talk…
http://fallonteaparty.org/
Yet you will call me liar…. Someday you have to own it.
I call it Treason
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/04/constitutional-crisis-in-the-heart-of-dixie/
Funny how that “confidence” in the government’s ability to identify terrorists disappears completely when the people being charged are conservative white guys. And they got a fair trial and everything. But yeah, what happened to Khaled el-Masri was just a big misunderstanding while this is a grave injustice.
“….what happened to Khaled el-Masri was just a big misunderstanding.
No, it was a terrible, regrettable error. War isn’t nice, fair or pleasant. Often it is just the opposite and at times unbearable so.
It is still simply true that we cannot expect anyone in government to be perfect in all instances.
There is also difference between an error and a pattern of abuses and usurpations.
The agencies of our government have been exposed as tyrannical arms of special interest groups and politics by the victims of this abuse. Concerned citizens are attempting to address this issue. Do you really have a problem with that?
Tina: “There is also difference between an error and a pattern of abuses and usurpations.”
Yes, and indefinite detention and torture fall into the latter category. Had our nation not already been engaged in those unconstitutional abuses of power, what happened to El-Masri wouldn’t have happened.
Hmmm…nasty retort!
Chris your simplistic view is so easy…more than a bit haughty too. It’s an attitude and position one can take when he doesn’t have to make hard decisions. You act like we’re dealing with five-year-olds, guilty of throwing mud at the house, instead of hard core monsters who would slit your throat in a heartbeat.
The Bush administration made a decision about what would be allowed based on legal advice and after careful consideration in an urgent and stressful atmosphere. That legal definition was later challenged and the policy was changed. How in the he77 does that demonstrate an intention to abuse power?
Eric Posner of Slate, discusses the Senate Torture Report and why there were no prosecutions:
Also screaming “torture” to label and demean the opponent when he’s making the decisions die down to a whimper and moan when suddenly your guy is making the decisions. A lot of the complaints against Bush were totally partisan. Left leaders were not in the dark about what as going on. In fact they were for it before they were against it. These things are not simplistic.
Un-elected, unaccountable bureaucrats in our government are overstepping their authority to grab land, punish perceived political opponents, and prevent participation in the political process. They are making decisions they have not been given the authority to make causing encroachment of rights and loss of livelihood and property of citizens. These are abuses of power and the pattern has gone on for decades. The Hammond’s story, as well as that of Catherine Englebrecht, the Bundy’s, and many others in Wyoming, at Gibson Guitar, in Idaho, and in journalism suggest the old axiom about power corrupting is true.
Tina: “How in the he77 does that demonstrate an intention to abuse power?”
Somehow, no matter how many times I’ve tried to dispel this idea, you still seem to be under the false impression that I give a damn about intentions.
Well, well, the completely irrelevant and idiotic statements are just flowing from Chris.
Thanks to Libby and Pete for clarifying the charges. I should have been suspicious in the first place since Dewey claimed terrorism linking it to the Bundy’s case…I admit it set me on the wrong trail.
However, the grievances the Hamonds have endured for decades should be worrisome for any American. Our government is getting much to big for it’s britches when un-elected, unaccountable bureaucrats can harass landowners over decades and they have no recourse. If this were an isolated case it might be different but it is but one example of many where government oversteps its bounds.
“It is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects.” – James Madison, Federalist #14
Every time that we try to lift a problem from our own shoulders, and shift that problem to the hands of the government, to the same extent we are sacrificing the liberties of our people. — John F. Kennedy
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. — John Locke
When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. — Thomas Jefferson
“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.
Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism. — Barry Goldwater, Speech at the Republican National Convention, San Francisco, July 1964
[The Bill of Rights is] designed to protect individuals and minorities against the tyranny of the majority, but it’s also designed to protect the people against bureaucracy, against the government. — Judge Lawrence Tribe
“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.” –Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1787.
And from other areas in the world: The state represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. — Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
The more people are controlled, the poorer they become; The poorer they become, the more restless they get; The more restless they get, the more forcefully they are restrained. When people are forcefully restrained, their defiance becomes ingenious.
And the more ingenious their defiance, the stranger are the things that happen.
Now when strange things begin to happen, laws and regulations become stricter;
Then stricter laws and regulations mean more criminals and fugitives. Soon everyone is either a criminal or a fugitive, And no one can untangle the mess. The more people are controlled, the less contented they become. But when will leaders understand the significance of this?— Lao Tsu
These are voices that know tyranny and love freedom. I’d be interested to know whether either you, Pete, or Libby have any empathy for this family and whether you think there should be something done about unelected bureaucrats with this much power. It seems there is no recourse for people when their rights are abused. Any thoughts?
what are you taking about? Dewey made no claim the hamonds were terrorists?
