OREGON MILITIA STANDOFF, WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT

UPDATE, OF SORTS, DEC. 4, 2015, 6:00 PM, CST

NOT ONE MEMBER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT APPROACHED THE OCCUPIED BUILDING ON MONDAY WHERE MEMBERS OF THE OREGON MILITIA AND THEIR SUPPORTERS ARE PROTESTING RESENTENCING OF A FATHER AND SON WHCH CAME FROM A DISPUTE WITH TWO FEDERAL AGENCIES OVER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 20 YEARS.
BECAUSE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND MILITARY STAYED AWAY, THERE WERE NO "VIOLENT INCIDENTS".

FURTHER UPDATES WILL BE GIVEN AS COMMENTS IN THE COMMENTS SECTION BENEATH THIS BLOG.

The short summary is:

In an effort to draw attention to a ridiculous arrest of a father and son pair of Oregon Ranchers (Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46,) who are scheduled to begin five year prison sentences (turning themselves in tomorrow January 4th 2016), three brothers from the Cliven Bundy family and approximately 100/150 (and growing) heavily armed militia (former U.S. service members) have taken control of Malheur Wildlife Refuge Headquarters in the wildlife reserve. 

They are prepared to stay there indefinitely.
SOME HAVE SAID THEY ARE WILLING TO DIE THERE. 


Here’s the long version: including history, details, links video(s) and explanations:

 "In 1964 the Hammonds purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin.
The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights.
The ranch is around 53 miles south of Burns, Oregon, near the three corners area where Oregon, California, and Nevada borders meet. 
Much of that area had been purchased by the federal government in 1908 which designated part of it an Indian Reservation and other parts as a migratory bird sanctuary, a wildlife refuge. 

The federal lands became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. 
THERE WERE NO INDIANS.

By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

The refuge covers over 187,000 acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds the Hammond’s ranch.

Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell.
Other ranchers there also choose not to sell.

The Harney Basin (where the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s by multiple ranchers and once supported over 300,000 head of cattle.

These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigation system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.

During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell.

Ranchers were told that, “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”.

32 out of 53 grazing permits were revoked causing many ranchers to leave.

Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain.

Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system, claiming it as their own.

By 1980 a conflict was well  underway over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned  Silvies Plain.

The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Plain to add to their already vast holdings.

Refuge personnel intentional diverted water, bypassing the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes.

Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled.
Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies Plains were flooded.
Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed away and destroyed.
The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches.

 In 1989 the waters began to recede and now the once thriving, privately-owned Silvies Plains are a part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge owned by the FWS. By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of very few ranchers who still owned private property adjacent to the refuge.

Susie Hammond, in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling facts about the refuge.
In a public record, she found a study that was done by the FWS in 1975.

The study showed that the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property.
The study showed that the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced 4 times more ducks and geese than the refuge did.
It also showed that the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge.
When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, she and her family allegedly became the subjects of a long train of abuses.

In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed for usage rights on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon.

 The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds' right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court.
The court found that the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the right to the use of the water belonged to the Hammonds.*

In August 1994, the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds' water source.

Legally 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 (the father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with federal officials or federal contractors" (two counts, each a felony).
He spent one night in the Deschutes County jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail.

A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.

The FWS then began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammonds' private property.

In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond ranch they had to travel 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 to be owned by Harney County and was maintained by that county as a public county road.

The Hammonds won again.  
This seemed to further enrage the BLM & FWS.

Shortly after the road and water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammonds' upper grazing permit without a given cause, without court proceeding or court ruling.

As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock.

The Hammonds intended to still use their private property for grazing.
However, they were informed that a FEDERAL judge had ruled, in a FEDERAL court, that the FEDERAL government did not have to observe the Oregon STATE fence out law.

The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of MUCH of their private property.
Cutting their ranch by almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.

The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished and had to sell their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle.
This new property included two grazing rights on public land.
Those grazing rights were also arbitrarily revoked later.

The new owner of the Hammonds' original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade to get their ranch back.

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.

LET'S SEE THAT AGAIN:
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 and productivity of the land for many centuries.

In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together engulfing much of  the countryside.

To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (the 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”.

The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff’s office and filed a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire.

A few days after the backfire, a ranger 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 Steven to go to the ranch and bring back his father.

Both Dwight and Steven were booked on multiple Oregon State charges.

The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges and determined that the accusations against Dwight and Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges. 



