Assholes making trouble in Oregon

[RollingThunder]

[

I'm not interested, bode. I know if you say it's a lie, it must be true. I don't need any more of a test than that.

Shortbus is an angry little troll. I demonstrated that Brown and the dims are waging war on agriculture. She wants to pout and complain that Brown didn't say the exact words in the exact order of my quip. That is because she is a witless fool who has no sense of hyperbole and humor.

Oh I know. She's been derailing threads for years with her ocd nonsense. She's the first person I ever put on ignore, because she'd follow me all over the freaking world saying the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, as if she was making a point. When the only point that she ever made was that she's a lunatic.

Oh I know. She's been derailing threads for years with her ocd nonsense. She's the first person I ever put on ignore, because she'd follow me all over the freaking world saying the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, as if she was making a point. When the only point that she ever made was that she's a lunatic.

Yep, I put her on ignore for a couple of weeks for the same reason, then decided that it would be more fun to mock her and get her riled up.

She really is dumb as a doorknob. She actually thinks her idiocy is "winning."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......too funny!

Two ignorant, clueless rightwingnut retards having a circle-jerk trying to put down someone who is very obviously smarter and better informed than both of these bozos put together. The braindead bugger who started the off-topic bullshit about Gov. Brown can't back up anything he claimed with any evidence because he doesn't have any...just fraudulent rightwingnut myths. These nujobs are so gullible that they will fall for for any fraudulent bullshit their puppetmasters choose to feed to them.

They should just go join the other anti-government YeeHawdists like the good little dupes of the Koch brothers and the corporations that they are in reality.

 

[teddyearp]

But they did do it, and they are doing it now. They have brought children to a gun fight, or at least, a potential gunfight. Those women and children are being used as shields.

Again, prove it. When did they actually use women and children as shields. Show me now in this event where they are using women and children as shields. Just having them present does NOT prove that they are being used as shields.

It is amazing how those who are blindingly supporting the .gov side are letting their truth be twisted and distorted.

 

[teddyearp]

But they did do it, and they are doing it now. They have brought children to a gun fight, or at least, a potential gunfight. Those women and children are being used as shields. It is amazing how the terrorist supporters will twist and distort reality.

What Gunfight?

What are you Communists planning?

I am starting to wonder if some of these folks sat back and applauded how the .gov handled Ruby ridge and Waco. Thrilled over the spilling of blood. Cheered the .gov on. Saddened that the .gov did not escalate the same way at the Bundy ranch, and other not so publicized events since. I really think that some of you folks like to see the .gov go and kill our own.

 

[RollingThunder]

But they did do it, and they are doing it now. They have brought children to a gun fight, or at least, a potential gunfight. Those women and children are being used as shields.

Again, prove it. When did they actually use women and children as shields. Show me now in this event where they are using women and children as shields. Just having them present does NOT prove that they are being used as shields.

It is amazing how those who are blindingly supporting the .gov side are letting their truth be twisted and distorted.

You clueless fool!

Here are the facts that you choose to remain willfully blind to....In a very good sumary of the entire situation, and the background of the conflict, and some of the various reactions to this armed occupation.

Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Here's a few choice excerpts...

On January 2, 2016, armed[8] members of rump militias occupied the headquarters building at the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in rural southeastern Oregon in protest of the pending imprisonment of ranchers Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven Hammond. The two were convicted on charges of arson in 2012 for unlawfully setting fire to federal land under a domestic anti-terrorism law after setting brush fires to clear grazing land without the required permit.[9]Ammon Bundy, the leader of the group now calling themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, said he began leading the occupation after receiving a divine message from God ordering him to do so.[10][11]

Although their sentences and imprisonment were a stated cause of the dispute, the Hammonds have repeatedly rejected the intervention of militias. Dwight Hammond's wife stated, "I don't really know the purpose of the guys who are out there."