I consider the Bundy Sovereign Groups Terrorists. They ignore all laws of the land and threaten with guns. They want to over throw the gov. The have factions whose ideology vary but that is the overall. Why do you always twist things? Inability to critically think? What is it my dear.
You realize the hills all around you to NV are full of these groups right? I met several in the area. Remember when the ranger got shot at the campground? Cause they could not have a campfire? Like we do not have a fire prob in those hills? These guys are dangerous wackos willing to kill on ideology.
They tend to kill police and gov authority.
Bottom Line you always twist things.
Tina,
I’m not sure what the grievances are in this case. In one hand there are two gentlemen convicted of a crime. They burned property that has never belonged to them. And in the other hand there was a peaceful demonstration in the town of Burn about the lengthy sentences they received. (I think this was a case of mandatory minimums) Finally, in our third hand (ha) we have a well armed group that has taken over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. This group’s spokesman, Mr. Bundy, has threatened violence if forced to leave. So what do we do? Do we cave in to Mr. Bundy and give him our land? This is land that he nor his family has ever owned. The refuge is land that President Roosevelt created in 1908. The adjacent BLM property was sold to us back in the late 1930’s. Tina, we have armed people that have taken our property. They have threatened violence if they don’t get their way. The schools are closed in Burn next week because the citizens are scared. Because of these actions, I’m leaning toward calling Mr. Bundy the leader of a terrorist group. Help
me change my mind about this group of thugs.
The Hammond men were found guilty and I have no problem with that or their sentence. I guess that handles the one hand.
Pete, did you read the article by Conservative Treehouse? It gives us a fourth hand (smile) that ties the Bundy’s, and other concerned citizens and ranchers in the west, to the Hammond case. I couldn’t do a better job of explaining what the ranchers have all faced from government bureaucrats. If you haven’t, you should read the whole article. A few excerpts, including an alternate version of Teddy’s land grab:
As far as Mr. Bundy’s intentions, I’m not sure what you’ve suggested is true. Lake Placid News posted a story a few minutes ago”
I don’t know why the local sheriff thinks these men want to “overthrow the government.” It could have something to do with sensationalized news reports or it could be personal politics. His rhetoric sounds partisan and political to me. Either that or he and the locals fear things getting out of hand with results similar to those at Ruby Ridge in Idaho or the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, Texas. Since the protesters have now moved away from the town the locals probably don’t fear another Ferguson type incident but they might have earlier on. Some in the media paint these ranchers as radical and violent but that hasn’t proven to be the case. It doesn’t surprise me that these ranchers have been joined by ex-military. These men have put their lives on the line to preserve freedom and defend our nation. These men have not used their guns offensively, burned down buildings, threatened lives, planted bombs or any other type of extremist activities.
I think these men have a right to protest and a right to bear arms. I don’t get easily alarmed when guns are present. I look at the attitudes and demeanor of the persons involved to see if they seem menacing. I don’t find any of these people menacing. I do see them as frustrated that our government has gotten away with harassment and acquiring land through deceitful practice, usurped grazing and water rights, etc. It’s a problem that deserves public attention and redress. How else do lowly citizens get the attention of our representatives and fellow citizens when nobody has taken their grievances seriously? Do you think there’s any validity to the idea that our government agencies have acted outside of their authority?
How am I doing so far?
Well you know Dewey if you had some evidence, direct quotes showing intention to take steps to “overthrow the government,” or a record of violent incidents, I might take you more seriously. As it is you spout conspiracy theories and outlandish opinions.
It’s one thing to quote scholarly men and our founders, to express opinions about how things should be dine in our nation and quite another to carry a bomb into a building and set it off! BE CLEAR! The Kochs and the Tea Party members are CITIZENS with as much right to speak and protest as YOU.
The US government “grabbed the land” in the West. some was ceded to the federal government to establish the states. What was once considered open land slowly became “public land” and in 1976 it was codified and made “permanent”:
In the western states the government owns nearly half of the land, in Alaska it’s 60%. In the East it is 4%.
Oh my, somehow an idea, that the parks may be better managed and less expensive to preserve and run by private owners or other means than they are by the big bureaucratic government, is a dangerous threat. Why Dewey? Have we got serious trust issues? Does the rule of law only work for you when we no longer have property rights and businesses are all government owned and controlled? (Do the words tyranny or dictatorship ring a bell?)
And why is the Bundy protest a bigger threat than our government closing off access to grass and water for a rancher who has both water and grazing RIGHTS acquired legally by contract?
There is no honorable explanation or excuse for decades of harassment and infringement by a government agency. But it can be attributed to the tyranny of the enviro-lobby who work in collusion with out of control, radical, unelected government agency bureaucrats, paid by the taxpayer, who should not have that kind of unbridled authority!
The states have a certain amount of culpability too. I haven’t done the research but apparently a deal was struck to give states certain tax monies from the federal government to make up for the lost revenue that would come from the land in private ownership or development.
