Assholes making trouble in Oregon

[koshergrl]

Oh? It was just a grass burn? You want to go with that? Sure?

It obviously was or you would make plain what you think it really was, idiot.

Well, let's look at the Facts, shall we?

'We Are Going to Light Up the Whole Country on Fire': The Arson That Led to the Oregon Militia Standoff | VICE News

Know what a "wildfire" is? Know what fast moving 8-10 foot high flames look like? Think it's ok to commit arson to cover up another crime? Think it's ok to commit arson and endanger firefighters already in the area?

Yawn, lol. Backfires are COMMON. The BLM and the property owners in that area are in a collaborative relationship...they help each other fight fires. BACKFIRES are a common and widely used method for controlling fires, and that is exactly what the Hammonds employed. Their backfire destroyed about 140 acres of scrub. The BLM is famous for torching tracts that destroy tens of thousands of acres, and destroy equipment, property, and livestock. This is nothing.

 

[koshergrl]

And the BLM frequently will request locals to bring their equipment and themselves to help them fight fires, incidentally.

 

[bodecea]

they weren't legally sentenced and they did not complete their legal sentence.

why do you support judicial activism?

For a grass burn? lol

Why do you support Nazi government?

Oh? It was just a grass burn? You want to go with that? Sure?

WTF again? What the hell are you blathering about now? What do you think it was?

A wildfire, with flames 8-10 feet high. If you really knew that area, you would know how fast and how deadly a wildfire can get. One more piece of evidence showing that everything you are saying about knowing that area is

 

[alpine]

Just raid in and destroy these insurgents already!!!

OBAMA is WEAK!!!!!!!!!

Just like a Marxist agitator.

What stores have these men looted or property have they burned to the ground yet?

None, so why dont you just pretend that they are your fellow lying commie bastard in Black Lies Matter and just piss off?

Anybody challenging gov authority shall be crushed to make an example of.

If OBAMA can't handle this, he should resign and we should have a true leader who is capable of crushing any insurgents, inside our outside the country....

 

[koshergrl]

Also, the blm doesn't maintain the land that they no longer allow the ranchers to put cows on. The result is that it accumulates a huge mat of dead grass and weeds that poses a huge wildfire threat to all the property that adjoins it. THAT'S why they allow the ranchers to light backfires. Because if they don't, the blm fires will lay waste to everything.

 

[bodecea]

Oh? It was just a grass burn? You want to go with that? Sure?

It obviously was or you would make plain what you think it really was, idiot.

Well, let's look at the Facts, shall we?

'We Are Going to Light Up the Whole Country on Fire': The Arson That Led to the Oregon Militia Standoff | VICE News

Know what a "wildfire" is? Know what fast moving 8-10 foot high flames look like? Think it's ok to commit arson to cover up another crime? Think it's ok to commit arson and endanger firefighters already in the area?

Yawn, lol. Backfires are COMMON. The BLM and the property owners in that area are in a collaborative relationship...they help each other fight fires. BACKFIRES are a common and widely used method for controlling fires, and that is exactly what the Hammonds employed. Their backfire destroyed about 140 acres of scrub. The BLM is famous for torching tracts that destroy tens of thousands of acres, and destroy equipment, property, and livestock. This is nothing.

Backfires are NOT common or certainly not legal when you do it without permission not on your own land and especially when there are drought "no burn" conditions. I too wondered what the big deal about "grass" wildfires were UNTIL I moved out west and saw what they can do. I've lived through several bad ones and had a front row seat to the one in North San Diego County last May. If you really lived in that area, you too would know how serious they are and how serious authorities are when we have "no burn" conditions.
But I suspect you really are not familiar with what its like.

 

[bodecea]

And the BLM frequently will request locals to bring their equipment and themselves to help them fight fires, incidentally.

Oh. They were asked? Got evidence of that?

 

[bodecea]

Also, the blm doesn't maintain the land that they no longer allow the ranchers to put cows on. The result is that it accumulates a huge mat of dead grass and weeds that poses a huge wildfire threat to all the property that adjoins it. THAT'S why they allow the ranchers to light backfires. Because if they don't, the blm fires will lay waste to everything.

