Civil Unrest Continues to Build Around Eastern Oregon Rancher Case

[Sdiver]

Looks as if the BLM is picking a fight again. This time in Eastern Oregon.

Civil Unrest Continues to Build Around Eastern Oregon Rancher Case

Burns, Or.- The Controversy surrounding a small town Oregon ranching family continues to build as the Federal Government has doubled down on it’s intention to re-sentence a father and son for crimes they have already served their sentence. In late 2012 Dwight Hammond and his Son were found guilty by a jury and sentenced for a pair of arson cases. Dwight Hammond stemming from a 2001 case was sentenced and served 3 months, while son Steven was sentenced and served a year and a day term in connection to a 2006 fire. The United States Government has now decided, three years after the original sentencing, to vacate the sentence and impose a mandatory 5 year prison term on both Hammond’s under a terrorism charge they were never convicted of.

In 2001 Dwight Hammond lit a range land fire on his private property (standard and common practice with many open range ranchers) to eradicate invasive species from his property and restore grazing pasture for his livestock. That fire ultimately spread onto state public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The Hammond family as well has grazing rights on this land pre-dating the formation of the BLM. A sitting jury in Pendelton, OR. found Dwight Hammond guilty of arson for this 2001 fire despite the fact in Court testimony the BLM testified “There’s no dispute that the Hammonds called in to the BLM dispatch and checked to see if a fire could be set that day.” Further, for an arson charge there must be damage in excess of $100, yet in continued testimony BLM officials stated “…that the portion of the public land that burned as a result of that fire was improved, not damaged, by the fire, and there were no suppression costs.”

In 2006 Steven Hammond set a series of backfires on Hammond family private land in response to several lightning fires that were threatening the winter feed supply of the family livestock. The intent of these backfires was to create a fire break between the Hammonds land and the lightning fires on public lands that were not being suppressed by BLM fire fighting assets on scene. Those fires spread to public lands that were already likely to be burned by the lightning fires. The Pendelton Jury as well found Steven Hammond guilty of arson in relation to this incident.

However in the sentencing of both cases Judge Mike Hogan declined to sentence either of the Hammonds under Federal Mandated sentencing requiring a five year term as terrorists. Judge Hogan further qualified he found the consideration of sentencing the Hammonds to five years in prison as “shocking to his conscience” and clear violation of the 8th Amendment and deemed such a sentence would be “cruel and unusual punishment.” The Hammonds were never found guilty of a terrorism charge. Furthermore in Court transcripts of the sentencing the Government prosecutor acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Judge and the Court in making that determination and at the conclusion of the sentencing acknowledged the Government waiving the right to appeal for re-sentencing.

The Federal Government claiming authority under 18 U.S. Code 3742 (B), three years after sentencing and after the Hammonds had already completed their terms of sentencing, decided to move ahead in appealing the sentencing and in October of 2015 Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken re-sentenced both Dwight and Steven Hammond to five year prison terms as terrorists. 18 U.S. Code 3742 (B)-, “Appeal by the Government.The Government may file a notice of appeal in the district court for review of an otherwise final sentence if the sentence was imposed in violation of law; was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines; is less than the sentence specified in the applicable guideline range to the extent that the sentence includes a lesser fine or term of imprisonment, probation, or supervised release than the minimum established in the guideline range, or includes a less limiting condition of probation or supervised release under section 3563(b)(6) or (b)(11) than the minimum established in the guideline range; or was imposed for an offense for which there is no sentencing guideline and is plainly unreasonable. The Government may not further prosecute such appeal without the personal approval of the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, or a deputy solicitor general designated by the Solicitor General.” The official statement of the Government was as follows:

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
District of Oregon

EUGENE, Ore. – Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon in Harney County, were sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for arsons they committed on federal lands.

A jury sitting in Pendleton, Oregon found the Hammonds guilty of the arsons after a two-week trial in June 2012. The trial involved allegations that the Hammonds, owners of Hammond Ranches, Inc., ignited a series of fires on lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on which the Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them for their cattle operation.

The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.

The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.

By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.” The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced “in compliance with the law.” In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.

“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires. Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze” stated Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams.

“Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison. These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.”