You can’t seem to tell the difference between a patriot and a terrorist. Maybe that’s because your gang of “transformers” don’t have the manhood to openly state their real purpose…absolute federal control…instead they act covertly by gradual usurpation telling the people deceitful stories along the way.
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.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (continues)
Do you even recognize this document? Get a clue man…we are a republic with limited powers given to the federal government! These powers have been expanded, often by usurpation, well beyond the boundaries spelled out in the Constitution.
Many of us Americans love the form of government we were originally given and will work hard to return this nation to it’s founding principles. Calling us names, asserting that we are scary, traitorous, dangerous or any other blah, blah, bologna will not deter us, particularly when the evidence of such bombastic proclamations is nothing more than words and ideas peacefully spoken.
You and your band of collectivists are free to step on the Constitution but not without experiencing blowback. Marx, Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler…there’s not a dimes worth of difference. Collectivism flows from the minds and the ideals of these men. We reject them!
Required reading for patriots:
An article from the Idaho Observer.
An article from Deseret News
CATO offers an interesting paper in rebuttal of state ownership built on the following:
Ideas…why do you fear ideas? Why not discuss and let them percolate? Why the hate, Dewey?
Tina, Dewey is far beyond repair.
Hate? No Tina these are facts where do you live? I live here in the USA……
That is well known knowledge… I suppose you have no clue how bundy ties into Mormonism either? It is complicated…… Ya think i am the only one who knows all this?
Do you even see what the majority is talking about? The self made sovereign citizen videos?
Do you deny what the Koch Bros freely say? Do you watch the legislation in Congress? You think this is all a Game?
No I am tired of the ignorance of US Citizens and the inability to unite on 1 common goal to clean out the corruption in our gov and bought out control. Neither Party is free of corruption yet you let them divide?
Do the research, Understand what is going on with these people….. All kinds of incidences happen again where do you live? How can you not be aware of these groups?
A sovereign citizen planned to overthrow the West Virginia state government –– and shoot any police officers who intervened.
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/09/25/antigovernment-sovereign-citizen-arrested-alleged-coup-west-virginia
Sovereign citizen movement perceived as top terrorist threat
http://www.start.umd.edu/news/sovereign-citizen-movement-perceived-top-terrorist-threat
Sovereign Citizens Are America’s Top Cop-Killers
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/25/sovereign-citizens-are-america-s-top-cop-killers.html
google around my friend then go to their sites it’s all there written by them!
“sovereign citizen” extremist movement. Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or “sovereign” from the United States. As a result, they believe they don’t have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement.
Tea Party Supporter Has Set A Date For The Armed Overthrow Of The Government
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/09/26/tea-party-supporter-has-set-a-date-for-the-armed-overthrow-of-the-government/
Jeeze this is not new news
In 1934/5 the Fascists were going to physically remove FDR from the white house but they were busted before they tried…. You think they just stopped? The real Question is why were they not thrown in jail and where is the complete list of names? These families still exist.
Well my friend the US Gov has been overthrown it is controlled by domestic and International corporations and the elite…..elections are a sham that is why they tried to push a Bush/Clinton election on us
Just the truth My friend…We can not take it back till we admit we have no power and unite together
The world economy is crashing unfortunately we have to go all the way down before people wake up…. Austerity Failed, We should have regulated the banks… Glass Steagal was a fix for a problem not over reach
Dewey the information you provide is interesting but so far you have not tied the Bundys or the Hammonds to the nutty, loosely affiliated “sovereign citizen movement.”
I understand the need for law enforcement to be informed and aware of such people. I don’t think the designation applies in this case. This group doesn’t talk about “overthrowing” the government they do talk about restoring our republic.
The Tea party supporter you accused of calling for “a coup”, Larry Klayman, actually called for a protest in front of the capitol and a demand for Obama to step down. His language was admittedly no more sensational but no more so than the language used in your link. This call occurred back in September of 2013. I don’t recall whether Klayman’s appeal gained much support but the President is still in office so obviously it didn’t rise to the level of threat you and that blog claim.
I have also not heard or read that the Hammonds or the Bundys are Tea Party supporters or members.
“If we were to correct this then we go after new legislation as a people United. I would join such a campaign 150%. … That s how we take our country back from bad legislation. People who supported such ideas are now changing their views with this case. So let’s start the fix together.”
Nice concept. Tell me, how do we unite Tea Party people and Occupy people and what laws would you change. The BLM, EPA, IRS and many other agencies are administrating in ways “the laws” never intended. They have become activists rather than servants of the people.
