Militiamen take over federal building in Oregon wildlife refuge after anti-government rally; son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy among them

[JoeBags7277 760]

Apparently the men this protest was organized for had already served a sentence for arson, but were being sent back again? Seems odd, and not on the up and up, if true.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/militia-takes-ore-fed-building-protest-article-1.2483723

[AURaptor 1,137]

We have a out of control govt, and have had so , for a very long time.

[AUUSN 823]

Just call in the Cleveland police. They'll roll in gunsa blazing... Oh wait, these are a bunch of white dudes, they'll be labeled as Patriots and not 'thugs'

[AURaptor 1,137]

Guys who already served time. 3 years ago.

What have they done lately to be put back in prison ?

[AUDub 12,283]

Cut the power and water and blockade the area. See how many years Bundy and his merry band of idiots hold out.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Cut the power and water and blockade the area. See how many years Bundy and his merry band of idiots hold out.

Probably some regulation which forbids them from doing that to a govt facility. Paper work will take a few years to process.

[alexava 6,998]

Cut the power and water and blockade the area. See how many years Bundy and his merry band of idiots hold out.

give them a warning in writing that they must come out unarmed with hands up. If not we take action in 4 hours or however long it takes to assemble the power. Confirm there are no hostages or children. When ready, give them one last chance no negotiations. Then take them out and rebuild the building. It's that simple

[AURaptor 1,137]

There's not enough time . Just like Benghazi .

Only go in and obliterate the building when you know there are women and children inside. Just like Janet Reno did in Waco Texas.

[AUDub 12,283]

Cut the power and water and blockade the area. See how many years Bundy and his merry band of idiots hold out.

give them a warning in writing that they must come out unarmed with hands up. If not we take action in 4 hours or however long it takes to assemble the power. Confirm there are no hostages or children. When ready, give them one last chance no negotiations. Then take them out and rebuild the building. It's that simple

No point in killing the morons. Let's see how commited they are. Let them starve themselves.

[quietfan 233]

The opening link left me confused as to the details of the Hammonds' offenses and trial, and the nature of the sentencing(s). This link helped clarify it for me:

http://www.justice.g...ve-years-prison

(Of course, since this comes from the government--the US Attorney's Office in Oregon--some will dismiss it based on the source.)

At first glance, I understand how some might challenge the re-sentencing of the Hammond's under the 'double jeopardy" restraint of the Fifth Amendment. As I said, even I was confused based on the original (Daily News) story. But looking deeper, it seems legal to me and not a case of double jeopardy at all, but rather simply a correction of an error in the original sentencing.

[quietfan 233]

Cut the power and water and blockade the area. See how many years Bundy and his merry band of idiots hold out.

give them a warning in writing that they must come out unarmed with hands up. If not we take action in 4 hours or however long it takes to assemble the power. Confirm there are no hostages or children. When ready, give them one last chance no negotiations. Then take them out and rebuild the building. It's that simple

No point in killing the morons. Let's see how commited they are. Let them starve themselves.

Since you mentioned morons: Well obviously I don't speak for the parties involved, their reasoning, or their timing...but I don't think I'd pick the dead of winter as the ideal time to start an occupation of the Oregon wilderness. I imagine a few of them might soon be praying that global warming is a fact!

[AUDub 12,283]

Cut the power and water and blockade the area. See how many years Bundy and his merry band of idiots hold out.

give them a warning in writing that they must come out unarmed with hands up. If not we take action in 4 hours or however long it takes to assemble the power. Confirm there are no hostages or children. When ready, give them one last chance no negotiations. Then take them out and rebuild the building. It's that simple

No point in killing the morons. Let's see how commited they are. Let them starve themselves.

Since you mentioned morons: Well obviously I don't speak for the parties involved, their reasoning, or their timing...but I don't think I'd pick the dead of winter as the ideal time to start an occupation of the Oregon wilderness. I imagine a few of them might soon be praying that global warming is a fact!

Yep. Despite Bundy's moronic claims that they plan on being there for a while, the situation is untenable if you take away modern amenities like running water and electric heating. They won't be there long anyway.

[AUDub 12,283]

Basic history of this case:

The Hammonds were found guilty of arson and that carries a mandatory 5 year jail term. The local judge refused to sentence them to the mandatory and instead gave one a 3 month and the other a 1 year jail term. The feds appealed and the 5 year sentence was upheld. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The Hammonds must return to jail.