So...where was the permission to light those backfires, Allie? You'd think that would be something that would come up in their defense.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well, let's look at the Facts, shall we?

Lol, those are not facts, they are allegations from an incompetent attorney that was forced to resign 'for health reasons'.


From a post by 2aguy
The prosecution of the Hammonds revolved mainly around two burns, one in 2001 and another in 2006. The government alleged that the first was ignited to cover up evidence of poaching and placed a teenager in danger. The Hammonds claimed that they started it to clear an invasive species, as is their legal right. Whatever its intent, the fire spread from the Hammonds’ property and ultimately ignited 139 acres of public land. But the trial judge found that the teenager’s testimony was tainted by age and bias and that the fire had merely damaged “juniper trees and sagebrush” — damage that “might” total $100 in value.

The other burn was trifling. Here’s how the Ninth Circuit described it: In August 2006, a lightning storm kindled several fires near where the Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven responded by attempting back burns near the boundary of his land. Although a burn ban was in effect, Steven did not seek a waiver.

His fires burned about an acre of public land. In 2010 — almost nine years after the 2001 burn — the government filed a 19-count indictment against the Hammonds that included charges under the Federal Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which mandates a five-year prison term for anyone who “maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States.”


At trial, the jury found the Hammonds guilty of maliciously setting fire to public property worth less than $1,000, acquitted them of other charges, and deadlocked on the government’s conspiracy claims. While the jury continued to deliberate, the Hammonds and the prosecution reached a plea agreement in which the Hammonds agreed to waive their appeal rights and accept the jury’s verdict.

It was their understanding that the plea agreement would end the case. At sentencing, the trial court refused to apply the mandatory-minimum sentence, holding that five years in prison would be “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses” and that the Hammonds’ fires “could not have been conduct intended [to be covered] under” the Anti-terrorism act: When you say, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles where there are houses up those ravines? Might apply.

Out in the wilderness here, I don’t think that’s what the Congress intended. And in addition, it just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality. . . . It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me. Thus, he found that the mandatory-minimum sentence would — under the facts of this case — violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” He sentenced Steven Hammond to two concurrent prison terms of twelve months and one day and Dwight Hammond to one prison term of three months. The Hammonds served their sentences without incident or controversy.
The Case for Civil Disobedience in Oregon, by David French, National Review

There’s a clear argument that the government engaged in an overzealous, vindictive prosecution here. By no stretch of the imagination were the Hammonds terrorists, yet they were prosecuted under an anti-terrorism statute. The government could have let the case end once the men had served their sentences, yet it pressed for more jail time. And the whole time, it held in its back pocket potential rights to the family’s property. To the outside observer, it appears the government has attempted to crush private homeowners and destroy their livelihood in a quest for even more land.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So...where was the permission to light those backfires, Allie? You'd think that would be something that would come up in their defense.

So while a fire is approaching your property, you think that civilians have to file for a waiver first? No, they call the fire department then do the back fire.

You are a fucking idiot.

 

[bodecea]

So...where was the permission to light those backfires, Allie? You'd think that would be something that would come up in their defense.

So while a fire is approaching your property, you think that civilians have to file for a waiver first? No, they call the fire department then do the back fire.

You are a fucking idiot.

Hey, just a grass fire, Jimbo:

Maybe those homeowners would have been better off just lighting back fires, the hell with firefighters being in the area, eh?

 

[charwin95]

Since no one are joining them maybe it's time to end this lawlessness.

'I Need to Get Home': Oregon Occupiers Hint at Exit Plan

 

[JimBowie1958]

Here is the full story from the Hammonds point of view.

Full Story About What's Going on In Oregon - "Militia" Take Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge In Protest to Hammond Family Persecution...

(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 bypassing the vast meadow lands, 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 who 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; 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 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 hidden public record she found a study done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed 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 the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced four times more ducks and geese than the refuge. The study also showed 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 the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive toward the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*

(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights, and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily, the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). Dwight spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland. He was then hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.

