Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Armed Militia takes over federal building - Oregon

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Armed Militia takes over federal building - Oregon

    http://katu.com/news/local/criminal-...son-conviction

    Criminal history of the Hammond family's arson conviction
    By KATU.com Staff Sunday, January 3rd 2016
    Steve_hammond_CNN_Newsource.JPG
    Dwight Hammond and his son Steven were sentenced to five years in prison for setting two fires on federal land. (CNN Newsource)
    11 shares


    BURNS, Ore. (KATU) -- As an armed militia takes over a federal building in Burns in support of the Hammond family, it's important to know how these events unfolded.

    Dwight Hammond and his son Steven were sentenced to five years in prison for setting two fires on federal land.

    Witnesses say Steven Hammond and a hunting party illegally slaughtered deer on federal property in 2001, then started a fire to cover it up.

    The second arson conviction was for starting "back fires" in 2006 to save winter feed, despite a burn ban in effect because of high fire danger.

    Arson on federal land carries a 5-year minimum sentence, but the Hammonds argued that was unconstitutional. A trial court sentenced both men to less than five years, but both the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court wound up sentencing the men to a full five-year sentence based on federal law.


    "I'm going to jail for five years for 127? Seems like a bit of an overkill," Dwight Hammond said of the conviction.

    The Hammonds are expected to turn themselves in on Monday.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-r...ly-occupation/

    Oregon ranchers reject Cliven Bundy family occupation

    Dwight Hammond
    KOIN-TV

    628 Comments 1.5K Shares Tweets Stumble Email
    More +

    BURNS, Ore. - A group of angry anti-government protesters have occupied a building at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon in what they say is an act of solidarity for a pair of ranchers facing jail time for burning government land.

    However, the Hammond family, the Oregon ranchers at the center of the dispute, say they don't want them there, reports CBS affiliate KOIN in Portland, Ore.

    ammon bundy

    Ammon Bundy
    KOIN

    Ammon Bundy - the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in an armed standoff with the government over grazing rights - told The Oregonian on Saturday that he and two of his brothers were among a group of dozens of people occupying the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

    Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page asking for militia members to come help him. He said "this is not a time to stand down. It's a time to stand up and come to Harney County," where Burns is located. Below the video is this statement: "(asterisk)(asterisk)ALL PATRIOTS ITS TIME TO STAND UP NOT STAND DOWN!!! WE NEED YOUR HELP!!! COME PREPARED."

    The Hammonds said they have not welcomed the Bundy's help.

    "Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family," the Hammonds' lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff David Ward.

    In an interview with reporters late Saturday night that was posted on Facebook, Bundy said he and others are occupying the building because "the people have been abused long enough."

    "I feel we are in a situation where if we do not do something, if we do not take a hard stand, we'll be in a position where we'll be no longer able to do so," he said.

    Bundy said the group planned to stay at the refuge indefinitely. "We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," Ammon Bundy said. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."

    Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward told people to stay away from the building as authorities work to defuse the situation, the Oregonian reported.

    "A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation," Ward said in a statement.

    An Idaho militia leader who helped organize the earlier march said he knew nothing about activities after a parade of militia members and local residents in Burns walked past the sheriff's office and the home of Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son Steven.

    oregon-protest.jpg

    About 100 protesters gathered Saturday, January 2, 2016 in Burns, Oregon, for a rally in support of a local father and son facing prison time for arson.
    KOIN

    Ammon Bundy's father, Cliven Bundy, told Oregon Public Broadcasting on Saturday night that he had nothing to do with the takeover of the building.

    Bundy said his son felt obligated to intervene on behalf of the Hammonds.

    "That's not exactly what I thought should happen, but I didn't know what to do," he said. "You know, if the Hammonds wouldn't stand, if the sheriff didn't stand, then, you know, the people had to do something. And I guess this is what they did decide to do. I wasn't in on that."

