Armed Militia Takes Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge HQ

and I can hope that the Feds don't back down.

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 Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

We went over and shot some geese just off the Malhuer refuge yesterday. On some other private land that .gov has been eyeballing for quite a while as well. Looking back I'm surprised how we didn't get arrested under the terrorist act also.

Department of Justice

U.S. Attorney’s Office

District of Oregon

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison

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.

“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires. Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze” stated Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams.

“Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison. These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.”

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Frank R Papagni, Jr., AnneMarie Sgarlata and Kelly Zusman handled the prosecution of this case.

How many prescribed burns by USFS and BLM have gotten out of control, on public land?

Oh goodie, somebody came to stand in for Ron and Rokjox.
Dude, you're right there in Idaho, shouldn't you be packing your toothbrush and heading on over to the front?

They were tried and convicted and sentenced. The Feds argued for a mandatory 5 year term, judge thought that was too severe and sentenced them to a shorter term. Feds successfully appealed on the grounds that Federal sentencing was mandatory minimum 5 years. So back to jail they go.

The right wing nut jobs are trying to make this all about land rights but it is really about mandatory minimum sentencing. When it was black people getting screwed these same right wingers called it law and order, tough on crime, blah blah blah

Anti-terror act not invoked. They would be incarcerated a lot longer if that were true.

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

The Ordinance of 1784 (enacted April 23, 1784) called for the land in the recently created United States of America west of the Appalachian Mountains, north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River to be divided into separate states.

It was adopted by the United States Congress of the Confederation under the Articles of Confederation.


The new states shall remain forever a part of the United States of America.
They shall bear the same relation to the confederation as the original states.
They shall pay their apportionment of the federal debts.
They shall in their governments uphold republican forms.
After the year 1800 there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of them.

I disagree, the feds are ignoring them, in fact they are letting them come and go. This will end with little more than a whimper. The morons will end up looking silly. I would not rule out eventual arrests, but they will ley the clowns have their fun just like the occupy crowd and the black lives people did{/quote]

agreed



I don't know about Alaska, or Idaho seceding, but we can only hope that texass does.

they should be out-occupied by the restofus burning man style smothering their protest with a stinking starvation crisis

Yallqaeda

“The F.B.I. takes very seriously any shooting incidents involving our agents, and as such we have an effective, time-tested process for addressing them internally,” a bureau spokesman said.

... from 1993 to early 2011, F.B.I. agents fatally shot about 70 “subjects” and wounded about 80 others — and every one of those episodes was deemed justified, according to interviews and internal F.B.I. records obtained by The New York Times through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

A state can not cede from the nation without the permission from every other state.

These members of Y'all Qaeda are trying to fight for yeehawd.

"New Hampshire joined the union on condition that it remain a fully sovereign state free to break the tie with the United States if that link were no longer in its interest. Article 7 of the New Hampshire Constitution declares that “the people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.” Banning secession would break this original agreement."

Jan 3, 2016 - 01:31pm PT
A state can not cede from the nation without the permission from every other state.

Property taxes perpetually keep your property leased-back to you, and failure to pay those taxes will get you evicted from your own property.

Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area

Jan 3, 2016 - 05:29pm PT
What if it turns out that the wildlife ends up being no worse off with these militia guys occupying the headquarters than it was when The Feds ran the place?

Maybe then we'd want to re-think the whole idea of government wildlife management.

[Art.] 7. [State Sovereignty.] The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.

Your rant about the Feds loses its way right here; there are no Federal property taxes.

Pretty much what the constitution says.

They ratified it in June, 1784, then ratified the US constitution in 1788, wheupon they accepted the articles in the constitution.

Timeline is kinda important.

The "FEDS" are not the enemy. They are fellow Americans.

There is literally no PLACE a free person can just BE, secure in their property and liberty, as long as they are operating within their God-given negative rights.

The feds ARE the enemy.

My rant is about how radically this entire nation has changed in its fundamental perspectives and what the "new normal" has come to be.

"Timeline" does not imply that NH punted on what their constitutions says, and it is well-documented what their intention was in joining the Union. Comparing NH to the southern states is ridiculous, as NH guaranteed that they had the perpetual right to secede if necessary.

And the more pressing question is: What is a free person to do? Are we ALL slaves? MUST we participate in a form of government that we have come to reject due to its excesses and corruption. If we demure, what options do we have?

Clause 2: Property Clause
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State..