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Frank R Papagni, Jr., AnneMarie Sgarlata and Kelly Zusman handled the prosecution of this case.



More here ---> https://shastalantern.net/2015/12/ci...-rancher-case/

[Sdiver]

Who's the terrorists here?

Here's video of the BLM lighting burns in JULY, a couple of days after the Hammond's were sentenced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aeec...ature=youtu.be

For proper land management, land fires aren't started in July, the are done in mid to late September. This is nothing more than a form of control by an over reaching tyrannical government.

[Sdiver]

The Game Is Afoot !!!!

Looks as if it's been turned up a couple of notches ...

Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters

The Bundy family of Nevada joined with hard-core militiamen Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 50 miles southeast of Burns for years.

The occupation came shortly after an estimated 300 marchers – militia and local citizens both – paraded through Burns to protest the prosecution of two Harney County ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday.

Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and two of his brothers. Militia members at the refuge claimed they had as many as 150 supporters with them. The refuge, federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was closed and unoccupied for the holiday weekend.

In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police try to remove them, they said, though they declined to elaborate.

"The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds," Ammon Bundy said.

"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," he added. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."

Neither would say how many people are in the building or whether they are armed. Ryan Bundy said the group would release a statement shortly.

"We will do whatever it takes to maintain our freedom," he said.

Government sources told The Oregonian/OregonLive that the militia also was planning to occupy a closed wildland fire station near the town of Frenchglen. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management posts crews there during the fire season.

Law enforcement officials so far have not commented on the situation. Oregon State Police, the Harney County Sheriff's Office and the FBI were involved.

Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page calling on patriots from across the country to report to the refuge – with their weapons.
Pennies In Protest Marchers pause outside the entrance to the Harney County Sheriff's Office to toss pennies. The coins were meant to symbolize citizens buying back their government

The dramatic turn came after other militia groups had tried to dampen community concerns they meant trouble.

Brandon Curtiss, a militia leader from Idaho, told The Oregonian/OregonLive he knew nothing about the occupation. He helped organize Saturday's protest and was at the Harney County Fairgrounds with dozens of other militia for a post-parade function. Another militia leader, BJ Soper, took to Facebook to denounce the occupation.

The occupation is being led by hard-core militia who adopted the Hammond cause as their own.

Ammon Bundy met with Dwight Hammond and his wife in November, seeking a way to keep the elderly rancher from having to surrender for prison. The Hammonds professed through their attorneys that they had no interest in ignoring the order to report for prison.

Ammon Bundy said the goal is to turn over federal land to local ranchers, loggers and miners. He said he met with 10 or so residents in Burns on Friday to try to recruit them, but they declined.
Burns Protest Marchers including militia and local residents Saturday head for the Harney County Courthouse as part of a protest against government.

"We went to the local communities and presented it many times and to many different people," he said. "They were not strong enough to make the stand. So many individuals across the United States and in Oregon are making this stand. We hope they will grab onto this and realize that it's been happening."

Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move.

He has been a steady presence in Burns in recent weeks, questioning people who were critical of the militia's presence. He typically had a holstered sidearm as he moved around the community.

At a community meeting in Burns Friday, Payne disavowed any ill intent.

"The agenda is to uphold the Constitution. That's all," he said.

Cooper, another militia leader, said at that meeting he participated in the Bundy standoff in Nevada.

"I went there to defend Cliven with my life," Cooper said.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-no...ith_quiet.html

[Old Dog New Trick]

When the "Battle of Burns" ("Battle of Athens") breaks out let me know.

This powder keg of a country is just waiting for the right match to set it off...seems like this family knows a thing or two about setting fires!

[craigepo]

We do land burns around here all the time. It really helps the land. US Forestry does controlled burns on the huge national forests here every 4-5 years. This is a lot of the reason we don't have the wildfires here that are experienced in the West.

I can't believe a federal prosecutor even brought this case. I really can't believe arson and terrorism were the charges. Idiocy.

[Pete]

Brush Okie - you an I are just going to have to disagree on this issue.

[atticus finch]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Agreed.

I do understand your concerns over farther reaching government control and the fact that they were give a sentence now the government is saying they need to go back for more. As I think about it the govt should have given them the time up front and now it should be to late. It sets up to much of a precedent after the fact. They did their time already no more should be added. I allowed the time I fought fires get in my way of objectivity on that part. It may cloud my judgement even now on this specific case.