    His son Ammon told him they are committed to staying in the building, Cliven Bundy told Oregon Public Broadcasting.

    "He told me that they were there for the long run. I guess they figured they're going to be there for whatever time it takes_and I don't know what that means," Cliven Bundy said. "I asked him, 'Well how long can ya, how long you going to stand out there?' He just told me it was for long term."

    Beth Anne Steele, an FBI spokeswoman in Portland, told The Associated Press the agency was aware of the situation at the national wildlife refuge. She made no further comment.

    Some local residents feared the Saturday rally would involve more than speeches, flags and marching. But the only real additions to that list seemed to be songs, flowers and pennies.

    As marchers reached the courthouse, they tossed hundreds of pennies at the locked door. Their message: civilians were buying back their government. After the march passed, two girls swooped in to scavenge the pennies.

    A few blocks away, Hammond and his wife, Susan, greeted marchers, who planted flower bouquets in the snow. They sang some songs, Hammond said a few words, and the protesters marched back to their cars.

    Dwight Hammond has said he and his son plan to peacefully report to prison Jan. 4 as ordered by the judge.

    Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.

    "Remember: It's not about me, it's about America and somehow we have to get the wheels back on this wagon because they are flying off," Dwight Hammond told KOIN. He said he feels his upcoming prison term is a life sentence.

    "I'm not very happy about that. Just don't know what to say," Hammond said. "It just seems like a little overreach for having burned 127 acres."

    The two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time - the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each.

    The decision has generated controversy in a remote part of the state.

    In particular, the Hammonds' new sentences touched a nerve with far right groups who repudiate federal authority.

    Ammon Bundy and a handful of militiamen from other states arrived last month in Burns, some 60 miles from the Hammond ranch.

    In an email to supporters, Ammon Bundy criticized the U.S. government for a failed legal process.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  • #2
    The first article is incorrect, the fires were not started on federal land and the witness who claimed the fires were over poaching was a mentally ill grandchild who had a beef with the family and who was recounting an event that supposedly happened 11 years earlier.

    This link provides a much better back story

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...y-persecution/

    Comment


    • #3
      The Free Thought Project has raised an interesting point. The Liberal Media that has been bashing cops is now seemingly gleeful at an armed federal counter strike against protesters who while armed have been peaceful.

      Comment


      • #4
        Zraver

        I don't think it is the media. The Hammonds had due process, and legal representation able to raise all the concerns you have raised. It seems you're saying if you set the fire on your land and it spreads to someone's else's property, it is not arson. The Hammonds seem to not want this response.

        " The Hammonds said they have not welcomed the Bundy's help.

        "Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family," the Hammonds' lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff David Ward."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Dazed View Post
          Zraver

          I don't think it is the media. The Hammonds had due process, and legal representation able to raise all the concerns you have raised. It seems you're saying if you set the fire on your land and it spreads to someone's else's property, it is not arson. The Hammonds seem to not want this response.

          " The Hammonds said they have not welcomed the Bundy's help.

          "Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family," the Hammonds' lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff David Ward."
          The Hammond's already served their sentences, the government was satisfied and wanted more. Oh and the the BLM with regularity starts fires that spread on to private land and no one is held accountable. Fires that actually do damage instead of improving the range. Add in the years of abuse that westerners have suffered at the hands of the enviromentalist wacko- federal government alliance and you have a literal tinder box. These people are tied to the land in a way most city folk or yankees will never understand.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by zraver View Post
            The Hammond's already served their sentences, the government was satisfied and wanted more.
            That does sound like rank bulls--t to me. Is that even legal??
            My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

            Comment


            • #7
              That's fucking lovely.

              Private ranchers setting fires that encroaches on federal land gets labeled as terrorists and has to serve 5 years while fires set by federal officials that encroaches on private land doesn't have to reimburse anything to the private ranchers and is just moved to a different office.