I vaguely recall a time when people didn't fear the gubmint, at least as long
as you weren't a commie pinko. But I guess that was when the BLM was being
nice to the ranchers.

I can vaguely remember a time when the government didn't expand to fill every gap and void that the citizenry didn't protect under threat of death to the bureaucrat.

Well, I've read about those times at least.

There is literally no PLACE a free person can just BE, secure in their property and liberty, as long as they are operating within their God-given negative rights.

I vaguely remember a time when the citizenry chose to elect people who understood the process of governing and the citizenry went to the ballot box instead of reaching for a gun to threaten bureaucrats who were enforcing the laws elected officials passed.

GFYS, champ. I've given more to this nation that you ever will.

Ya'llQaeda?

-or-

Vanilla ISIS?

but in theory the state gives you safer roads to drive "your" car that they rent you

other than rant on a climbers forum?

+1 for just making dumb sh#t up and pretending it means something.

Really, it's pathetic.

1) I am purchasing a benefit to MYSELF with them. I agree to pay for police, fire-departments, schools, etc., as I enjoy a DIRECT benefit being part of the collective.

Don't minimize the power of a good rant on an internationally-known "climbers'" forum.

What if it turns out that the wildlife ends up being no worse off with these militia guys occupying the headquarters than it was when The Feds ran the place? Maybe then we'd want to re-think the whole idea of government wildlife management.

Actually, the Dusky Geese have a more bitter taste that my wife finds pleasing. The hard part is disabling the radio collars so we lay off of them now.

Lorenzo - you forget Big Bertha in Seattle.

Easy solution for the failed philosphy prof

That one I'll come back on to respond to.

But I am of the opinion that the government must be resisted lest it will consume all liberty and that is not acceptable to me.

Wall of text that nobody will read coming in 5...4...3...2...

Hahaha...

I'm not playing with this. You've made a defamatory claim,
twice, in a public forum. Either publicly retract it or
prepare to answer for it.

If the best you can do by way of "argument" is that sort of
cheap shot, then you should be ashamed of yourself. But
since you apparently have no normal sense of what is decent,
fortunately there are laws that draw lines around what you
can stupidly say with impunity.

Feel free to throw money into your lawyer's bank account though

As an argument, you don't get to retro, cherry pick which fegeral expendatures you don't support and then claim you should get a tax refund.

Under that logic, most people would not have approved of using federal tax dollars to steal all the best surfing and climbing areas from Mexico.

Without all that rock and ocean we'd all be members of the Nitro Circus right now, playing in dirt.

You made a claim. It's defamatory. Defend it or retract it.

Simple

I tend to agree that burning 140 acres of rangeland is no big deal, but the federal prosecutor took it that way and got a jury conviction.

Harney County Sheriff David M. Ward said authorities from “several organizations” are working to peacefully resolve the standoff, which began Saturday when an unknown number of armed activists occupied an uninhabited building at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, about 30 miles outside the town of Burns, Ore.

“These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives, to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States,” Ward said in a statement Sunday.

The Hammonds slaughtered a herd of either deer or elk, killed at least 7 and injured more according to a witness.

Ah the good old days. Harken back to when the tobacco industry had completely unfettered access to the American (and World) population without the nuisance interference of the government.

The Hammonds slaughtered a herd of either deer or elk, killed at least 7 and injured more according to a witness.

but the message and the realities of the Hammond case are 100% legit.

I'm sorry, but just because they lease some federal land doesn't mean they get to run it like they own it.

As someone said upstream, if you don't want to deal with federal land regulations, don't make your living off of federal land

According to records obtained by Reveal, two ranching families at the center of the Battle Mountain protests received $2.2 million from a federal drought disaster relief program.

If you educate yourself on the history of the Hammond Ranch, you will discover that the feds have basically coerced or simply bought out all the surrounding property and have been butt-hurt over the fact that the Hammonds (one of the original settlers of the area) didn't sell out and have been putting the squeeze on these people for decades.

When you dig into the history of some of these cases the tactics and systematic harassment gets lost in the cacophony of the final "act". No different than many other things, it allows .gov to pit citizens against each other while they pull the puppet strings and continue their march. With a couple of you on here goose stepping in the front.

... the history of some of these cases the tactics and systematic harassment gets lost ...