Some of the militia members stated that they were ready to "kill and be killed" in the standoff.[13] The takeover sparked a debate in the U.S. on the meaning of the word "terrorist" in the context of domestic terrorism in the country, and furthermore on how the media and law enforcement treat situations involving people of different ethnicities or religions.[14][15][16]

Dwight Hammond, a cattle rancher in Harney County, owns 12,000 acres (4,900 ha) of land, much of which abuts public land. In 1994, Hammond and his son Steve obstructed the construction of a fence to delineate the boundary between the two parcels of property, prompting their arrest by federal agents. According to federal officials, construction of the fence was needed to stop the Hammond cattle from moving along a cattle trail that intersected public land after the Hammonds had repeatedly violated the terms of their permit, which limited when they could move their cows across refuge property.[25]Officials also reported Hammond had made threats against them in 1986 and 1988, including telling one public lands manager that he was going to "tear off his head and shit down his neck". They also contended Steve Hammond had called them "assholes".[26]

In 1999, Steve Hammond started a fire with the intent of burning off juniper trees and sagebrush, but the fire escaped onto BLM land. The agency reminded Hammond of the required burn permit and that if the fires continued, there would be legal consequences.[27] Both Dwight and Steve Hammond would later on set two additional fires that would lead to arson convictions.[28]

Hammond arson case

In 2012, a federal district court jury found Dwight and Steve Hammond guilty of arson, for fires they had started on the federal land adjacent to their property in 2001 and 2006.[29]

The 2001 Hardie-Hammond Fire began according to Probation Officer Robb, when hunters in the area witnessed the Hammonds illegally slaughter a herd of deer.[30] Less than two hours later, a fire erupted and forced the hunters to leave the area.[31] Later, Steve's nephew Dusty Hammond testified that his uncle told him to start lighting matches and "light the whole countryside on fire." Dusty also testified that he was "almost burned up in the fire" and had to flee for his life.[27][32] The Hammonds have falsely claimed they started the fire to stop invasive plants from growing onto their grazing fields.[33]

The 2006 Krumbo Butte Fire started out as a wildfire, but several illegal backburns were set by the Hammonds with the intent to protect their winter feed. The backfires were set under the cover of night without warning the firefighting camp that was known to be on the slopes above.[31][34] According to the indictment, the fires threatened to trap four BLM firefighters, one of whom later confronted Dwight Hammond at the fire scene after having moved his crews to avoid the threat.[31][32] Two days later, Steve Hammond threatened to frame a BLM employee with arson if he didn't stop the investigation.[33]

Following their conviction, federal prosecutors requested a five-year sentence for each of the Hammonds as provided for under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).[34] The AEDPA provides that arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence.[35][36] U.S. District Judge Michael Robert Hogan determined sentences of that length "would shock the conscience" and would violate the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Hogan instead sentenced Dwight Hammond to three months' imprisonment and Steve Hammond to a year and a day's imprisonment, which both men served.[37] In what was described by media as a "rare" action, U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall successfully appealed the sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the mandatory-minimum law, writing that "given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense." The court vacated the original sentence and remanded for resentencing. The Hammonds filed petitions for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which the court rejected in March 2015.[35] In October 2015, Chief Judge Ann Aiken re-sentenced the pair to five years in prison (with credit for time served), ordering that they return to prison on January 4, 2016.[35][37] Both of the Hammonds reported to prison in California on January 4 in accordance with the law.[38]

In a separate 2014 civil judgment, the Hammonds were ordered to pay $400,000 in restitution to the U.S. government for the related arson fires. The pair paid half the amount immediately and the remaining $200,000 in December 2015.[34]
***
By late 2015, the Hammond case had attracted the attention of members of the family of Cliven Bundy, including sons Ammon and Ryan. The Bundys publicized the situation via social media, drawing interest from militia groups outside Oregon who sought to publicly endorse the Hammonds to draw attention to unrelated issues.[29][40] The Hammonds rejected the offers of assistance with Hammond attorney W. Alan Schroeder writing that "neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond family."[3]When later asked about the occupation, Susan Hammond, the wife of Dwight Hammond, was dismissive and said, "I don't really know the purpose of the guys who are out there."[41]

Harney County sheriff David Ward agreed to meet with the militia members who requested the sheriff's office protect the Hammonds from being taken into custody by federal authorities. Though Ward said he sympathized with the Hammonds' plight, he declined the militias' request. Ward said that he subsequently received death threats by email.[29]

Reactions

Anti-government activists

Cliven Bundy, the father of Ammon and Ryan Bundy, said he was not involved in organizing the takeover of the MNWR facilities and said it was "not exactly what I thought should happen".[40]

Asked about the incident, Mike Vanderboegh, a founder of the 3 Percenters militia, described the occupiers as "a collection of fruits and nuts", described John Ritzheimer as a "fool", and said Ammon Bundy had "a John Brown complex".[90]