Obama shares some responsibility in these disputes. He’s been a very divisive president pitting groups against each other. He’s fond of announcing he will act without Congress. And we should also recall that Obama ARMED these agencies, an act that some perceive as threatening, especially after the Gibson Guitar raid:
Many Federal Agencies Have Armed Divisions
Armed EPA Agents In Alaska Shed Light On 70 Federal Agencies with Armed Divisions
The people don’t trust their government. The government has given the people a lot of reasons to feel personally threatened.
April 2010, CBS: “Nearly 80 percent of Americans say they can’t trust Washington and they have little faith that the massive federal bureaucracy can solve the nation’s ills, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center that shows public confidence in the federal government at one of the lowest points in a half-century.”
June, 2015, American spectator: “Do I trust the federal government? Hell no. President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice is happy to spend years investigating a foreign soccer organization for corruption and former Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert for allegedly paying off a blackmailer — but not the alleged blackmailer — yet ignores big concerns. The feds have done next to nothing about the IRS targeting of conservative political groups, other than to defend IRS official Lois Lerner’s creative use of the Fifth Amendment when she refused to answer questions from House investigators. And when Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked in 2013 whether the government was collecting data on millions of Americans, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said no. Shortly thereafter, Edward Snowden leaked information that showed Clapper had lied. The very fact that leaker Snowden had been given top security clearance made the intelligence community appear reckless and incompetent.”
Truth Out: “Americans are seriously lacking faith in the system – in fact, trust in the U.S. government is at an all-time low. According to the latest CNN poll, just 13% of Americans agree that the U.S. government “can be trusted to do what is right always or most of the time.”
Instead, nearly everyone (75%) says that the government works properly just “some of the time,” a troubling figure. Certainly, a healthy, functioning democracy would not brew so much distrust amongst its population.
“Also they are incorrect about the Constitution.”
How are they “incorrect about the Constitution?”
If you are going to make an accusation make it clearly so we can all discuss it. We are not in your head.
For some reason, Dewey, you seem to think that citizens who don’t always agree with you are dangerous. You assume they are fascist even when they support a less powerful government, a totally mind boggling position at odds with itself.
Pssst! I am not the enemy of America.
The outrageous jail sentence is being visited upon two productive, contributing, law abiding American citizens via a tyrannical, unaccountable government department filled with bureaucrats who act as agents for the radical environmental/global warming lobby.
This is disgraceful…
Especially when you consider that …
1) The government sets fires, has used the defoliant agent orange as a control, and regularly uses herbicides as controls over invasive species.
2) The darling father of the environmentalist left, Henry David “Woods Burner” Thoreau, started a major forest fire that nearly set the nearby town of Concord ablaze.
Woods Burner Thoreau later wrote about his wonderful blaze —
“Presently I heard the sound of the distant bell giving the alarm, and I knew that the town was on its way to the scene. Hitherto I had felt like a guilty person — nothing but shame and regret. But now I settled the matter with myself shortly. I said to myself, ‘Who are these men who are said to be the owners of these woods, and how am I related to them? I have set fire to the forest, but I have done no wrong therein, and now it is as if the lightning had done it. These flames are but consuming their natural food.’
“It has never troubled me from that day to this more than if the lightning had done it. The trivial fishing was all that disturbed me and disturbs me still. So shortly I settled it with myself and stood to watch the approaching flames. It was a glorious spectacle and I was the only one there to enjoy it.”
Make of that weird quote from the excitable and enthusiastic Thoreau enjoying his handiwork what you will.
Fascinating quote, Pie.
I wonder if Don Henley of the Eagles knows about it? He’s such a big fan.
Here is the deal.
The Judge that sentenced them in essence broke the law. There is a min mandatory sentence. Both the Reagan and Clinton Admins hailed min sentencing in their platforms.
I personally do not agree with min sentencing laws. If we were to correct this then we go after new legislation as a people United. I would join such a campaign 150%.
That s how we take our country back from bad legislation. People who supported such ideas are now changing their views with this case. So let’s start the fix together.
This Bundy group is not addressing the real issue for the Hamonds they are abusing the case for their sedition, treason, insurgency what ever ya want to call it.
Also they are incorrect about the Constitution.
#Ya’allQueida fits them
So all this blabbing is for what? The Hamonds? Let’s get rid of min mandatory sentencing……. That is why they are back in jail…… Both a Rep and Dem President are responsible for it #ProfitPrison Legislation
Want to fix this? or just blab?
“This Bundy group is not addressing the real issue for the Hamonds they are abusing the case for their sedition, treason, insurgency what ever ya want to call it.”
In terms of sedition, treason, insurgency and the time honored protest…How do you explain their stated purpose:
Tina: “Insurgency is defined as an active revolt or uprising. How is what they are doing different from other protests to call attention to a cause…occupy Wall Street for instance?”
As far as I’m aware, while Occupy Wall Street protesters did occupy buildings and parks, they did so peacefully; they were unarmed, and never threatened to shoot police officers. And you still called these protesters “thugs.”