              If that article linked by zraver is anything close to the truth I'm going out to buy my first gun tomorrow.
              Last edited by YellowFever; 04 Jan 16,, 04:48.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                That does sound like rank bulls--t to me. Is that even legal??
                The judge that sentenced them to Time Served did not follow federal sentencing guidelines. A conviction of the crime requires a Min of 5 years. They served a lot less.

                Yes it is legal. It went to the Supreme Court. The Hammond's agree and will present themselves tomorrow for incarceration.


                As for the right-wing nutcase terrorist that decided to occupy Federal Land. For those supporting them, would you feel any different if it were an armed Muslim group?
                Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                  As for the right-wing nutcase terrorist that decided to occupy Federal Land. For those supporting them, would you feel any different if it were an armed Muslim group?
                  I'm still in the process of reading up on this as much as I could to figure out what's the truth and what's hyperbole.

                  Still Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff sorta speak.

                  But if the story linked by zraver is anything close to the truth (and from what I read so far from mulitple sources, it looks like it's more accurate than not), damn right I'd support armed muslims if they were doing the exact same thing.

                  Even far right nut-jobs can find an acorn once in awhile and I will not blindly follow the federal government....not as long as that same federal goverment is run by some people (and there are many, many of them) drunk with power.

                  The federal government can affect my life and the lives of my loved ones much MUCH more than armed muslims ever could.
                  Last edited by YellowFever; 04 Jan 16,, 05:50.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The Hammond's lawyer has stated that they do not want the support of Bundy or Cooper or Payne and that crowd. Most right leaning pro-gun groups that I've read recently don't want anything to do with them either. They seem like they are just there to "not let a good crisis go to waste" and take advantage of the situation to forward their own views.
                    But I don't think the Hammonds have been treated fairly. The original judge wouldn't give them the 5 year minimum sentence because he felt it was unusually harsh. It was a charge of terrorism, not arson and it was clearly an abuse of the law's intent. Judges are not required to obey the minimum sentencing guideline [U.S. v. Booker (2005)] and an appellate judge may only overturn the trial judges sentencing if it can show that the sentencing was an abuse of the trial judge's discretion. (Gall v. U.S., U.S. Sup. Ct. 2007) The Hammonds don't want to fight it (in my opinion such as it is) because of their age not because they agree with it. The elder Hammond will already be in his late 70's if he survives his sentence, if they fight it for another couple of years and ultimately lose then this guy could be in until well in his eighties- if he survives. Rather harsh for an illegal burn. As a firefighter, we just tell people to extinguish their fires if they are burning illegally or put them out for them if they are unable or not co-operative. I don't think we've ever fined anyone. Their fire only covered 100+ acres- very small for an agricultural burn or prescribed burn- no structures damaged, no people hurt and it extinguished a much larger fire that threatened their property, hardly terrorism. This I think is a very good example of the government out of control. Thing is, we have a mechanism for that- it's called election. There are also legal protests, lawsuits for redress and petitions. There is no need to leap to the ramparts yet, but we need to do our duty as citizens and engage in the prior mentioned activities or people who abuse the government's powers will feel emboldened to keep it up and people who would disagree will feel discouraged from speaking out.
                    Then who knows?
                    Last edited by DonBelt; 04 Jan 16,, 06:15.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                      The judge that sentenced them to Time Served did not follow federal sentencing guidelines. A conviction of the crime requires a Min of 5 years. They served a lot less.
                      The judge said the sentencing guidelines were a clear violation of the 8th Amendment and he used his judicial discretion. The Hammond's appeal the re-sentencing and despite a clear federal issue SCOTUS declined to hear the case.