The group Oath Keepers (of which Jon Ritzheimer was formerly a member) in a statement published on its website prior to the seizure of the MNWR facilities, said "we cannot force ourselves or our protection on people who do not want it. Dwight and Steven Hammond have made it clear, through their attorney, that they just want to turn themselves in and serve out their sentence. And that clear statement of their intent should be the end of the discussion on this."[91]

Tribal government

The governing council of the Burns Paiute Tribe, an Indian nation whose borders straddled Harney County, declared the occupiers were endangering the tribe's history by their presence and called on them to leave. Tribal chair Charlotte Rodrique went on to explain that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was the protector of traditional Burns Paiute religious and archaeological sites in the area and that the displacement of federal authorities put such locations at risk.[96]

State, and local government

State Representative Cliff Bentz, who represents the region in the Oregon House of Representatives, said that the outside groups do not represents Burns or Harney County, saying, "They're trying to use the misfortune of the Hammonds to further the interests of the Bundys."[97]

In a January 6 press release, the Western State Sheriffs Association (WSSA), an organization representing 800 sheriffs in the American West, said its mission was to "promote the office of Sheriff and to assist our member Sheriffs on issues of mutual concern" and that it had offered Harney County Sheriff David Ward to organize out-of-state resources to send to Oregon if requested. The WSSA statement went on to note that it did not "support efforts of any individual or groups who utilize intimidation, threats or fear in order to further an agenda."[99]

Organizations

The Oregon Cattleman's Association, while maintaining it still supported the Hammonds, released a statement that declared it did "not support illegal activity taken against the government. This includes militia takeover of government property, such as the Malheur Wildlife Refuge."[100]

On January 4, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement condemning the militia actions and stating, "While the disagreement occurring in Oregon about the use of federal lands is not a Church matter, Church leaders strongly condemn the armed seizure of the facility and are deeply troubled by the reports that those who have seized the facility suggest that they are doing so based on scriptural principles. This armed occupation can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis."[57][101] The church also released an excerpt from a 1992 speech by Dallin H. Oaks, a senior Mormon religious leader, criticizing the "excessive zeal" of "those patriots who are participating in or provisioning private armies and making private preparations for armed conflict".[57]

The Audubon Society of Portland, in a written statement, said that the "occupation of Malheur by armed, out of state militia groups puts one of America's most important wildlife refuges at risk. It violates the most basic principles of the public trust doctrine and holds hostage public lands and public resources to serve the very narrow political agenda of the occupiers."[102]

 

[Seawytch]

Can't you answer or are you just being a lying libturd?

That's rich coming from the guy who won't answer my question despite me answering yours TWICE now.

What do the ranchers stand to gain if the land is turned over to the state?

they get rid of the feds.

seems simple to me, and yet you can't figure that out.

what does the fed get out of keeping ownership of the land over the state?

What is there to "get rid of" beyond really cheap grazing fees? Do you think the state will lease that same land for less than the Feds?

it isn't what the folks want at all. They want the state to own it since it is land in the state and used by the citizens of the state.

You STILL haven't answered the question. What do the ranchers stand to gain if the land is managed by the state instead of the Feds? Will they have cheaper grazing fees? Do they think the state will sell them the land? Will it be less expensive for them, having to purchase the land and pay taxes on it? What guarantee is there that the state would choose to keep allowing the ranchers to graze on the land?

What part of the land is not being used by the citizens and for what purpose? A wildlife preserve is for the citizens.

 

[teddyearp]

OK. Let's follow what would happen if the loonies get their demands. So, the Federal government cedes the lands to the states. Then the state government has a bad budget year and decides that the lands are nothing but a financial drain, and sells them off. Are the ranchers going to buy them? No way, they simply do not have the money. So who does? The Saudis, Chinese, and Japanese. Now the land that the ranchers previously grazed their cattle on is in private ownership, and they have to pay over 10 times as much per head to graze their cows on that land. That is the present ratio of private grazing fees compared to federal grazing fees.

Now everyone has the right to hunt on the government land open to hunting, provided they have the tags. Once that land is in private ownership, you will see most of it as fee hunting only. And the best of it will be reserved for 'hunting clubs' whose membership is from foreign nations. Same for fishing. We already have hundreds of square miles of private land tied up this way in Oregon.

This is what the Bundy's and people like Kosher are working for.