I'd disagree also in response to post #8. To charge them with arson for setting a back burn doesn't quite add up to what I'd think reasonably constitutes arson. Arson means, or my understanding of it, deliberately setting a fire for the purpose of malevolent destruction. Such as the individual down in houston who torched the mosque located there, that'd be a bonafide example of arson. These individuals here were trying to stop a fire, protect grazing per the article.
BLM wasn't trying to stop that from happening and they were "on scene" to do so per the article. It appears these individuals got fed up with that and took action on thier own. I agree, IF they did not coordinate with whoever was on scene and let them know what they were doing. What they did was horribly dangerous although there is in the article they did contact at least once.
The article doesn't make clear if they did or didn't in this instance, I suspect there might've been communication and were told no without any good reason. These folk might've simply said "eff that, we're not going to stand here and watch it burn for no good reason"
Now we're stuck between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.
Under the letter of the law, had they done this without any communication, "if you people aren't going to do anything about the fires which are closing in on grazing located at XYZ, then we will take care of it" Whatever criminal negligence within the law would probably be a far more correct charge, as it would endanger firefighters there given they wouldn't know what was about to happen. In addition to that, under the letter of the law they did not have the 'legal' authority to make that decision on thier own.
Spirit of the law? Why should these individuals be forced to stand there and watch needed grazing burn for no good reason because someone in "authority" told them to? Why should they be criminalized for protecting thier private property when the "authorities" who's job it is to do so refused to? "The Law" says no, however in this case was that correct? Maybe they didn't have enough assets on hand, although there were firefighters nearby per the article. What were they doing at the time? I don't assume they were told no for what might've been beauracratic arbitrary reasons although I'd allow for the possibility.
charging them now with something akin to terrorism? First off is the issue of double jeapardy, per the constitution. They were already charged, tried, and convicted. If you wish to accept the original legal charges as bonafide or appropriate. Going back again under any pretext is unconstitutional.
I don't agree this would constitute any kind've terrorism by any worthwhile standard.
As for the previous thing "burn the whole country down" That doesn't sound plausible from the get-go. Witnesses? What family member? what is that individuals name and why was't it specifically mentioned as well as the other supposed witnesses? They 'claim' they heard this being said? That's hearsay,
I view that with a jaundiced eye as that doesn't quite smell right.
I will add, I can understand your emotions in regards to how dangerous what they did is, under the circumstances. IF they just up and did as much without letting the firefighters know, they could have quite easily created another storm king mtn scenario. Had it created a scenario such as that, I don't see why they couldn't be charged with criminal manslaughter or something along those lines, and they would in my eyes be rightfully charged.

[Bleed Green]

I would kind of be curious to read the transcript of the trial. I am not buying that whole we were just burning weeds and accidentally torched BLM land, especially in light of the reports that they torched it to cover up poaching deer off BLM land. Normally I would say poachers getting hosed is a good thing. In this case what I am not buying into is the terrorism angle the US Attorney played, but then again Paul Harvey used to be damn good at getting to the rest of the story and I am sure there is more to it than a simple case of arson with an illegal sentencing thrown in for good measure.

[Paslode]

The first thing that didn't seem right was that these two people had already been convicted and sentenced, they served their time and then after the fact a judge decides something wasn't done correctly and then gives them each 5 more years in prison time. The guarantee against being "twice put in jeopardy" is a constitutional right.

This is another weird story that I have a difficult time grasping.

In some ways it reminds me of Charles Dyer. Dyer was arrested for pocession of a M203 grenade launcher that was stolen from Ft. Irwin after his soon to be ex-wife let LEO's search their house.....no Tax Stamp and stolen government property should be bad mojo but he was aquited for whatever reason. Then upon his return to Oklahoma he was charged with molesting his daughter, found guilty and sentenced to prison.

In other ways it reminds me of the 9 or 10 morons know as the Hutaree from Michigan. It took thousands of personal fom every agency known to man to apprehend these domestc terrorist, they were all placed in solitary for over a year and in the end were all released without much in the way of charges.

