Armed Patriot Militia Seize Federal Complex
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
Reposting Daniel's link from another thread (which I removed from there, due to being off-topic):

Top
+1
-2
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 5 years ago
Some tough guys demanding Native American lands be given to them from the safety of the bird refuge gift shop. Oy.
Top
+4
-6
Posted by Bob Netherton III (+2773) 5 years ago
I think I prefer VanillaISIS to Y'allQueada.

These guys are saying they're willing to die for this "cause".

Ya sure you betcha.
Top
+4
-4
supporter
Posted by MRH (+1489) 5 years ago
Reply to Amorette Allison (#364114)
Never mind!

[Edited by MRH (1/5/2016 12:30:53 PM)]
Top
+1
-2
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1917) 5 years ago
They were prepared to stay "years" but no one thought to bring supplies. I guess none of them were Boy Scouts. They have eaten all the snacks and used up all the toilet paper in the gift shop and are now begging for assistance. To be sent them through the United States Postal Service.

These guys are as sharp as the corner on a round table.
Top
+6
-6
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17328) 5 years ago


Top
+8
-6
Posted by rhshilling (+89) 5 years ago
Down with the BLM!!!!! Hey, let's take over this visitor's center at this US Fish & Wildlife Services refuge and remove the BLM signs from the buildings! because, well, you know, The Bureau of Land Management and the US Fish and Wildlife Services are the same thing.

PS....send socks and snacks.

I love it when a plan comes together. MORONS!
Top
+4
-5
supporter
Posted by tom regan (+2522) 5 years ago
From what I can gather, it sounds like these folks would like the federal government to release ownership of public lands to locals. Who are the "locals"? The county, groups of landowners? Probably not going to happen. I can understand wanting to have more local input into the management of public lands, but waging Yeehawd against the feds is probably a bit counterproductive.
Top
+4
-2
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 5 years ago
The "locals" who used to own the land are the Paiute Indians. I doubt this idiot band of white supremacists know that. Because I doubt this band of morons knows how to pour water out of a boot even if they are reading the directions printed on the bottom.
Top
+4
-6
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2410) 5 years ago
Amorette said The "locals" who USED to own the land.

Every piece of land in every nation used to be someone else's at some point. Nations go to war, and borders get redrawn, get used to it amoretti, because Obama is redrawing Syria's borders as we speak.

This guy Mr. Hammond set brush fires to burn off his land in a controlled manner. When some of the fire got on the neighbors land which is BLM. BLM filed charges for arson. However when the BLM does land burns they frequently have their fires get onto other lands. They usually just call the land owner, and let them know about it and all is well. And vise versa, many times controlled burns get a bit out of control when the ranchers are burning, and they let BLM know as well. Usually BLM or a good neighbor just helps put out the flame. Now these are not small pieces of land, and it is well known that BLM acquired the land around this region for its resources, and has been targeting the Hammonds ranchers because they are the last land hold out in the area.

It is worth mentioning that when BLM took ownership of the land around the Hammond's ranch, they stopped controlled burning. This created a tender box that scared the Hammond's and other ranchers in the near vicinity. It sounds more like BLM has too much land to manage.

I would like to get a fire fighter opinion on this. If a feds bought all the land around a lone holdout in a region that has a wealth of resources. then created a tender box around this lone holdout, would that be assault. I am not sure, but I can see how their inability to maintain their land, jeopardized the lone holdouts safety. The question patriot are asking, is if the feds 'BLM' are doing this on purpose to get this lone holdout to "sellout".

[Edited by Brandy Allen (1/5/2016 9:26:36 PM)]
Top
+3
-5
Posted by Michael LaFayette (+77) 5 years ago
If they are willing to die, then let them. Cut the power, and barricade them in. nothing in nothing out.
Top
+4
-6
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 5 years ago
Armed Patriot Militia aka Armed Domestic Terrorists
Top
+2
-5
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2410) 5 years ago
So if miles city was a wooded area like this Oregon area, and BLM came in and took over all the surrounding land and stopped taking care of it, jeopardizing the habitants in miles city. Turning our surroundings into a tender box that could smoke us out or burn us. On top of that lets say a geological survey comes out that say there is a bunch of oil under Miles city.
Would you all not ask them to control burn for the safety of your community? Or just give them the resources and leave the land. I admire this guy. Government exist to serve the people that created and support it.
Top
+3
-7
supporter
Posted by cj sampsel (+479) 5 years ago
The thing is the Hammonds did not seek their intervention, didn't want them there
and willingly went to prison. These are just a bunch of anti-government yayhoos
who are looking for a fight. Probably trying to start another Branch Davidian or
Ruby Ridge situation. I don't think any women and children are involved so let em have it.
Top
+4
-3
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Frank Hardy (+1607) 5 years ago
Is that "tender box" a silken cradle, a purple and sage wrapped UPS package, a really nice prostitute, or a match literally fought with "kid gloves"?