This post actually has a tiny bit to discus without a ton of personal attacking. I do not really think it would be wise either to cede the land back to the states, but the aggressive and progressive closure of more and more of our public lands is what has really brought us here.

Curious about your claim, these "hundreds of square miles of private land tied up this way in Oregon", is it owned by Saudis, Chinese and Japanese for private hunting clubs?

 

[koshergrl]

But they did do it, and they are doing it now. They have brought children to a gun fight, or at least, a potential gunfight. Those women and children are being used as shields.

Again, prove it. When did they actually use women and children as shields. Show me now in this event where they are using women and children as shields. Just having them present does NOT prove that they are being used as shields.

It is amazing how those who are blindingly supporting the .gov side are letting their truth be twisted and distorted.

You clueless fool!

Here are the facts that you choose to remain willfully blind to....In a very good sumary of the entire situation, and the background of the conflict, and some of the various reactions to this armed occupation.

Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Here's a few choice excerpts...

On January 2, 2016, armed[8] members of rump militias occupied the headquarters building at the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in rural southeastern Oregon in protest of the pending imprisonment of ranchers Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven Hammond. The two were convicted on charges of arson in 2012 for unlawfully setting fire to federal land under a domestic anti-terrorism law after setting brush fires to clear grazing land without the required permit.[9]Ammon Bundy, the leader of the group now calling themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, said he began leading the occupation after receiving a divine message from God ordering him to do so.[10][11]

Although their sentences and imprisonment were a stated cause of the dispute, the Hammonds have repeatedly rejected the intervention of militias. Dwight Hammond's wife stated, "I don't really know the purpose of the guys who are out there."

Some of the militia members stated that they were ready to "kill and be killed" in the standoff.[13] The takeover sparked a debate in the U.S. on the meaning of the word "terrorist" in the context of domestic terrorism in the country, and furthermore on how the media and law enforcement treat situations involving people of different ethnicities or religions.[14][15][16]

Dwight Hammond, a cattle rancher in Harney County, owns 12,000 acres (4,900 ha) of land, much of which abuts public land. In 1994, Hammond and his son Steve obstructed the construction of a fence to delineate the boundary between the two parcels of property, prompting their arrest by federal agents. According to federal officials, construction of the fence was needed to stop the Hammond cattle from moving along a cattle trail that intersected public land after the Hammonds had repeatedly violated the terms of their permit, which limited when they could move their cows across refuge property.[25]Officials also reported Hammond had made threats against them in 1986 and 1988, including telling one public lands manager that he was going to "tear off his head and shit down his neck". They also contended Steve Hammond had called them "assholes".[26]

In 1999, Steve Hammond started a fire with the intent of burning off juniper trees and sagebrush, but the fire escaped onto BLM land. The agency reminded Hammond of the required burn permit and that if the fires continued, there would be legal consequences.[27] Both Dwight and Steve Hammond would later on set two additional fires that would lead to arson convictions.[28]

Hammond arson case

In 2012, a federal district court jury found Dwight and Steve Hammond guilty of arson, for fires they had started on the federal land adjacent to their property in 2001 and 2006.[29]

The 2001 Hardie-Hammond Fire began according to Probation Officer Robb, when hunters in the area witnessed the Hammonds illegally slaughter a herd of deer.[30] Less than two hours later, a fire erupted and forced the hunters to leave the area.[31] Later, Steve's nephew Dusty Hammond testified that his uncle told him to start lighting matches and "light the whole countryside on fire." Dusty also testified that he was "almost burned up in the fire" and had to flee for his life.[27][32] The Hammonds have falsely claimed they started the fire to stop invasive plants from growing onto their grazing fields.[33]

The 2006 Krumbo Butte Fire started out as a wildfire, but several illegal backburns were set by the Hammonds with the intent to protect their winter feed. The backfires were set under the cover of night without warning the firefighting camp that was known to be on the slopes above.[31][34] According to the indictment, the fires threatened to trap four BLM firefighters, one of whom later confronted Dwight Hammond at the fire scene after having moved his crews to avoid the threat.[31][32] Two days later, Steve Hammond threatened to frame a BLM employee with arson if he didn't stop the investigation.[33]