Some of these fires were set to coverup illegal hunting on federal lands. Dusty Hammond testified against his relatives. He testified his uncle Steve Hammond had passed out boxes of Diamond (wooden) matches during his first deer hunt and told them to “light the whole countryside on fire.”

Other fires set by the Hammonds nearly trapped BLM firefighters who were on scene to fight fires started by lightning.

The cost of fighting fires set by the Hammonds is estimated at $600,000.

[Mims44 2,183]

Basic history of this case:

The Hammonds were found guilty of arson and that carries a mandatory 5 year jail term. The local judge refused to sentence them to the mandatory and instead gave one a 3 month and the other a 1 year jail term. The feds appealed and the 5 year sentence was upheld. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The Hammonds must return to jail.

Some of these fires were set to coverup illegal hunting on federal lands. Dusty Hammond testified against his relatives. He testified his uncle Steve Hammond had passed out boxes of Diamond (wooden) matches during his first deer hunt and told them to "light the whole countryside on fire."

Other fires set by the Hammonds nearly trapped BLM firefighters who were on scene to fight fires started by lightning.

The cost of fighting fires set by the Hammonds is estimated at $600,000.

Sounds like patriots to me.

NE patriots at least

[alexava 6,998]

Did these idiots (I refuse to call them militia) actually break into the building or just assemble around it? What I read didn't say but did say the federal employees were off work until tomorrow.

[AUDub 12,283]

Did these idiots (I refuse to call them militia) actually break into the building or just assemble around it? What I read didn't say but did say the federal employees were off work until tomorrow.

They occupied these buildings, which were empty at the time.

[homersapien 12,887]

We have a out of control govt, and have had so , for a very long time.

"Out of control"? How many election cycles would that "very long time" encompass?

[homersapien 12,887]

This sounds like the equivalent of "Woodstock" for wacko right wingers.

"We’re planning on staying here for several years," Ammon Bundy said in a videoposted to Facebook Saturday. "We’re calling people to come out here and stand…. We have a place for you to stay warm. We have food planned and prepared. We need you to bring your arms. And we need you to come to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge."

His brother Ryan Bundy told The Oregonian's Ian Kullgren the militiamen are "willing to kill and be killed if necessary," Kullgren tweeted Saturday.

http://www.huffingto...4b06fa688829f2c

[JoeBags7277 760]

We have a out of control govt, and have had so , for a very long time.

"Out of control"? How many election cycles would that "very long time" encompass?

According to my estimations, roughly 26.

Raptor's, I'm guessing, is more in the neighborhood of two.

[cptau 169]

The other side of the story............

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

HISTORY: (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.

( 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.*

© 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.

® 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 re-sentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them.

To date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the 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. (more citations here)

[JoeBags7277 760]

The other side of the story............

http://theconservati...ly-persecution/

Very interesting. And not the least bit surprising.

[alexava 6,998]

I doubt that is the Whole story.

[AURaptor 1,137]

In short, our government is squeezing out ranchers. Any rational or irrational reaction by the ranchers will be hyped up by the media and played to the hilt as " those crazy fundie conservatives".

In Baltimore, we have a mayor who tells the media that rioters must be given 'space to destroy'. But here, legitimate grievances are being met with silence and even mockery. So much so, that these idiots are now actually going out and becoming the lunatics that the government wants to paint them as .

[alexava 6,998]

In short, our government is squeezing out ranchers. Any rational or irrational reaction by the ranchers will be hyped up by the media and played to the hilt as " those crazy fundie conservatives".

In Baltimore, we have a mayor who tells the media that rioters must be given 'space to destroy'. But here, legitimate grievances are being met with silence and even mockery. So much so, that these idiots are now actually going out and becoming the lunatics that the government wants to paint them as .

they are armed and threatening that lives will be lost. that is worse than destroying property. The sad part is if they do have a legit cause they are ruining it with lunacy.

[TheBlueVue 177]

In short, our government is squeezing out ranchers. Any rational or irrational reaction by the ranchers will be hyped up by the media and played to the hilt as " those crazy fundie conservatives".

In Baltimore, we have a mayor who tells the media that rioters must be given 'space to destroy'. But here, legitimate grievances are being met with silence and even mockery. So much so, that these idiots are now actually going out and becoming the lunatics that the government wants to paint them as .

Our govt is the largest landowner in the country and continues to take over private property. Im not taking sides on this but I tend to believe there is more to this story than what the media is putting out there. The media has a well documented history of slanted reporting especially when they can take unrestrained shots at what they love to characterize as crazy conservatives.