FH
Top
+6
-3
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2410) 5 years ago
I agree with you cj. I am only speaking in favor of the Hammond's. Anyone else whom shows up uninvited is looking for trouble.
Top
+3
-2
Posted by CarlosSantos (+871) 5 years ago
Instead of seeking to change legislation, instead of petitioning, instead of holding one simple protest, instead of running for office or even a county seat, instead of doing anything that makes meaningful change...

Lets grab our guns and take over a gubment building, completely unprepared, till we gets our way.


Unintelligent, dangerous logic.
Top
+5
-3
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 5 years ago
Well, it sort of worked with Cliven, so they're forcing the issue again.

I'm not sure why any of the Bundy clan are still walking the streets as free men - that's actually one of the biggest sads I haz from Teh Kenyan Usurper.
Top
+4
-3
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1917) 5 years ago
The Hammonds set a fire to cover up their illegal activity. They were poaching deer. The fire burned out of control and damaged MY property. They are now in jail, finishing their sentences. I'll grant they shouldn't have been let out and then put back in but that's what happened.

The numbnuts in the gift shop are just plain too stupid for words.
Top
+6
-4
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2410) 5 years ago
I think this is just another land grab by the government, as was the Bundy deal.
Our government owes China so much money, and it appears that we are silently defaulting on our sovereign debts to them. So these land grabs seem to benefit China since they will be building solar farms on the ex-Bundy land and selling the power back to Americans. And I bet the mining rights, or the land in the Hammond region go to Chinese companies or Chinese government. You and your lands are the collateral for Americas spending spree.

This all seems like China is just taking control of the collateral that backed the loans we have been getting from them to support Obamas spending. More Fundamental change coming your way America.

Reminds me of the Chinese commercial about Americas non-fiscally responsible policy, and how we now Work for them.

Steal private property from the citizens to finance a nanny welfare state which accepts more immigrants than they can apparently afford.

[Edited by Brandy Allen (1/6/2016 9:30:53 AM)]

[Edited by Brandy Allen (1/6/2016 9:32:14 AM)]
Top
+4
-6
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 5 years ago
Cliven Bundy was running his cattle on land owned by the federal government, which was retained by the federal government as part of accepting Nevada as a state.
Top
+7
-4
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2410) 5 years ago
Yes, then the right to graze his cattle there was taken from him by the federal government, and rights are being negotiated to let the Chinese build solar farms there now.
So, land rights or privilege's were taken from an American farmer, and given to a Chinese company.
If you google Chinese solar farms in America, you will come up with a barrage of information on the subject.

They are taking control of their collateral! YOU!

[Edited by Brandy Allen (1/6/2016 10:08:12 AM)]
Top
+3
-5
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 5 years ago
There are grazing rules, but I don't believe there is any such thing as a grazing right, at least not on federal land.

Please cite the relevant statutory framework for a federal grazing right beyond the Taylor Act.

[Edited by Bridgier (1/6/2016 10:20:53 AM)]
Top
+5
-1
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1917) 5 years ago
You can graze YOUR cattle on MY land providing you pay the fees--which are a giveaway to begin with--and obey the rules to protect MY land. The Bundys are greedy thieves who want to steal MY money and damage MY land. That pisses me off. If they can't follow the rules everybody else follows, then tough nuggets. Why should they be treated differently than every rancher in Montana, Wyoming, Utah, the Dakotas, etc. when it comes to grazing on MY property?
Top
+6
-2
Posted by rhshilling (+89) 5 years ago
Grazing rights are not a right like our rights granted us in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Grazing rights on federal lands are not permanent. They are renewable and refusable. If you do not follow the rules, then your grazing rights can be revoked. If you do not pay your fees for your grazing rights, then you basically do not have those rights anymore. The same goes for mining rights, oil and gas leases, ect.

Bridgier is correct about the Nevada Statehood thing.