And then there was Bundy, and it seemed the Feds were just f-ing with him to make a point.

[atticus finch]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

This is the reason you don't set a backfire.



Who was in the area between the backfire and the fire? You just do not know. Just because no one was killed does not mean they were in the right. Other hunters, perhaps a bunch of smoke jumpers on the way? You never know.

If they were really interested in saving the area build a fire brake. In fact you need to build a firebreak BEFORE you back fire. other wise you will burn both ways and enhance the fire not stop it.

Also notice it was BLM land they had grazing rights to NOT their own land, that means they can run cattle there but everyone else can hunt fish and use the area. Its not like they were trying to save their home and family. The devil is in the details.

There was more than one incident. on diffrent times. Notice on this one they set several fires. . I think they get their jollies setting fires myself.



It even says WHY they went after him. ie He broke the law.

"Who was in the area between the backfire and the fire? You just do not know. Just because no one was killed does not mean they were in the right. Other hunters, perhaps a bunch of smoke jumpers on the way? You never know."

We agree on this & I stressed that, what they did was horribly dangerous were there no communication. I dont know who the witness was or thier credibility in terms of them escaping the flames. Perhaps they are telling the truth, it doesn't say who they were or why they were there. I wasn't there so I won't stand here and say "BS" to thier testimony Although I will view it with a degree of questioning. Who were they? Why were they there? Were they there because they were involved somehow? If so, why weren't they charged also?
The article doesn't state that but those are the questions in my mind.
Hunters in the area? If there's a fire there or they even see smoke on the horizon? They probably should have had better sense than that. As for smoke jumpers, again same as what I originally stressed as a point.
As for the grazing rights, were those something they had to pay for? If that land burns & is no longer usable to them, are they then going to get repaid for those rights? Is that how it works? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I don't know if that's how it would work. If so, then yes they likely were lacking for a reason to do what they did. They know if it burns they'll not lose the financial investment, leave it go & focus on structures & safety. although I don't know where that would put them for grazing thier cattle?
I don't agree they got thier jollies just lighting fires, if the truth bears out they did genuinely excercise dangerously poor judgement, bonafide endangerment of firecrews & so forth, there's likely proper criminal law to cover such things.
This current situation, especially the terrorism charge, I don't agree is entirely appropriate.

[Paslode]

Here is yet another take on the situation:

For the regime, this could not come at a better time. The old Roman adage "cui bono" applies here. There is nothing on the talking heads channels as yet, but by Monday, when Obama meets with his Attorney General on the subject of citizen disarmament, you can bet the farm that this will play right into that narrative. Perfect timing. You've got to give the federal handlers of these pukes credit. This is precisely the sort of offensive action on the part of the "militia terrorists" that they needed.

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogsp...e-federal.html

[ccrn]

Lighting backfires being stupid: maybe so. Certainly not legal although research has proven not allowing natural fires to burn out underbrush is counterproductive and against how nature works. But a larger, cohesive movement should have addressed that through legal channels. Not lonewolf citizens lighting fires on their own.

Having said that, prodecuting ranchers under an aanti-terrorism law is unjust. Anti-terrorism laws are meant to prosecute terrorists. Not ranchers who arent mounting armed terror campaigns, or elementary school kids for throwing rocks through windows.

I don't know these ranchers nor do I have a horse in the race, but it seems to me sending them back to prison is unjust inn the sense that the crimes tthey commited weren't terrorism, and possibly double jeopardy as they've already served their sentence -

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Lighting a backfire without coordination is plain stupid.....

"...despite the fact in Court testimony the BLM testified “There’s no dispute that the Hammonds called in to the BLM dispatch and checked to see if a fire could be set that day.” ..."

They called - at least for one of the fires.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Dispatch does not know who is where and it needs to be coordinated with the operational base.

Well, from a news report, you can't tell if coordination happened or not. Most likely, in a situation like this, dispatch would have contacted the Incident Commander before giving the OK. Did this happen?

We're surrounded on all sides by BLM and AZ land with nothing on it. I would not allow my house and cattle, if I had any, to be destroyed because the government agencies didn't feel the need to fight the fire. Or worse, started it in the first place.

There's a Lex/Con moment in our future. The question is when, where, and why.

Pat