                      As for the right-wing nutcase terrorist that decided to occupy Federal Land. For those supporting them, would you feel any different if it were an armed Muslim group?
                      Don't agree with the whole terrorist meme... who have they terrorized? An unoccupied birdhouse in the middle of no where occupied as an act of political protest. Unless you can cite a constitutionally valid law that says all guns must be surrendered before a protest, they are just protesters until and unless they engage in aggressive violence. Armed protest has a long history in this country and not always an ending in violence.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DonBelt View Post
                        Thing is, we have a mechanism for that- it's called election. There are also legal protests, lawsuits for redress and petitions. There is no need to leap to the ramparts yet, but we need to do our duty as citizens and engage in the prior mentioned activities or people who abuse the government's powers will feel emboldened to keep it up and people who would disagree will feel discouraged from speaking out.
                        Then who knows?
                        None of those avenues are open to the public fighting the BLM/FWS/EPA partnerships with environmental groups. Environmental groups sue the government, the government then enters into settlement negotiations with said environmental group where they draft what amounts to a capitulation and they present it to the courts who must legally enter the settlement into the official record. Settlements can't be appealed an the settlement discussions are not open to the public or stakeholders. Its a nasty business that has been going on for a couple of decades now and it has thrown thousands of people out of work, off their land or denied them access/ use of land they previously had legal rights to. Ranchers, loggers, miners, hikers, ORV enthusiasts, farmers multiple classes of people completely screwed over by the federal-environmentalist alliance with hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of acres removed from public and private use. The process is called sue and settle.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DonBelt View Post
                          The Hammond's lawyer has stated that they do not want the support of Bundy or Cooper or Payne and that crowd. Most right leaning pro-gun groups that I've read recently don't want anything to do with them either. They seem like they are just there to "not let a good crisis go to waste" and take advantage of the situation to forward their own views.
                          But I don't think the Hammonds have been treated fairly. The original judge wouldn't give them the 5 year minimum sentence because he felt it was unusually harsh. It was a charge of terrorism, not arson and it was clearly an abuse of the law's intent. Judges are not required to obey the minimum sentencing guideline [U.S. v. Booker (2005)] and an appellate judge may only overturn the trial judges sentencing if it can show that the sentencing was an abuse of the trial judge's discretion. (Gall v. U.S., U.S. Sup. Ct. 2007) The Hammonds don't want to fight it (in my opinion such as it is) because of their age not because they agree with it. The elder Hammond will already be in his late 70's if he survives his sentence, if they fight it for another couple of years and ultimately lose then this guy could be in until well in his eighties- if he survives. Rather harsh for an illegal burn. As a firefighter, we just tell people to extinguish their fires if they are burning illegally or put them out for them if they are unable or not co-operative. I don't think we've ever fined anyone. Their fire only covered 100+ acres- very small for an agricultural burn or prescribed burn- no structures damaged, no people hurt and it extinguished a much larger fire that threatened their property, hardly terrorism. This I think is a very good example of the government out of control. Thing is, we have a mechanism for that- it's called election. There are also legal protests, lawsuits for redress and petitions. There is no need to leap to the ramparts yet, but we need to do our duty as citizens and engage in the prior mentioned activities or people who abuse the government's powers will feel emboldened to keep it up and people who would disagree will feel discouraged from speaking out.
                          Then who knows?
                          Hey man, I agree with you.

                          But my point is whatever those nutjobs decide to do in occupying a federal building is besides the point.

                          What Hammond's lawyers and Hammond himself have to say is also besides the point.

                          My point is that this family is being shitted on by the government and how are elections down the line years from now going to help this man?

                          If this family can be treated this way by the same government that "governs" me and my family, I have a serious problem with that.

                          I have a serious problem with "left leaning" people ignoring this and trying to justify it away just because it's mostly reported by "right leaning" sources.
                          Last edited by YellowFever; 04 Jan 16,, 06:38.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The judge said the sentencing guidelines were a clear violation of the 8th Amendment and he used his judicial discretion. The Hammond's appeal the re-sentencing and despite a clear federal issue SCOTUS declined to hear the case.
                            Then it wasn't a violation of the 8th amendment.
                            To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The occupy movement occupied federal land
                              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                              Leibniz

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X