The Hammonds owed the federal government $400,000 as part of the reparations for their arson sprees (there are more than just the two arsons they were convicted of). They gave the BLM the right of first refusal if they ever had to sell their ranch to come up with the money to pay that $400,000.

The issues revolve around the Hammonds and the BLM. I'm not sure if others find some of the "milita's" moves as odd. They claimed they took over a federal government building and removed the BLM signs from it. The gaggle took over the Malheur National Wildlife Building at the wildlife refuge. The building is owned and operated by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) which is NOT the BLM. So just where are the BLM signs they removed? The only similarity is that both the USFWS and the BLM are part of the Department of the Interior.
Top
+3
-1
supporter
Posted by MRH (+1489) 5 years ago
Reply to rhshilling (#364163)
rhshilling wrote:
Grazing rights are not a right like our rights granted us in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Grazing rights on federal lands are not permanent. They are renewable and refusable. If you do not follow the rules, then your grazing rights can be revoked. If you do not pay your fees for your grazing rights, then you basically do not have those rights anymore. The same goes for mining rights, oil and gas leases, ect.

Bridgier is correct about the Nevada Statehood thing.

The Hammonds owed the federal government $400,000 as part of the reparations for their arson sprees (there are more than just the two arsons they were convicted of). They gave the BLM the right of first refusal if they ever had to sell their ranch to come up with the money to pay that $400,000.

The issues revolve around the Hammonds and the BLM. I'm not sure if others find some of the "milita's" moves as odd. They claimed they took over a federal government building and removed the BLM signs from it. The gaggle took over the Malheur National Wildlife Building at the wildlife refuge. The building is owned and operated by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) which is NOT the BLM. So just where are the BLM signs they removed? The only similarity is that both the USFWS and the BLM are part of the Department of the Interior.


I think the refuge is surrounded by BLM managed and private lands, so they could have removed signage close to the entrance. I've been there many times, but do not remember the placement of the signs. I had research plots north of the refuge.

Personally, I am glad they decided to inhabit this area and buildings rather than the BLM and Forest Service complexes in town or the OSU/ARS facility that they passed on the way to the refuge. That would have caused a whole another set of problems.
Top
+3
Posted by CarlosSantos (+871) 5 years ago
Your Oregon Trail Journey Ends Here:

Top
+4
-4
Posted by CarlosSantos (+871) 5 years ago
http://www.peta2.com/blog...dium=Promo

"The militant cattle ranchers have recently appealed for snacks, and PETA answered the call with a hand-delivered package of vegan jerky that contains more protein than beef."
Top
+2
-5
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2410) 5 years ago
Good for peta. Rather than calling this an armed standoff, it should be labeled as a sit in or occupation to protest the Federal land grabs happening nation wide. There happening on behalf of the Chinese government, and BLM is the mediator.

BLM is simply the mediator between the US and china to help secure the transfer of property and personnel i.e. "collateral" for borrowed money.

Did people ever think a debtor system of fractional reserve banking would work?
We should have followed Ron Paul and sound money principles.
Top
+2
-7
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9919) 5 years ago


Top
+5
-3
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
Backstory on the Hammonds.

http://www.rangemagazine...._state.pdf
Top
+3
-4
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2410) 5 years ago
Turns out that the witness to this supposed "poaching"/"Arson" charge is an 11 year old kid that never said it happened. At least google something before you post fakes as facts Amoretti.
Top
+1
-6
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 5 years ago
Range Magazine is the Faux News of ag reporting.
Top
+6
-5
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
Reply to Amorette Allison (#364195)
Amorette Allison wrote:
Range Magazine is the Faux News of ag reporting.


HaHa!

The next time I see C.J. I'll tell her you said so. That the Ace "News Hawk" for the Miles City Daily Star thinks her journalism is crap! She'll wear that like a badge of honor!

You know, the question in this whole thing is; what possesses people to point guns at the Federal Government? Well, it's mainly +100 years of unwarranted persecution and prosecution to attain the goals of vested interest (and of course we all know that none of that ever goes on). It's deals made and deals broken and it's politics, greed and jealousy. This story has all of that and more.

You can refuse to believe it, but that doesn't change a thing. In fact, I don't expect half of you to "get it" and you will show that in your comments when you start attacking me. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just providing something for you to read, besides the Huff Post.

The Government has the right to do many things, but destroying the governed is not one of them, and that's exactly what went on here..