That seems to be an important difference.
“As far as I’m aware, while Occupy Wall Street protesters did occupy buildings and parks, they did so peacefully; they were unarmed, and never threatened to shoot police officers. And you still called these protesters ‘thugs.’”
I called them thugs after there were reports of rape, reports of property being destroyed, reports of violent confrontations, reports of Zuccotti Park being destroyed, a photo was posted of a man defecating on a police car, and other swell things.
I think mayhem might be a good word to describe Occupy: violent or damaging disorder; chaos
NY Daily News: “Occupy Wall Street ‘kill cops’ Twitter message could get someone hurt”
This woman was found guilty of assaulting a police officer.
NBC News: “A violent Occupy Oakland protest over the weekend resulted in damage to Oakland’s historic City Hall and YMCA and about 400 arrests”
You Tube: “Ultimately violence will be necessary, says Occupy L.A. speaker – Pt2 10/01/2011”
Fort Liberty has an interesting photo showing an occupy game, “Anti-Cop Rock Toss.” Another protester holds a sign that reads, “All My Heroes kill cops.” Scroll down on this site to find numerous links:
The Feminist Wire: “The Occupy movement has a growing challenge that needs immediate attention: in-house rape. As of today, there are at least 4 reported rapes in Baltimore, Cleveland, Glasgow and Dallas, the latter of which includes a 14-year-old runaway girl and a convicted sex offender. I imagine there are several others, most of which have likely gone unreported—for various reasons.”
And finally there’s the cost to local municipalities, millions of dollars:
And costs to local businesses: “The Occupy Wall Street movement has cost surrounding businesses $479,400 so far, store owners said. A Post survey of a dozen restaurants, jewelry shops, beauty salons, a chain store and mom-and-pop establishments tallied almost a half-million dollars lost in the 53 days since the Zuccotti Park siege began on Sept. 17.
“We’re done with them!” barked one Broadway business owner. The restaurateur — who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals — said his profits drained as soon as campers moved in. “My customers used to take food to eat in the park, but now they can’t,” he lamented
My purpose in writing the article was calling attention to government overreach. I wouldn’t do what the Bundy’s are doing but then I am not a rancher that’s had to fight the government bureaucracy and overreach for decades.
Tina, there certainly were many instances of violence and property damage in OWS. It was a large, disorganized movement which attracted many homeless people and criminals to the encampments. The leaders of the movement definitely bear some responsibility for that due to the way they organized, but I don’t think you can characterize the entire movement as violent any more than you can criticize the entire Tea Party as violent due to the actions of the Bundy boys in this case.
Tina, I’ll take your word that the group that has sized our property has been wronged. I’d like to know how their complaints have been handled by their elected representatives and by courts of law. I’m guessing these protesters didn’t get the results they wanted. So they’ve armed themselves and vowed to kill and die until they get whatever it is they want. Let me know if they get it because I’d love to take over the BLM property adjoining mine. If they can get what they want through the threat of violence then we can’t complain if a different group does the same.
Pete I don’t advocate violent protest and I hope this gets resolved peacefully. The Bundy’s haven’t gotten a lot of support for their methods from the left or right today, maybe that will give them pause.
“So they’ve armed themselves and vowed to kill and die until they get whatever it is they want. Let me know if they get it because I’d love to take over the BLM property adjoining mine. ”
Tongue in cheek?
They don’t say they want the land…they say the “ultimate goal is to turn the land over to local authorities so people can use it free of federal oversight,” and
Ryan Bundy said he wanted to “restore the rights to people so they can use the land and resources” for ranching, logging, mining and recreation.”
You know one of the sites I visited talked about BLM land being sold from time to time. At this point I would trust the care of that land near you to you over the government.
ultimate goal is to turn the land over to local authorities so people can use it free of federal oversight.
Ryan Bundy — one of the sons of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in a 2014 standoff with the government over grazing rights — told The Associated Press Sunday the protesters want to “restore the rights to people so they can use the land and resources” for ranching, logging, mining and recreation.
News from 2 hours ago:
Brandon Curtiss sounds like a real dangerous guy, doesn’t he? (Tongue in cheek)
Maybe this will all blow over soon.
That BLM property belongs to all of us not just you.
Let’s see the hamonds were convicted for setting fires to hide an illegal Deer slaughter on fed land. They were convicted but many of us disagree with them going back after release. We disagree with min sentence laws… But since you do not be happy they are serving their min sentence……
Some Armed white Thugs march into a closed federal building, acknowledge it is not theirs and say if anyone tries to make them leave they will shoot and they are just good tea party type patriots……. Got it.
Now let’s say some American Muslims have a grievance, are armed, march into that building and do the same are they patriots? You say they are patriots?
Or If Black lives matters did this would they still be standing? Or would you love to see the feds kill them? call them Thugs?