THEN THEY WERE RAIDED...

In September 2006, Dwight & Susan Hammond’s home was raided.
The agents informed the Hammonds that they were looking for evidence that would connect them to the fires.

The Hammonds later found out that a boot print and a tire track 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 later said; ” I have never felt so violated in my life. We are ranchers not criminals”.



In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney's Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges. 

 The two were newly accused  of being “terrorists” under the Federal Anti-terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

FIVE YEARS AFTER THE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY THREW OUT THE CASE, FIVE YEARS AFTER ANOTHER WIN BY THE HAMMONDS, THE FEDS FOUND A WAY TO "HANG" THEM.


This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death.

Dwight's and Steven’s mugshots were all over the news the next week, posing them as “arsonists”.   

Susan Hammond 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”.   

Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access to present evidence and witnesses for 6 days.

He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the federal case against the Hammonds.

The Hammonds' attorney was only allowed 1 day to present all evidence and all witnesses.

Much of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds did what they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury.

 For example, Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings that the fires improved the health and productivity of the land.

The jury was NOT informed that the Hammonds had been subject of harassment and vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.
Federal attorneys used Dusty Hammond (a grandson and nephew) to testify that Steven told HIM to start the fire.
Dusty was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later).

At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years.
He was estranged from his family, including his mother.


Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible, but he allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway.
Judge Michael Hogan and federal prosecutor Frank Papagni  blatantly tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process.

 Hogan and Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how the land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley.

All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton everyday.
Some drove more than two hours each way.
By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home.

ADVERTISEMENT

On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to deliver a verdict.
Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision.

Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual that was convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 Act.

The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area, influenced by the prosecutors for 6 straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, delivered a verdict and went home. 
Some of the jurists would publicly attest to these facts later.



June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were found guilty of starting both the 2001 and the 2006 fires by the jury, something everyone already knew, a fact that had not been hidden since the first fire.

However, the federal court convicted them both as “terrorists” under the 1996 Anti-terrorism Act.

Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight Hammond to 3 months in prison and Steven, his son, to 12 months in federal prison.

They were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM.

Hogan, overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commented that if the full five years were required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment).

The day of the sentencing Judge Hogan retired as a federal judge.
In his honor the staff served chocolate cake in the courtroom.

On January 4,, 2013, Dwight and Steven Hammond reported to prison.
They both fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months).
Dwight was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014. 

SIX MONTHS AFTER STEVEN'S RELEASE, OVER ONE YEAR AFTER DWIGHT'S RELEASE, at some time 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, AGAIN exemplifying further vindictive behavior, filed an appeal with the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight’s and Steven’s return to federal prison for the entire 5 years. 
 In October 2015, the 9th District Court “resentenced” Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years.

Why did the feds wait so long?

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.

During the court proceeding, the Hammonds were 'forced' to grant the BLM something called a "first right of refusal".

If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to offer first to sell it to the BLM.
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 family has paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remaining $200,000 had to be paid before the end of 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)

ACTUALLY, BOTH THESE WEBSITES FAIL ON PROVIDING LINKS TO COURT DOCUMENTS, LOCAL NEWS STORIES, ANYTHING THEY MIGHT HAVE OFFERED TO SHOW US THINGS DID HAPPEN AS TOLD, BUT ALL OF WHICH CAN BE FOUND ON THE INTERNET.

THE 2014 CASE DOCUMENT CAN BE VIEWED <HERE>.
2011 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

The above is exhausting reading, but well worth it. For example, this:
 

"The trial judge found that the 2001 fire had, at

most, temporarily damaged sagebrush and that,

while those damages might have technically been

greater than $100, “mother nature” had remedied any

harm. App. 14. The judge’s conclusion was supported

by the BLM, which had determined that the 2001 fire

improved that portion of the federal land to which the

fire spread. ER-305."

After a two-week trial and several hours of jury

deliberations, the jury initially returned a partial

verdict. As detailed above, it found petitioners guilty

of the only fires they admitted to setting. Petitioners

were acquitted on some counts and the jury was

unable to reach a verdict on others.
 

THEY HAVE MANY LOCAL SUPPORTERS, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF THE STATE'S FARM BUREAU:

 "I find it incredible that the government would want to try these ranchers as terrorists," said Barry Bushue, the longtime president of the Oregon Farm Bureau. "Now is where the rubber meets the road. Right now is when the public should absolutely be incensed. And the public, I think, should be fearful."
 