If you haven't had enough, here's more. I don't know the source of this, as a friend sent it to me in an email but it says essentially the same thing as Hank Volgers well researched article in "Range". (I'll chase down a source for this as soon as someone provides a credible source for the "covering up poaching" story.)


This will take some time to read but well worth it! If half of this is true, scary!!!!

HISTORY: The Harney Basin (where the Hammond ranch is located) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigation system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.
(ab) In 1908, President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
(a) In 1964 the Hammonds purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.
(a1) By the 1970’s, nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.
(a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told that, “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”. 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.
(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentionally diverted the water to bypass the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede and now the once thriving privately owned Silvies plains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.
(a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers that still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond, in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling facst about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study that was done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed that the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed that the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced 4 times more ducks and geese than the refuge did. It also showed that the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.
(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out that the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive towards the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found that the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*
(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.
(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.
(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds intended to still use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.
(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.
(g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to 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 that the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.
(k) In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges . . they accused them of being “Terrorists” under the Federal Anti-terrorism Law effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death. Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over the news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”. Susan Hammond (Wife & Mother) said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me”.
(l) Shortly after the sentencing, Capital Press ran a story about the Hammonds. A person who identified as Greg Allum posted three comments on the article, calling the ranchers “clowns” who endangered firefighters and other people in the area while burning valuable rangeland. Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, soon called Capital Press to complain that he had not made those comments and request that they be taken down from the website. Capital Press removed the comments. A search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments revealed it is owned by the BLM’s office in Denver, Colorado. Allum said, he is friends with the Hammonds and was alerted to the comments by neighbors who knew he wouldn’t have written them. “I feel bad for them. They lost a lot and they’re going to lose more,” Allum said of the ranchers. “They’re not terrorists. There’s this hatred in the BLM for them, and I don’t get it,” The retired BLM employee said. Jody Weil, deputy state director for communications at BLM’s Oregon office, indicated to reporters that if one of their agents falsified the comments, they would keep it private and not inform the public.
(m) In September 2006, Dwight & Susan Hammond’s home was raided. The agents informed the Hammonds that they were looking for evidence that would connect them to the fires. The Hammonds later found out that a boot print and tire tracks were found near one of the many fires. No matching boots or tires were found in the Hammonds home or on their property. Susan Hammond (Wife) later said; ” I have never felt so violated in my life. We are ranchers not criminals”. Steven Hammond openly maintains his testimony that he started the backfire to save the winter grass from being destroyed and that the backfire ended up working so well it put out the fire entirely altogether.
(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did NOT allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail that would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for 6 days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Much of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury. For example, Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings that the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.
(o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be credible. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24, Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.
(p) Judge Michael Hogan & Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how the land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton everyday. Some drove more than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home.
On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict. Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision. Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual that has convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area, influenced by the prosecutors for 6 straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, made a verdict and went home.
(q) June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were found guilty of starting both the 2001 and the 2006 fires by the jury. However, the federal courts convicted them both as “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. They were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Hogan, overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commenting that if the full five years were required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The day of the sentencing, Judge Hogan retired as a federal judge. In his honor, the staff served chocolate cake in the courtroom.
(r) On January 4,, 2013, Dwight and Steven reported to prison. They fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months). Dwight was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014.
(s) Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM, and her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank Papagni exemplifying further vindictive behavior by filing an appeal with the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight’s and Steven’s return to federal prison for the entire 5 years.*
(t) In October 2015, the 9th District Court “resentenced” Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years. Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children. Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74) to be alone after 55 years of marriage. If he survives, he will be 79 when he is released.
(u) During the court proceding, the Hammonds were FORCED to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds EVER sold their ranch, they would have to sell it to the BLM.
(v) Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their re-sentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them.
To date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remaining $200,000 must be paid BEFORE the end of this year (2015). IF the Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution.
Top
+3
-9
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17055) 5 years ago
"(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did NOT allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail that would exonerate the Hammonds."

Which trail was that? The Oregon Trail?
Top
+5
-5
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3244) 5 years ago
An interesting article in the Billings Gazette, Thursday, Jan. 7. 2016. "Oregon Tribe: Armed Group 'desecrating' their land". Nature preserve is sacred to tribe, Indian Leader says. Worth the read.
Top
+7
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17328) 5 years ago
Reply to Oddjob (#364220)
Oddjob wrote:

....
You can refuse to believe it, but that doesn't change a thing. In fact, I don't expect half of you to "get it" and you will show that in your comments when you start attacking me. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just providing something for you to read, besides the Huff Post.
......


