SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Breaking Oregon Militia Occupies Federal Building

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Breaking Oregon Militia Occupies Federal Building (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=223645)

a lot of things about this case are off:

1. I have not found a single case of a farmer in "socialist" canada being sent to jail for burning grazing land;

2. the original fire was supposedly set to cover up the "illegal slaughter of deer". Trouble is no one ever gets sent to jail for illegally poaching deer out of season, most you get is a fine;

3. the "arson" burned 127 acres of "federal" land which sounds like a lot, but is actually a square 2400 x 2400 feet or about 2/10th of a square mile which is minuscule out there. The Hammond's ranch is over 12,000 acres.

more details here:

Quote:

(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.

http://bundyranch.blogspot.ca/2015/1...mond-case.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat (Post 2371059)

"arsonist" is a strong word. I don't expect city slickers to understand, but using fire to manage grazing lands is a widely recognized technique:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0328115430.htm

https://www.business.qld.gov.au/indu...re/when-to-use

https://www.firescience.gov/projects..._FSBrief37.pdf

even on public land used by ranchers:

http://esrd.alberta.ca/lands-forests...ewardship.aspx

I could understand a fine or even the original sentence imposed by the court, but a five year mandatory sentence without the possibility of parole (federal time) is way over the top. Looking at the back story on the case, it really looks like the DoJ wanted to make an example of these men.

I'm well aware of what backburning is, I've spent plenty of time learning about farming. But this looks more like they started a fire to cover up their poaching. That, and in the later one, they knowingly endangered the lives of several firefighters, which is an absolutely disgusting thing to do.

Quote:

Dwight and Steve Hammond were convicted of arson by their peers in 2012 for setting fires on federal land adjacent to their property near Burns in 2001 and 2006.mIn 2001, according to Probation Officer Robb, hunters in the area witnessed the Hammonds illegally shooting deer and shortly afterwards a fire forced them to leave the area. 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 and was later abused by Steve. The Hammonds have said they started the fire to stop invasive plants from growing onto their grazing fields. The 2006 fire was an illegal backburn set under the cover of night knowing beforehand that a firefighting camp was on the slopes above. According to the indictment, the fire 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.

Sources: https://popehat.com/wp-content/uploa...ndGovBrief.pdf

http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/Tra...s%20ruling.pdf

http://www.opb.org/news/article/hamm..._fire_in_2001/

And of course, there's one fairly obvious question; if it was just backburning, why didn't the Hammonds tell anyone on the neighbouring land? :hmmm:

I say let the protesters freeze ...

The FBI should sit in nice warm offices and send in the photo drones (without arming them). If they shoot at a drone their crusing for a brusing. :o

The Oregon Farm Bureau supports the Hammonds:

Quote:

Elderly Harney County rancher Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven (pictured at left, and a former OFB board member and Harney County Farm Bureau president) were convicted in 2010 for two fires they set in an effort to protect their ranch. The fires, one in 2001 and one in 2006, left their private land and burned less than 140 acres, combined, of BLM land.

BLM and the U.S. Dept. of Justice prosecuted the Hammonds under charges subject to the 1996 Anti-Terrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act. The government used a kitchen-sink strategy, charging them with 19 counts. They were not found guilty of any charges, except for the two fires, which they admitted setting. For their sentence, both served federal prison time (Steven over a year, Dwight three months), and together they paid over $400,000 in restitution and fines to the federal government. They made mistakes, broke the law, had a fair trial, and paid their debt to society.

Now, the federal government plans to send them back to prison because the presiding judge in the case refused to give the Hammonds the mandatory minimum five-year sentence under the terrorism act. After the original trial, Judge Michael Hogan said the crimes the Hammonds were convicted for “could not have been conduct intended under (the terrorism law).” He said five years of jail time “would result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here…” and would “shock the conscience.” This is the judge who presided over the entire trial and knew every fact of the case.

Despite the judge’s protest, the feds appealed the Hammonds’ sentences and won in the 9th circuit court of appeals. The Supreme Court declined to take the case after that loss. Later this month, the district court will be compelled to resentence both Hammonds using the minimums, unless BLM and DOJ agree to grant the Hammonds some leniency.

There is no debate about whether the Hammonds broke the law. A jury found that they did. However, OFB believes BLM is guilty of abhorrent overreach in insisting the Hammonds be tried using charges subject to terrorism laws and be sent back to federal prison.