The Hammonds responded Friday by asking for a new hearing before all 11 judges in the court, arguing the panel overlooked crucial facts. The Hammonds’ attorneys say the government didn’t fight for stiffer sentences during sentencing and that the government waived its right to appeal in reaching a plea agreement.

“Imposing the five-year term on either defendant will result in gross injustice,” their attorneys wrote in the request. They wrote that Congress added the five-year minimum to an existing arson crime as part of an effort to combat terrorists

Each year the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals receives upwards of 5,000 requests for a new hearing before all the court’s judges, said Kelly Zusman, appellate chief for the U.S. attorney’s office in Oregon.

 

The judges only hear about 1 percent of those requests.

“They grant very, very few,” she said.

The Hammonds also have the option to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Zusman said.

THE HAMMOND CASE: A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE

"The U.S. Government’s case against Dwight and Stephen Hammond amounts to a prosecutorial slapp suit. A slapp suit in civil matters is a “strategic lawsuit intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition”.

A prosecutorial slapp suit would be one in which a defendant is grossly over-charged with the criminal charges brought against them being malicious, abusive, vindictive and strategic.

Such is the case with the prosecutor’s case against the Hammonds.
It was guaranteed to bankrupt the Hammond’s and to force them to sell their property – including water rights to the government.







The government’s initial filings included 6,000 pages with nineteen charges over a 24-year time span.


On May 16, 2012 in a Superseding Indictment, the grand jury reduced the time span to seven years, decreased the objects of conspiracy by four, cut the manner and means by three and deleted ten overt acts (CR 104).




Ultimately, the senior Dwight Hammond, age 70 when the charges were brought was found guilty of one count and his son Stephen Hammond was found guilty of two counts.

 What this case demonstrates is the flaw in mandatory minimum sentencing and how prosecutors can exploit that flaw for malicious, vindictive and strategic purposes which in this case is to obtain the land that the Hammonds own.
The Hammonds admitted to using fire as a tool in the course of their business of ranching.



Repeating from above, fire is used for habitat improvement, ecosystem restoration and maintenance, and reduction of hazardous fuels.


In essence, the Hammonds were convicted of being Ranchers and there is only one word that adequately describes this case against them.

The word is travesty.
If ever there was a case that could be called a travesty of justice, this one is it." 

 
THERE ARE VIDEOS ON MOST SITES WHICH I'VE QUOTED ABOVE, BUT NONE WHICH I FELT WERE OF SIGNIFICANCE TO FACTS.

AND, FROM THE "MORE CITATIONS HERE" WEBSITE, FROM AMMON BUNDY:


"The federal government controls over 582,000,000 acres of U.S. western lands, 51% of the entire western land mass.

They also have recently begun claiming over 72% of western resources, such as the sub-surface minerals, forests and waters.

This is in comparison to 4.29% federally controlled land in the east.The negative impact [OF FEDERAL LAND OWNERSHIP] on the people can be seen economically, politically, and socially. 

In order for any people to survive, let alone prosper, it takes the land and resources to do it. Everything we eat, the clothing we wear, the homes we live in, the cars we drive, and so on, come from the earth.
All physical comfort and prosperity originates from the earth.

Individuals composing the federal government, understanding the origination of wealth, are reserving these resources for themselves and are willing to use force to retain them. The ramifications of their action are slowly forcing the people of the west into poverty.

Due to the fact that people cannot survive without land and resource, the federal government’s action in administering the lands for their own benefit will be the cause of public discontent and unrest until it is corrected.

The solution is very simple, the land and resources must be made available to its rightful owners, the people.

 

This can be done peacefully if the states & counties would check and balance the federal government as designed. When this happens, the people will begin to prosper and much of the economical, political and social problem of the west will diminish. Prosperity, peace and tranquility will be the results."

Are there laws regarding all of this, even burning on your own private land?
Yes.

SHOULD there be such laws?

Are they over-reaching?

Is the Federal government infringing on STATES' RIGHTS?

Did the BLM and other agencies and their employees violate the Hammonds' CIVIL RIGHTS?

Is what the Feds have done CONSTITUTIONALLY CORRECT?Read the sentences handed down for the "crimes" committed below, see if you agree?

The Supreme Court has upheld

far tougher sentences for less serious

or, at the very least, comparable offenses.