#White Privilege
I am not going to sit around and play word games. These people took fed land, Threaten to shoot if removed, and are attacking United States Gov……..
They are domestic terrorists in many peoples book by definition.
Perfect example of White Privilege here you would be up in Arms if they were Black or Muslim!
The law is on My side Period. You do not want to do anything to fix this country you just want to fight.
Have at it Hoss!
Visit #Ya’allQueida quite fun
Tina,
Peeling away all the pious and completely baseless rhetoric, Ryan and Ammon seem to be defending a rancher’s “right” to commit arson on public lands. There is no such right. This behavior is illegal and indefensible.
Ryan, Ammon, Dwight, and most particularly Steven are opportunistic jackasses, and I am really bummed about the federal overtime it’s going to cost to corral these jackasses. The local motels and restaurants will get a little Winter revenue boost. I suppose that’s a positive … your federal taxes supporting yet more of the local economy!
Dewey, good point about mandatory minimums–typically, the left has opposed these laws, while the right has supported them as part of a “tough on crime” strategy.
The right’s defense of the Hammonds in light of their previous support of mandatory minimums is another sign that the Hammonds aren’t the type of criminals they think of when they craft such laws.
Good point my ***. “Mandatory minimums” is neither a right nor left thing, you silly wankers.
There have been many Republicans who have begun to oppose mandatory minimums, but they’re late to the party; liberals have opposed them for decades, and they’ve mostly been used as part of a conservative “tough on crime” strategy.
Tina, when a police officer pepper sprayed students at UC Davis at close range, in violation of university and police regulations, you called the protesters “whiners” who were “throwing a temper tantrum,” and refused to condemn the officer’s clearly illegal and excessive behavior, suggesting the whole way through that the protesters had no right to peacefully protest and that the officer’s reaction was justified. You said repeatedly that if the protesters didn’t want to get hurt, they should have simply followed the law.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2011/11/28/stupid-whiners-at-uc-davi/
Yet you defend the armed militia members who have taken over a federal building and threatened to shoot officers if they attempt to arrest them with statements like these:
“I don’t find any of these people menacing. I do see them as frustrated that our government has gotten away with harassment and acquiring land through deceitful practice, usurped grazing and water rights, etc. It’s a problem that deserves public attention and redress. How else do lowly citizens get the attention of our representatives and fellow citizens when nobody has taken their grievances seriously?”
Do you see why these wildly different reactions would be baffling to most people? Most would consider a days-long armed takeover of a federal building far more threatening and worthy of harsh punishment then a bunch of unarmed students sitting down on some pavement for a few hours.
But I suppose those people would be missing the most important factor in deciding which protest is more just: the student protesters were associated with the left, while the militia is associated with the right. So of course the students’ actions were much worse.
Morning Tina,
I was just thinking…If the minimum sentence for purposely setting fire to public land is 5 years I wonder what these idiots are going to get for being armed and committing this crime? 20 years? If they’d have done a sit-in without weapons and the threats of shooting police officers they’d be looking at much shorter sentences and they would have gained more support for their issues. True American patriots vote, lobby their representatives and do so peacefully. With a felony they can no longer vote or carry a weapon. They’ve given up their constitutional rights. They’re not too smart are they. Face it Tina they’re committing an act of domestic terrorism.
Last thing to say is the BLM is being attacked here when this is all about Min Sentencing laws and the Justice System.
So is anybody ready to help do away with min sentencing laws? Basically they mostly feed the profit prison system and congressional Quotas promised to them in today’s world.
2012, District Court Judge Michael Hogan, decided that the five-year mandatory minimum sentence imposed by the Anti-terrorism Act was excessive— a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. That Amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required…nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” To call for five years’ imprisonment, Judge Hogan said, “would result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here…”
DOJ not satisfied
The U.S. Department of Justice appealed the sentence, insisting that Dwight and Steven spend a minimum of five years apiece in prison, as mandated by the Anti-terrorism Act.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and remanded the decision back to the U.S. District Court for Oregon.
Back at the district court level, Chief Judge Ann Aiken followed the letter of the law; Dwight and Steven Hammond will go back to prison.
Anybody know how much these fires cost taxpayers? Would be interesting to know if that was part of this.
Attacking the BLM when clearly this is about the Justice Dept and an unjustly written law that applies to all citizens is silly.
There are two issues, Dewey.
The subject of the article I posted is, “…a long reach of government overreach”
If you want to introduce another topic why not write an article and submit it for consideration?
Re : Last thing to say is the BLM is being attacked here.
This is not about the BLM you idiot.
Revision : This is not about the BLM you idiot, it is about federal government land grabs and violations of the constitution.