Following their conviction, federal prosecutors requested a five-year sentence for each of the Hammonds as provided for under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).[34] The AEDPA provides that arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence.[35][36] U.S. District Judge Michael Robert Hogan determined sentences of that length "would shock the conscience" and would violate the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Hogan instead sentenced Dwight Hammond to three months' imprisonment and Steve Hammond to a year and a day's imprisonment, which both men served.[37] In what was described by media as a "rare" action, U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall successfully appealed the sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the mandatory-minimum law, writing that "given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense." The court vacated the original sentence and remanded for resentencing. The Hammonds filed petitions for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which the court rejected in March 2015.[35] In October 2015, Chief Judge Ann Aiken re-sentenced the pair to five years in prison (with credit for time served), ordering that they return to prison on January 4, 2016.[35][37] Both of the Hammonds reported to prison in California on January 4 in accordance with the law.[38]

In a separate 2014 civil judgment, the Hammonds were ordered to pay $400,000 in restitution to the U.S. government for the related arson fires. The pair paid half the amount immediately and the remaining $200,000 in December 2015.[34]
***
By late 2015, the Hammond case had attracted the attention of members of the family of Cliven Bundy, including sons Ammon and Ryan. The Bundys publicized the situation via social media, drawing interest from militia groups outside Oregon who sought to publicly endorse the Hammonds to draw attention to unrelated issues.[29][40] The Hammonds rejected the offers of assistance with Hammond attorney W. Alan Schroeder writing that "neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond family."[3]When later asked about the occupation, Susan Hammond, the wife of Dwight Hammond, was dismissive and said, "I don't really know the purpose of the guys who are out there."[41]

Harney County sheriff David Ward agreed to meet with the militia members who requested the sheriff's office protect the Hammonds from being taken into custody by federal authorities. Though Ward said he sympathized with the Hammonds' plight, he declined the militias' request. Ward said that he subsequently received death threats by email.[29]

Reactions

Anti-government activists

Cliven Bundy, the father of Ammon and Ryan Bundy, said he was not involved in organizing the takeover of the MNWR facilities and said it was "not exactly what I thought should happen".[40]

Asked about the incident, Mike Vanderboegh, a founder of the 3 Percenters militia, described the occupiers as "a collection of fruits and nuts", described John Ritzheimer as a "fool", and said Ammon Bundy had "a John Brown complex".[90]

The group Oath Keepers (of which Jon Ritzheimer was formerly a member) in a statement published on its website prior to the seizure of the MNWR facilities, said "we cannot force ourselves or our protection on people who do not want it. Dwight and Steven Hammond have made it clear, through their attorney, that they just want to turn themselves in and serve out their sentence. And that clear statement of their intent should be the end of the discussion on this."[91]

Tribal government

The governing council of the Burns Paiute Tribe, an Indian nation whose borders straddled Harney County, declared the occupiers were endangering the tribe's history by their presence and called on them to leave. Tribal chair Charlotte Rodrique went on to explain that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was the protector of traditional Burns Paiute religious and archaeological sites in the area and that the displacement of federal authorities put such locations at risk.[96]

State, and local government

State Representative Cliff Bentz, who represents the region in the Oregon House of Representatives, said that the outside groups do not represents Burns or Harney County, saying, "They're trying to use the misfortune of the Hammonds to further the interests of the Bundys."[97]

In a January 6 press release, the Western State Sheriffs Association (WSSA), an organization representing 800 sheriffs in the American West, said its mission was to "promote the office of Sheriff and to assist our member Sheriffs on issues of mutual concern" and that it had offered Harney County Sheriff David Ward to organize out-of-state resources to send to Oregon if requested. The WSSA statement went on to note that it did not "support efforts of any individual or groups who utilize intimidation, threats or fear in order to further an agenda."[99]

Organizations

The Oregon Cattleman's Association, while maintaining it still supported the Hammonds, released a statement that declared it did "not support illegal activity taken against the government. This includes militia takeover of government property, such as the Malheur Wildlife Refuge."[100]

On January 4, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement condemning the militia actions and stating, "While the disagreement occurring in Oregon about the use of federal lands is not a Church matter, Church leaders strongly condemn the armed seizure of the facility and are deeply troubled by the reports that those who have seized the facility suggest that they are doing so based on scriptural principles. This armed occupation can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis."[57][101] The church also released an excerpt from a 1992 speech by Dallin H. Oaks, a senior Mormon religious leader, criticizing the "excessive zeal" of "those patriots who are participating in or provisioning private armies and making private preparations for armed conflict".[57]

The Audubon Society of Portland, in a written statement, said that the "occupation of Malheur by armed, out of state militia groups puts one of America's most important wildlife refuges at risk. It violates the most basic principles of the public trust doctrine and holds hostage public lands and public resources to serve the very narrow political agenda of the occupiers."[102]

Lololol...