How come when the government exploits and assaults people of color (i.e. Ferguson) the resulting protests are dismissed as riotous, ineffective and misplaced but when the government allegedly bullies white people anyone criticizing the resulting armed assault on a government building isn't educated enough and is "goose stepping?"

The Hammonds hold grazing rights on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land and own private grazing acres intermingled with BLM land in the Steens Mountains. For 45 years, the Hammonds have used their BLM grazing rights and private property to run a successful operation. But now, their operation is being threatened not only by criminal and civil charges brought by the federal government, but with the loss of their grazing permits, as well. The BLM has refused to renew their grazing permits for two years running.

...

The fire later spread to approximately 139 acres of public land, land that happened to be one of Hammond’s grazing allotments. The Hammonds presented evidence that the spread onto public land was not intentional. However, back in 1999, a similar scenario had occurred (a prescribed burn on their land spread to public land), and the Hammonds had been warned that they would face serious consequences should it happen again

I knew it. "God" told him to do it

Brief History on the Area:

The Harney Basin (were the Hammond ranch is established) was first settled in the 1870’s. In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt creates an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes despite the absence of Indians. The reservation later turns became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

1964 – The Hammond family purchases roughly 6000 acres of property grazing and water rights to the public land area. By 1970 the US Department of Fish and Wildlife Service begins to pressure local ranchers in Harney Basin to sell their property, the Hammonds refused.

1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Government expand the refuge to cover over 187,000 acres, stretching over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. Hammond Ranch is now surrounded by the refuge.

FWS and BLM continue to pressure ranchers to sell their property by stating “grazing was detrimental to wildlife.” They start revoking ranch permits, water rights and grazing rights. Fees for grazing and irrigation skyrocket.

Dmt, it's severe but the law states 5 years and to impose less amounts to a judge making up the law. I think the reversal was entirely appropriate. As stated up thread, the merits of mandatory minimums are certainly debatable, but a judge needs to interpret the law correctly, and he/she blew it.

"Did the government tell you to come here and drive us off this reservation? Did the Big Father say, go and kill us all off, so you can have our land? Did he tell you to pull our children's ears off, and put handcuffs on them, and carry a pistol to shoot us with? We want to know how the government came by this land. Is the government mightier than our Spirit-Father, or is he our Spirit-Father? Oh, what have we done that he is to take all from us that he has given us? His white children have come and taken all our mountains, and all our valleys, and all our rivers; and now, because he has given us this little place without our asking him for it, he sends you here to tell us to go away. Do you see that high mountain away off there? There is nothing but rocks there. Is that where the Big Father wants me to go? If you scattered your seed and it should fall there, it would not grow, for it is all rocks there."

4-years in the pen for starting a controlled burn, with the sentence lengthened by some federal judge, after they'd already served their original sentence?

That does seem like bullshit to me. This does seem a case of justice-amok.

Seizing federal property isn't right. But at least as I understand it, the ranchers themselves have been railroaded.

Do you know why they were sentenced under that act?

The AEDPA had a tremendous impact on the law of habeas corpus in the United States. One provision of the AEDPA limits the power of federal judges to grant relief[3] unless the state court's adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that was

contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.

I don't know if its for similar reasons as the Defense Authorization Act but I know in those instances if you're suspected of terrorism all rights are suspended. Suspected not convicted. No attorney, no trial, no bond not even a phone call.

So the fact that a cowboy is convicted of terrorism for burning a pasture ought to terrify everyone. It does me at least.

Cool. I don't pretend to know the facts. I'm not going to assume I do. So I won't take your or Norton's or anyone else's words as fact, either. :D

But I still sympathize with those ranchers and think that sentence is excessive.

Oh come on. They had attorneys, they had phone calls, they even had appellate review. Your suggestions otherwise amount to pure speculative tin foil hat nonsense.

I'm not lining up. I'm not rooting for my team. I just don't like the vilification of the ranchers though. That whole 'they took Federal dole' angle is what prompted me to post... so f*#king what they took dole???

Maybe now we can elect some legislators who aren't cowards.

Hypocrisy is a crime now?

I for one don't think ranchers are evil.

Thanks Dave, but my point is that none of us know why the were sentenced under that terrorism act. Mostly, we are speculating.

But I still sympathize with those ranchers and think that sentence is excessive.

My biggest concern is the fact that they were tried in the context of terrorism laws, because I have been afraid of misapplications of the federal "terrorism" definition for many years.

The Hammonds can thank Clive Bundy & Co.