I'm not sure what point Oddjob is trying to make here.

I agree that the Hammonds are getting royally screwed by the government in terms of their prison sentence. They served their time, and the new sentence should be commuted.

I agree that the locals were right to have staged a protest of this action. The "domestic terrorism" conviction of the Hammonds is BS.

But, the out-of-state militia types who took over the bird sanctuary are first degree whackos who make Daniel K. Allen look like Bill Moyers. Those guys should be convicted of domestic terrorism.
Top
+8
-3
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1917) 5 years ago
A recent issue of Range Magazine had an article on "global cooling." 'Nuff said.
Top
+8
-6
supporter
Posted by MRH (+1489) 5 years ago
"(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentionally diverted the water to bypass the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede and now the once thriving privately owned Silvies plains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS."

Credibility would have been improved, if they would have also mentioned the years with above average precipitation during this time span, that added to the flooding. This phenomena was documented in citable publications.
Top
+7
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
Reply to Gunnar Emilsson (#364229)
Gunnar Emilsson wrote:
Oddjob wrote:

....
You can refuse to believe it, but that doesn't change a thing. In fact, I don't expect half of you to "get it" and you will show that in your comments when you start attacking me. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just providing something for you to read, besides the Huff Post.
......


I'm not sure what point Oddjob is trying to make here.

I agree that the Hammonds are getting royally screwed by the government in terms of their prison sentence. They served their time, and the new sentence should be commuted.

I agree that the locals were right to have staged a protest of this action. The "domestic terrorism" conviction of the Hammonds is BS.

But, the out-of-state militia types who took over the bird sanctuary are first degree whackos who make Daniel K. Allen look like Bill Moyers. Those guys should be convicted of domestic terrorism.


You agree that the Hammonds are getting totally screwed "in terms of their prison sentence", but you completely ignore the fact that they have been persecuted by the agents of the Government and Government Courts for 30 years. They are not alone in this as witnessed by citizens like Wayne Hage, the Dans, Raymond Yowell and thousands of others.

When the plaintiff is the Government and the cases are heard by the Government, who will win? The common man doesn't stand a chance in a system where the deck is totally stacked against him. When the Government wants something, it takes it and because it has the money, the power and the judges, it will never lose. When the Government uses it's power to destroy someone or destroy their livelihood, who is the terrorist?

The only thing I have to say about the "militia types" who are occupying the Refuge is; where would this story be if they were not there?

It would still be buried on the pages of Range Magazine.
Top
+3
-7
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17055) 5 years ago
Reply to Oddjob (#364261)
Rob Shipley feels exactly the same way.

Guess what, in every criminal trial in the United States the plaintiff is the government. According to "Oddjob", every person ever convicted of a criminal offense in the United States got a raw deal. I'm sure the defendants would agree.

Never mind that they were found guilty by a jury of their peers.
Top
+9
-3
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
Reply to David Schott (#364263)
David Schott wrote:


Guess what, in every criminal trial in the United States the plaintiff is the government.



I would hope that in every trial brought before a Federal Court, that the plaintiff is the PEOPLE and not the GOVERNMENT.

Now, I'll kiss your rosy red a** if you can show me how any actions by the Hammonds, or Wayne Hage or the Dan's or Raymond Yowell ever harmed the PEOPLE to the point where they deserved to be persecuted by, be labeled as terrorists and have their lives destroyed by the GOVERNMENT.

The GOVERNMENT is sending a 74 year old man BACK to prison so it can set precedence to label certain actions involving "public Land" as "domestic terrorism". That's the only reason Dwight Hammond is going back behind bars.

A government that would do something like that and call it "justice" is a government to be feared.
Top
+3
-5
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17055) 5 years ago
Reply to Oddjob (#364293)
Oddjob wrote:
"I would hope that in every trial brought before a Federal Court, that the plaintiff is the PEOPLE and not the GOVERNMENT."


Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Federal courts do hear cases between private parties such as copyright and patent disputes.

I don't know enough about the Hammond's case to comment. It's my understanding they had their day in court and their case was decided by a jury of the people.

I was specifically replying to your comment, "When the plaintiff is the Government and the cases are heard by the Government, who will win?" Which struck me as not a very bright thing to say.
Top
+6
-1