 

[teddyearp]

<snip>I bet that she, like the Bundy's, is a parasite living off the rest of us that pay taxes. Remember, Ammon Bundy has this very large outstanding loan from the federal government, that he has no intention of paying back. And who is financing these fellows? Even those of us making good wages don't take this kind of time off without financial repercussions. And there is a bunch of them out there. Where are they getting their money?

And back to massive personal attacks, conjecture, and half-truths with nothing to back you up.

You "bet" that Koshergirl is living off the rest of us. Prove it.

Ammon Bundy has a large outstanding loan that he has no intention of paying back. Prove it.

I do not know about most of the rest, but Ammon is an owner of two businesses, that must be where he is getting his money.

 

[teddyearp]

What is there to "get rid of" beyond really cheap grazing fees? Do you think the state will lease that same land for less than the Feds?

You really don't get it do you. I bet those rancher's (and many others across the west) would gladly pay 10 or 20 times the fees and still remain profitable as well.

It is not at all the amount of the fees, it is the continuing shrinkage of the grazing allotments that the .gov has imposed because of the environazis continued pressure for one reason or another.

 

[Camp]

But they did do it, and they are doing it now. They have brought children to a gun fight, or at least, a potential gunfight. Those women and children are being used as shields.

Again, prove it. When did they actually use women and children as shields. Show me now in this event where they are using women and children as shields. Just having them present does NOT prove that they are being used as shields.

It is amazing how those who are blindingly supporting the .gov side are letting their truth be twisted and distorted.

The kids and children are being used as shields by virtue of the fact they are there. When armed men threaten to use their weapons to prevent arrest and or removal they are inviting a gunfight. Injecting children into that situation can only be viewed as using the children as shields. i.e., objects to prevent offensive action against those threatened with arrest and removal. You are not that good a bullshitter, nor are the criminals at the refuge.

 

[Faun]

What is there to "get rid of" beyond really cheap grazing fees? Do you think the state will lease that same land for less than the Feds?

You really don't get it do you. I bet those rancher would gladly pay 10 or 20 times the fees and still remain profitable. It is not the amount of the fees, it is the continuing shrinkage of the grazing allotments that the .gov has imposed because of the environazis continued pressure for one reason or another.

How much of the Hammonds' private property did the government "shrink?"

 

[Seawytch]

What is there to "get rid of" beyond really cheap grazing fees? Do you think the state will lease that same land for less than the Feds?

You really don't get it do you. I bet those rancher would gladly pay 10 or 20 times the fees and still remain profitable. It is not the amount of the fees, it is the continuing shrinkage of the grazing allotments that the .gov has imposed because of the environazis continued pressure for one reason or another.

Except there is no guarantee that the state would continue to use the land for grazing. It's a huge money loser and there is certainly no guarantee the land would be sold privately.

Give us a link to this actual "shrinkage". How much has the amount of land "shrunk" and in what period of time? What amount of land does this wildlife sanctuary encompass? Do you not see value in wildlife preserves?

 

[Camp]

What is there to "get rid of" beyond really cheap grazing fees? Do you think the state will lease that same land for less than the Feds?

You really don't get it do you. I bet those rancher would gladly pay 10 or 20 times the fees and still remain profitable. It is not the amount of the fees, it is the continuing shrinkage of the grazing allotments that the .gov has imposed because of the environazis continued pressure for one reason or another.

So what. What gives the ranchers special status. You think because you call others that want to use the land environazis they have less right to lobby and petition for how the land gets used. You need to demonize folks who see a better way to use the land than as grazing land. The fact is they are using the prescribed legal and peaceful method to obtain a larger portion of the public lands for environmental protection and preservation. Cattle grazing gets over 80% of BLM land in Oregon and other citizens want a bigger slice. People like the Bundy's show up with guns and threats and violence and demand special treatment. Now they are committing acts of destruction of our property by tearing down fences. What is to stop others from doing this all over the country?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Are those terrorists still doing this? How much longer until they start getting scoped?