(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.

(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds still intended to use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.

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

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

(i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries.

(j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.

(j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff’s office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.

(k) In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges; they accused them of being “Terrorists” under the Federal Anti terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death. Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over the news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”. Susan Hammond (Wife & Mother) said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me”....

l) Shortly after the sentencing, Capital Press ran a story about the Hammonds. A person who identified as Greg Allum posted three comments on the article, calling the ranchers “clowns” who endangered firefighters and other people in the area while burning valuable range land. Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, soon called Capital Press to complain he had not made those comments and requested they be taken down from the website. Capital Press removed the comments. A search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments revealed the origin as the BLM’s office in Denver, Colorado. Allum said, he is friends with the Hammonds and he was alerted to the comments by neighbors who knew he wouldn’t have written them. “I feel bad for them. They lost a lot and they’re going to lose more,” Allum said of the ranchers. “They’re not terrorists”. “There’s this hatred in the BLM for them, and I don’t get it,” the retired BLM employee said. Jody Weil, deputy state director for communications at BLM’s Oregon office, indicated to reporters that if one of their agents falsified the comments, they would keep it private and not inform the public.

(m) In September 2006, Dwight & Susan Hammond’s home was raided. The agents informed the Hammonds they were looking for evidence that would connect them to the fires. The Hammonds later found out a boot print and a tire tracks were found near one of the many fires. No matching boots or tires were found in the Hammonds home or on their property. Susan Hammond (Wife) later said; ” I have never felt so violated in my life. We are ranchers not criminals”. Steven Hammond openly maintains his testimony that he started the backfire to save the winter grass from being destroyed and the backfire ended up working so well it put out the fire altogether.

(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail which would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for six days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Many of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury. Example: Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.

(o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness who was not mentally capable to be credible. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13-years-old at the time, and 24-years-old when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. However, Judge Hogan allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony. ...

(p) Judge Michael Hogan & Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton every day. Some drove more than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home.

On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict. [Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision.] Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area and influenced by the prosecutors for six straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, gave a verdict and went home.

(q) June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were found guilty of starting both the 2001 and the 2006 fires by the jury. However, the federal courts convicted them both as “Terrorists” under the 1996 Anti terrorism Act. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. Both were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Judge Hogan overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commented if the full five years were required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The day of the sentencing Judge Hogan retired as a federal judge. In his honor the staff served chocolate cake in the courtroom.

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

(s) Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM, and her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank Papagni exemplified further vindictive behavior by filing an appeal with the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight’s and Steven’s return to federal prison for the entire 5 years.*

(t) In October 2015, the 9th District Court “re-sentenced

This is plainly a case of Federal power gone totally fascist, which the libtards just love.

 

[bodecea]

So...where was the permission to light those backfires, Allie? You'd think that would be something that would come up in their defense.

So while a fire is approaching your property, you think that civilians have to file for a waiver first? No, they call the fire department then do the back fire.

You are a fucking idiot.

Tell us your expertise in lighting back fires since you are so brilliant. Where do you light it? What about the wind? You know...the wind driving a wildfire in a set direction. You think your EXPERTISE will tell you where to place that backfire? It amazes me how suddenly all of you who denigrate high education are suddenly so knowledgable on pretty much everywhere.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So...where was the permission to light those backfires, Allie? You'd think that would be something that would come up in their defense.

So while a fire is approaching your property, you think that civilians have to file for a waiver first? No, they call the fire department then do the back fire.

You are a fucking idiot.

Hey, just a grass fire, Jimbo:
Maybe those homeowners would have been better off just lighting back fires, the hell with firefighters being in the area, eh?

I did not propose such a thing, you lying jack ass.

 

[bodecea]

Since no one are joining them maybe it's time to end this lawlessness.

'I Need to Get Home': Oregon Occupiers Hint at Exit Plan

They must be running out of snacks.

 

[bodecea]

So...where was the permission to light those backfires, Allie? You'd think that would be something that would come up in their defense.