This prosecution will have a chilling effect across the West among ranchers and others who rely on federal allotments and permits. It will harm the positive relationship many ranchers and organizations have worked to forge with the bureau, and the hard work that has been done on the range.

It also is hypocritical given BLM’s own harm to the range, which goes without consequence. It is unjust. OFB worked quietly behind the scenes with BLM through the spring and summer. That diligent diplomatic effort was fruitless.

Now it’s time to expose BLM’s mismanagement and overreach to the light of public scrutiny. You can do two things to help.

http://www.oregonfb.org/2015/10/05/s...vethehammonds/

about the OFB:

Quote:

The state’s largest general farm organization, Oregon Farm Bureau (OFB) is a grassroots, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization representing the interests of the state’s farmers and ranchers in the public and policymaking arenas. First established in Oregon in 1919, Farm Bureau is organized in all 36 counties and has 7,000 member families that are professionally engaged in agriculture.

I agree that trying them under terrorism laws is wrong, but the Militia is trying to solve it in the worst way possible. There are a lot of options available that aren't nearly as extreme as an armed occupation of a government facility.

AFAIK the Hammonds didn't even want Bundys support in the first place, they just gatecrashed the protest and are using it to further their own agenda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 2370916)

... Why don't you just admit that you were a little too eager to pursue your usual political aim of belittling those on the other side of the political spectrum. In fact your constant attempts at doing so is a kind of intimidation so you might be considered an "almost terrorist" too.

Have you now taken to talking to yourself? :haha:

Pots and kettles, sir, pots and kettles...

<O>

Well there is that accusation of poaching unfortunately, the accidental fire nicely destroyed the evidence. I hope the witnesses are being protected.

But in any case, we need to avoid anything like Ruby Ridge/Waco. I like the way the government is handling it. We are not going in guns a blazin' like a cowboy movie.

Let's hope it can end peaceably. The last thing we need to do is raise another domestic terrorist like McVeigh over this.

The government's goal should be to deescalate this event.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 2371071)

I think using fire for any kind of large scale agricultural purpose is just asking for trouble. It's far too easy for a fire to spread out of control, just ask California.

It has been used for (atleast) centuries with not too much trouble... and still is in Russia (couple of years ago winds blew smoke to Finnish side of border, all the way to Central Finland).

If you are dumb enough to use it on places dry like a dust (California has major drought problem, hasn't it?) then you really deserve what you get.

Even other militia leaders don't agree with what they are doing!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-or...0UJ04120160105

Quote:

By late May, the government had cut off all electrical power and all telephone service to the island. In June, a fire of disputed origin destroyed numerous buildings on the island. Left without power, fresh water, and in the face of diminishing public support and sympathy, the number of occupiers began to dwindle. On June 11, 1971, a large force of government officers removed the remaining 15 people from the island.

The power has already been cut at the far chillier Malheur Wildlife Refuge. I guess we'll see if history rhymes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr (Post 2371132)

Well, true, I guess it depends on the landscape and the climate. A place like Oregon you could probably get away with it, but of course, how do you stop a fire from spreading beyond your land?
It does seem rather OTT the sentencing, and I can understand the protest that took place in the town, but the Bundys hitching up their anti-government agenda to it really hasn't helped the Hammonds at all. If anything it's probably made their chances worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr (Post 2371132)

One way or another it's going to happen. Either humans do it in a controlled manner. Or mother nature will with a lighting strike and that usually ends up catching everyone off guard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 2371039)

At least, that's how this limey sees it. :03:

I'd say it's a pretty accurate assessment. :up:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torplexed (Post 2371139)

If one wants a precedent for a peaceful end, back in 1969 a native American group occupied the then abandoned penitentiary at Alcatraz for 19 months.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Alcatraz

The power has already been cut at the far chillier Malheur Wildlife Refuge. I guess we'll see if history rhymes.

Heard a news report on the local CBS radio affiliate some of the militia members are starting to gripe about the whole mess because they have lives to get back to, jobs, etc., and they don't seem to share the sentiments of an occupation 'till the end' of the Bundy's and they, unlike the Bundy's, don't have monetary support coming in from supporters elsewhere. Also, the locals, many, if not most, of whom either work for the various government agencies or have businesses dependent on government interaction are making rumblings about not cooperating with the occupiers by refusing to sell them food or other items they may need or want. It looks as if the wheels are starting to come off...

<O>