See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 . . . (2003)

(upholding a sentence of fifty years to life

under California’s three-strikes law for stealing

nine videotapes);

 

Ewing v. California,538 U.S. 11 . . . (2003) (upholding a sentence

of twenty-five years to life under California’s

three-strikes law for the theft of three golf

clubs);

 

Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 . . .

(1982) (per curiam) (upholding a forty-year

sentence for possession of nine ounces of

marijuana with the intent to distribute); 

 

 

Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 . . . (1980)

(upholding a life sentence under Texas’s recidivist

statute for obtaining $120.75 by false

pretenses). . . .

YEAH, I KNOW, "THE LAW IS THE LAW", BUT WHEN DOES THE LAW GO TOO FAR? 

WHEN DOES FEDERAL LAW CONSTITUTIONALLY ERASE STATE LAW AND HOW?

WHEN DO THE ACTIONS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AGAINST A PRIVATE CITIZEN CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THAT CITIZEN'S CIVIL RIGHTS, HIS GUARANTEED FREEDOMS?  

WHEN A FEDERAL AGENCY OR ITS EMPLOYEES BEHAVE LIKE THE MAFIA, LIKE CRIMINALS, USING STRONG-ARM TACTICS ON INDIVIDUALS, WHO WILL PROSECUTE THOSE FEDERAL AGENTS? WHEN A FEDERAL AGENCY VIOLATES A STATE'S LAWS, THEN WHAT?
GIVE THEM A COOKIE AND ASK THEM TO PLAY FAIR? AS FAR BACK AS THAT OLD DEVIL, ANDREW JACKSON IN THE 1820s, THROUGH HOOVER, TRUMAN, EISENHOWER, KENNEDY, ALL HAVE TRIED TO TELL US THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN HIJACKED BY A BUNCH OF BANKER BANDITS, THAT THE MILITARY-INDUTRIAL COMPLEX WAS UNDER BANKER CONTROL, THAT THE LAWS OF THE LAND WERE BEING BOUGHT AND SOLD, THAT DICTATORS HAD COME INTO POWER HERE.

MAYBE WE SHOULD LISTEN?

IS IT TOO LATE?

 

 

TOMORROW, THERE WILL BE A SHOWDOWN IN OREGON, POSSIBLY YET ANOTHER RUBY RIDGE, ANOTHER WACO, TEXAS, BRANCH DAVIDIAN NIGHTMARE WHERE MANY DIE AND WE FIND OUT LATER THEY DIED FROM THE ERROR OF THE FEDERAL OFFICIALS HANDLING THINGS LIKE A BUNCH OF CARELESS THUGS.

WHEN THAT HAPPENS, AND WHEN OBAMA MOVES TO TAKE CONTROL OF OUR RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES, ENDS THAT RIGHT BY AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS CALLED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER, WHAT THEN, FOLKS?

WHERE WILL THAT LEAVE ALL OF US?

AT THE MERCY OF THE MERCILESS, THAT'S WHERE.

REMEMBER THAT.

REMEMBER THAT WE HAD A CHANCE TO CORRECT THE FAILINGS OF OUR DAMNABLE ELECTED LIARS AND DID NOT.

AND MAY THOSE OF US WHO ARE OF THE WORLD WAR II GENERATION, WHO REMEMBER WHAT REAL FREEDOM FELT LIKE, NEVER STOP SAYING,
"I TOLD YOU SO!"

AND MAY THE YOUNGER AND FUTURE GENERATIONS NEVER STOP SCREAMING, "DAMN YOU! WHY DIDN'T YOU STOP THIS?
WHY DID YOU LET THIS HAPPEN"IT WAS "THE LAW" WHEN THE REBELS DUMPED THAT TEA INTO BOSTON HARBOR THAT A TAX BE PAID ON TEA.

IT WAS "THE LAW" THAT BRITAIN OWNED THIS LAND AND THAT THE RICH COULD OWN SLAVES WHEN SOME DECIDED THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE OWNED. 

TOMORROW, ABOUT 150 MEN AND WOMEN, MAYBE MORE,  WILL STAND AGAINST WHAT THEY SEE AS A CORRUPT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, A TYRANICAL IMPOSTOR OF A GOVERNMENT.

THEY MAY ALL DIE, BUT WHAT IF NEXT WEEK, 1,000 TAKE A STAND?

WHAT IF NEXT MONTH, A MILLION STAND UP?

HOW MANY MAY DIE?

ARE THEY RIGHT IN TAKING SUCH A STAND?

ARE THEY?