So while a fire is approaching your property, you think that civilians have to file for a waiver first? No, they call the fire department then do the back fire.

You are a fucking idiot.

Hey, just a grass fire, Jimbo:
Maybe those homeowners would have been better off just lighting back fires, the hell with firefighters being in the area, eh?

I did not propose such a thing, you lying jack ass.

You sure did, Genius boy.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Tell us your expertise in lighting back fires since you are so brilliant. Where do you light it? What about the wind? You know...the wind driving a wildfire in a set direction. You think your EXPERTISE will tell you where to place that backfire? It amazes me how suddenly all of you who denigrate high education are suddenly so knowledgable on pretty much everywhere.

Lol there you go lying again.

I never claimed to be an expert at lighting fires, Nazi

 

[JimBowie1958]

So...where was the permission to light those backfires, Allie? You'd think that would be something that would come up in their defense.

So while a fire is approaching your property, you think that civilians have to file for a waiver first? No, they call the fire department then do the back fire.

You are a fucking idiot.

Hey, just a grass fire, Jimbo:
Maybe those homeowners would have been better off just lighting back fires, the hell with firefighters being in the area, eh?

I did not propose such a thing, you lying jack ass.

You sure did, Genius boy.

No I did not you lying fuck

 

[bodecea]

Well, let's look at the Facts, shall we?

Lol, those are not facts, they are allegations from an incompetent attorney that was forced to resign 'for health reasons'.


From a post by 2aguy
The prosecution of the Hammonds revolved mainly around two burns, one in 2001 and another in 2006. The government alleged that the first was ignited to cover up evidence of poaching and placed a teenager in danger. The Hammonds claimed that they started it to clear an invasive species, as is their legal right. Whatever its intent, the fire spread from the Hammonds’ property and ultimately ignited 139 acres of public land. But the trial judge found that the teenager’s testimony was tainted by age and bias and that the fire had merely damaged “juniper trees and sagebrush” — damage that “might” total $100 in value.

The other burn was trifling. Here’s how the Ninth Circuit described it: In August 2006, a lightning storm kindled several fires near where the Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven responded by attempting back burns near the boundary of his land. Although a burn ban was in effect, Steven did not seek a waiver.

His fires burned about an acre of public land. In 2010 — almost nine years after the 2001 burn — the government filed a 19-count indictment against the Hammonds that included charges under the Federal Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which mandates a five-year prison term for anyone who “maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States.”


At trial, the jury found the Hammonds guilty of maliciously setting fire to public property worth less than $1,000, acquitted them of other charges, and deadlocked on the government’s conspiracy claims. While the jury continued to deliberate, the Hammonds and the prosecution reached a plea agreement in which the Hammonds agreed to waive their appeal rights and accept the jury’s verdict.

It was their understanding that the plea agreement would end the case. At sentencing, the trial court refused to apply the mandatory-minimum sentence, holding that five years in prison would be “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses” and that the Hammonds’ fires “could not have been conduct intended [to be covered] under” the Anti-terrorism act: When you say, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles where there are houses up those ravines? Might apply.

Out in the wilderness here, I don’t think that’s what the Congress intended. And in addition, it just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality. . . . It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me. Thus, he found that the mandatory-minimum sentence would — under the facts of this case — violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” He sentenced Steven Hammond to two concurrent prison terms of twelve months and one day and Dwight Hammond to one prison term of three months. The Hammonds served their sentences without incident or controversy.
The Case for Civil Disobedience in Oregon, by David French, National Review

There’s a clear argument that the government engaged in an overzealous, vindictive prosecution here. By no stretch of the imagination were the Hammonds terrorists, yet they were prosecuted under an anti-terrorism statute. The government could have let the case end once the men had served their sentences, yet it pressed for more jail time. And the whole time, it held in its back pocket potential rights to the family’s property. To the outside observer, it appears the government has attempted to crush private homeowners and destroy their livelihood in a quest for even more land.

Oh well....a post. Must be true.