Pie, BLM stands for “Bureau of Land Management,” which would be the organization responsible for those “federal government land grabs” you describe. You may have thought Dewey was referring to Black Lives Matter, but you really shouldn’t call others idiots when you don’t even know what you’re talking about yourself.
Good morning to you Pete.
Legal definition of domestic terrorism: “The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.
The FBI’s most wanted list for domestic terrorism might give us a clue as to the definition as it might apply to the Oregon protesters:
All of these cases are listed under domestic terrorism. I get the domestic terrorism charges filed against two of these characters but the Dalton case, as described, seems more like basic criminality.
The FBI investigated Occupy WS for domestic terrorism. The Partnership for Civil Justice and the ACLU were incensed and filed FOIA requests:
Common dreams seems to object to our government having the gall to even observe or investigate Occupy:
Maxine Waters (D CA) dismissedthe violence and crimes at Occupy protests: “That’s life and it happens” and it’s “a distraction from the goals of the protesters.” She also said the Tea Party could go, “straight to Hell.”
There seems to be inconsistencies, both legally and politically, in how protest and domestic terrorism are viewed and charged.
The armed men in Oregon have been called “anti-government” by people in the press. They have been accused of threatening police officers but I have not seen evidence that they actually did. These words and accusations suggest a violent group centered around a plot to destroy or overthrow our government, which is not an accurate portrait and does not reflect the reality.
The men say they are against the overreach of our government and find justification for their protest in the Constitution…the ultimate law of the land. These men have not committed violent acts and have said they will not fire on anyone unless they are first fired upon. They cited Ruby Ridge and WACO this morning as precedent setting examples for their position in being armed.
There may be criminal charges that apply in this case and it may have sparked an FBI investigation for terrorism but the domestic terror charge still seems to be based more on what the press has said about them, in a sensational manner IMHO, rather than what they have actually done.
The definition for domestic terrorism, as applied and defended, seems murky to me and so, no, I’m not prepared to call this domestic terrorism.
I do acknowledge it may well become the charge filed against them.
If so, it may be that this charge is another example of government overreach.
Tina: “Legal definition of domestic terrorism: “The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property”
The protesters’ actions certainly seem to qualify as “use of force against property.” They are conducting an armed occupation of a federal building.
“in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
Their actions seem to fit this part of the definition as well.
“The protesters’ actions certainly seem to qualify as “use of force against property.” They are conducting an armed occupation of a federal building.”
What force or violence have they perpetrated “against” property? They haven’t set any bombs or started a fire or threatened to do anything like that.
Also aren’t federal buildings public property too? According to Wikipedia, Public property is property that is dedicated to public use and is a subset of state property.” Now it’s a bit of a stretch to say a protest is public use in this case but then so was the use of a public park taken over by OWS in NYC.
“’…in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.’ … Their actions seem to fit this part of the definition as well.”
Have any of the protests we’ve discussed here been any different? Occupy was certainly designed to intimidate and coerce people, businesses, and the cops. In Ferguson the protesters were attempting to coerce and intimidate local and federal law enforcement entities.
It seems this part of the definition would apply to just about every protest.
Two New Black Panther members who plotted murder and bombings were not charged with terrorism:
I don’t remember a lot of discussion of the plot or suggestions of terror charges in the media…and why no official charges of terrorism?
Something is off, as they say.
To me the two most significant conditions would be actual violence and evidence that a threat has teeth. These people have not, so far, shown any evidence of violence or intimidation. They have taken a page from many other protests, organizing a protest from the desire to call attention to a perceived problem. The Hammond situation provided a launching pad.
Progressives, including radical progressives like Bill Ayers and friends, have used this method to call attention to a problem for decades.
We should at least be consistent in prosecuting and reporting about these things, shouldn’t we?
You have a point Tina. Until these men do actual violence, I’m not comfortable with labeling them as terrorists.
This writer from the Center for a Stateless Society argues that the definition of terrorism is political violence against noncombatants. This seems like a more sensible definition than the legal one. I don’t agree with everything this writer says, but it’s an interesting take.
http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/2016/01/whatevers-going-on-in-oregon-its-not.html?m=1
But Tina, in THIS situation, in Oregon, there is no government over-reach. A bid for reduced sentencing failed; and I have no objection to a five year minimum for arson.
Libby: “But Tina, in THIS situation, in Oregon, there is no government over-reach. A bid for reduced sentencing failed; and I have no objection to a five year minimum for arson.”
I do. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws are an example of government overreach.
It just so happens that they’re an example of government overreach generally favored and created by conservatives.
Re: It just so happens that they’re an example of government overreach generally favored and created by conservatives.
The bull**** from you Chris never ceases and will increase in 2016. I would thank you for so shortly fulfilling my prognostication, but it was really too damn easy.
Pie, what bull****? Is it your assertion that mandatory minimums are not generally favored by conservatives and opposed by liberals? I notice that you always resort to this type of language when you have no actual counter-argument.