 

[teddyearp]

But they did do it, and they are doing it now. They have brought children to a gun fight, or at least, a potential gunfight. Those women and children are being used as shields.

Again, prove it. When did they actually use women and children as shields. Show me now in this event where they are using women and children as shields. Just having them present does NOT prove that they are being used as shields.

It is amazing how those who are blindingly supporting the .gov side are letting their truth be twisted and distorted.

You clueless fool!

Here are the facts that you choose to remain willfully blind to....In a very good sumary of the entire situation, and the background of the conflict, and some of the various reactions to this armed occupation.

Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Here's a few choice excerpts...

Wow, just wow. I usually use wikipedia myself, but this article is definitely skewed harshly with supposed's and alleged's and the references are mainly to the latest articles which have painted only one side of the story, the side that many of you here have lapped up as truth. Do you know the difference between and indictment and a conviction?

 

[TheOldSchool]

 

[teddyearp]

How much of the Hammonds' private property did the government "shrink?"

Well since you asked, lets post the other side of the story (again):

(aa) The Harney Basin (were the Hammond ranch is established) 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 irrigated 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 intentional diverted the water to 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 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 pains 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 fact 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 sale 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 “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism 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 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 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 a credible witness. 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 "Terrorist" under the 1996 Antiterrorism 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 preceding 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 resentencing. 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 remainder $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.

Notes:

S* Rhonda Karges – Resource Field Manager for the BLM is the wife of Chad Karges Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife refuge.
Rhonda specifically deals with all the BLM issues relating to the area in and around Hammonds property including “grazing denial”. Her husband just happens to be the person in charge of all the issues surrounding the Hammonds ranch such as “water and access”.

b* Soon after the water rights dispute the federal government influenced the State of Oregon to change their water law in favor of federal agencies. Wildlife is now considered in the State of Oregon as an accepted beneficial use for government agencies only.

k* Being convicted as Terrorist made the Hammonds felons. They have been striped of their right to have guns. The Hammond live 53 miles from the closets town and have no practical way of defending themselves or their cattle. Several times they have watched baby calves be eaten by predators and could do nothing to prevent it.

Link:Bundy Ranch

 

[TheOldSchool]

I love how Teddy, a super pro Israel supporter, is against an authority confiscating land for its own purposes. And how he supports armed insurrection to take back the land. That's knee slapping comedy right there.

 

[Faun]

How much of the Hammonds' private property did the government "shrink?"

Well since you asked, lets post the other side of the story (again):

(aa) The Harney Basin (were the Hammond ranch is established) 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 irrigated 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 intentional diverted the water to 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 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 pains 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 fact 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 sale 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 “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism 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 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 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 a credible witness. 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 "Terrorist" under the 1996 Antiterrorism 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 preceding 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 resentencing. 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 remainder $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.

Notes:

S* Rhonda Karges – Resource Field Manager for the BLM is the wife of Chad Karges Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife refuge.
Rhonda specifically deals with all the BLM issues relating to the area in and around Hammonds property including “grazing denial”. Her husband just happens to be the person in charge of all the issues surrounding the Hammonds ranch such as “water and access”.

b* Soon after the water rights dispute the federal government influenced the State of Oregon to change their water law in favor of federal agencies. Wildlife is now considered in the State of Oregon as an accepted beneficial use for government agencies only.

k* Being convicted as Terrorist made the Hammonds felons. They have been striped of their right to have guns. The Hammond live 53 miles from the closets town and have no practical way of defending themselves or their cattle. Several times they have watched baby calves be eaten by predators and could do nothing to prevent it.

Link:Bundy Ranch

Thanks, but despite the verbosity, you didn't actually answer my question.

Let's try a different approach..... you show the Hammonds started with 6,000 acres in 1964 .... how many acres do they have now...?

 

[Dhara]

But they did do it, and they are doing it now. They have brought children to a gun fight, or at least, a potential gunfight. Those women and children are being used as shields. It is amazing how the terrorist supporters will twist and distort reality.

What Gunfight?

What are you Communists planning?

I am starting to wonder if some of these folks sat back and applauded how the .gov handled Ruby ridge and Waco. Thrilled over the spilling of blood. Cheered the .gov on. Saddened that the .gov did not escalate the same way at the Bundy ranch, and other not so publicized events since. I really think that some of you folks like to see the .gov go and kill our own.

I would think most people were horrified by Waco and Ruby Ridge. I sure was.