The arson charges are what they are. There is some new background on that case that suggest some politics are involved but I can’t find it right now so I’ll move on.
Government overreach is no excuse for criminal activity. But before the accusations of arson there is a history of government overreach and quite possibly, in my opinion, political strong arming. It seems none of you are willing to follow the links to Conservative Treehouse to read about the other side of this saga so I will post it here with apologies for the length:
(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 the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive toward the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found 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). Dwight spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland. He was then 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 still intended to use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, 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 sell 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 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 “Terrorists” under the Federal Anti terrorism 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 range land. Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, soon called Capital Press to complain he had not made those comments and requested they be taken down from the website. Capital Press removed the comments. A search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments revealed the origin as the BLM’s office in Denver, Colorado. Allum said, he is friends with the Hammonds and he 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 they were looking for evidence that would connect them to the fires. The Hammonds later found out 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 the backfire ended up working so well it put out the fire altogether.
(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail which would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for six 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. Many 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. Example: Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings 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 who was not mentally capable to be credible. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13-years-old at the time, and 24-years-old 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. However, Judge Hogan allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood 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 land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton every day. 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 convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area and influenced by the prosecutors for six straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, gave 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 “Terrorists” under the 1996 Anti terrorism Act. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. Both were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Judge Hogan overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commented 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 exemplified 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 “re-sentenced” 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 the Hammonds have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of 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)
Unlike Tina’s idiot detractors, Tina supplies a wealth of information these left-wing jerks are afraid to address. No, I do not think the Malheur armed occupation is in any sense justified or intelligent. While more soft spoken, they are just as stupid as the Black Panthers.
An update on Conservative Treehouse suggests politics are involved:
interesting links about US Attorney Amanda Marshall who made the recommendation to challenge the Hammonds’ original sentences. She resigned in May 2015 for “health reasons” amid a scandal – she is accused of stalking a subordinate, federal prosecutor Scott Kerin. She is an Obama appointee who had no experience as a federal prosecutor when she took the job (see below*).
1) About Amanda Marshall, from the Oregonian’s list of “players” in the Hammond family case.
Oregon Live
“Amanda Marshall: Former U.S. Attorney for Oregon. Marshall recommended that the federal government challenge the Hammonds’ original prison sentences. By law, the convictions come with mandatory five-year sentences, but U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan in 2012 balked at the punishment and instead sentenced Dwight Hammond to three months and Steven Hammond to one year. Marshall called Hogan’s punishments “unlawful.” The solicitor general authorized a rare appeal of an Oregon judge’s order. The appeals court sided with the prosecution, and the Hammonds returned to federal court last year to face a second sentencing. At that hearing, U.S. Chief District Judge Ann Aiken ordered the pair to finish five-year terms.”
Oregon’s top federal prosecutor traveled from commune to the corner office
Oregon Live:
2) The Scandal:
Oregon U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall resigns amid internal review, cites health issues
Oregon Live
Federal Prosecutor Allegedly Stalked By U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall Was Under Armed Protection – Scott Kerin reportedly had a contract taken out on his life by a Mexican drug cartel.
wweek.com
U.S. Justice Department looking into U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall’s relationship with employee
Oregon Live
“This is a crucial time in the U.S. Attorney’s office in Oregon, which investigates and prosecutes federal crimes. The office is leading a sweeping influence-peddling investigation of former Gov. John Kitzhaber and his companion, Cylvia Hayes.
Marshall was the surprise choice to replace interim U.S. Attorney Dwight Holton in 2010. She had no experience as a federal prosecutor.* Rather, she was plucked from a child advocacy legal job inside the Oregon Department of Justice. Before that, she served as a deputy district attorney in Coos County.
Kerin is married to a fellow-federal prosecutor in the Portland office. Marshall is married to Ladd Wiles, who last May was elected Circuit Court judge in Yamhill County.”
NOTE: In the above story, her attorney, Charese Rohny, misleads the Oregonian by saying that the victim Kerin was the subject of an OIG investigation, which was untrue, as it was Marshall who OIG was investigating.
Wow! Remind me not to move to Oregon.
For the record I did read the whole story on the Conservative Treehouse link and have been sharing it on Facebook and another blog.
LaMalfa posted an article about clemency for the Hammonds. I hope it is pursued and granted. The father and son do not deserve to be in prison for five years, but I can think of several others who put them there that should be including this Marshall chick.
Is the Oregon rancher about land and cattle or is it about progressive gov’t greed?
https://www.intellihub.com/hammond-ranch-may-be-sitting-on-precious-metals-materials-the-blm-wants/
It is all about a century of federal imperialism over states rights for the purpose of grabbing land. If you are aware of how the totalitarian elements of the federal government treated American Indians like ****, you have not seen anything yet.