150 armed Militia occupy federal property in Oregon.

[Flagg]

Yeah, you're having internet issues but you're still making multiple posts. Funny sort of malfunction. Not impossible, just odd.

Yeah, you still didn't read my post, apparently. You know, about how certain sites loaded fine, like SDN, but google and Wikipedia weren't? So if you want to call me a liar go right ahead, then prove it, but this passive aggressive bullshit is annoying, especially since I have a long history of linking to articles and citing my sources when they are available.

[Raj Ahten]

There have been some questions about the arson convictions of the original two ranchers who sparked this clusterfuck. Here is the best rundown on their past behavior and convictions that Ive seen. They are a couple of jackasses that have consistently acted like no rules apply to them and have had multiple run ins with state and federal law enforcement. Exactly the poster boys the militia movement loves as they have no respect for anything but their own "freedom."

Here is the text from the above link:

The timeline for the Oregon rancher-arsonists
Posted on January 5, 2016 by Bill Gabbert
Malheur Refuge sign

Photo by Judith Bell

With the break-in and occupation by armed protesters of the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon grabbing national attention it’s a good time to take a detailed look at what actually happened over the last 22 years that led up to this incident.

Some of the protesters appearing in front of news cameras repeatedly refer to the arrest, convictions, and sentencing of Dwight Hammond, Jr., and his son, Steven Hammond who set fires on Bureau of Land Management property not far from the Wildlife Refuge.

In addition to raising cattle on their own property, the Hammonds paid a small fee for their cattle to graze on BLM land. In 2015 the rate was $1.69 per animal per month.

There is a lot of misinformation being thrown around about why or if the Hammonds lit fires on public land. An example occurred on January 4 when CNN reporter Paul Vercammen mischaracterized the crimes committed by the two ranchers that triggered the protests and federal property take over. Mr. Vercammen, in explaining what led to the occupation, described the actions of the Hammonds as “arson on their own property”, when in fact on at least two occasions they illegally set fires on public land administered by the BLM.

Below is the timeline that we have developed from court documents, information provided by U.S. Attorney’s Office spokesperson Gerri Badden, and other sources provided by some of our loyal readers.

You will find that on two occasions, in 2001 and 2006, the Hammonds set fires that endangered wildland firefighters who had to take evasive action when their safety was compromised. And a group of three hunters, whose location was known to the Hammonds, were also threatened by one of the fires and had to hurriedly evacuate the area without having the time to pack up the equipment at their campsite. The Hammonds also had several previous run-ins with the legal system that until now have not been general knowledge.

The Timeline

1994, August 5 — Dwight and Steven Hammond were arrested and spent two nights in custody. Federal employees of the Malheur National Wildlife refuge were attempting to build a fence on refuge property to keep the Hammonds’ cattle from trespassing on federal land. (There is some dispute about this exact date, but court records show that it occurred on August 5, 1994.)

From High Country News:

On the day the fence was to be built, the crew and refuge officials arrived to find Hammond had parked his Caterpillar scraper squarely on the boundary line and disabled it, removing the battery and draining fuel lines. When a tow truck arrived to move it, Dwight Hammond showed up, leaped to the controls of the scraper and hit a lever that lowered the bucket, narrowly missing another special agent. Meanwhile, said [Special Agent Earl M.] Kisler, Steve Hammond shouted obscenities at federal officials. Neither Hammond resisted arrest.

The original charge was a felony, “Forcibly impede, intimidate and interfere with federal officers engaged in the performance of their official duties”.

The High Country News reported that many sources applied a great deal of pressure on the BLM and the Secretary of the Interior, protesting the arrests. Some employees received phone calls and death threats at their homes.

1994, August 15 — The charges were reduced to a misdemeanor for both Steven and Dwight Hammond, to “Interfering with Government Employees and Private Parties”.

1997, July 16 — the “Interfering” cases were dismissed by the U.S. Attorney’s office.

1999 — Steven was arrested and convicted for interfering with lawful users of public lands. On Oct. 9, 1999, he interfered with a lawful hunt being conducted by a hunting guide and his party. On March 9, 2000, he was sentenced to 3 years of probation.

2001, September 30 — Hardie-Hammond Fire.

According to testimony from a commercial hunting guide and Dusty Hammond, the grandson to Dwight Hammond and nephew to Steven Hammond, their family and friends were hunting when shots were fired by the group into a herd of deer on BLM land. The guide said four bucks were crippled, but the hunting party did not track or collect any deer.

Later, Steven, with Dwight at his side, handed out boxes of matches to everyone in the party including 13-year old Dusty. Their instructions were to “light up the whole country on fire”. They went off in different directions and began igniting fires, but Dusty was by himself, following a path pointed out by Steven. He was at first unsuccessful in getting the vegetation to ignite, but after Steven showed him how to use several of the “strike anywhere” matches together, he was creating eight to ten-foot flames which at one point surrounded and entrapped him causing him to fear for his life — “I thought I was going to get burned up”, he said. The fires were lit along the line between their property and public land, and spread onto public land.

Gerri Badden, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office, said the motive for setting the fires was to cover up the illegal slaughter of the deer which was witnessed by the hunting guide, the guide’s two hunters, and was affirmed by Dusty.

Two hours after igniting the fires Steven called the BLM to report that they were going to burn invasive species.

The hunting guide saw that the fire was moving toward their camp and was concerned about his safety and that of his two clients, hunters from Utah. The three of them evacuated from the area without even taking the time to break down and remove their equipment at the camp. As they drove away they were able to see the flames of the fire in the area they had left. Testimony in the trial indicated that the Hammonds were aware of the location of the guide and his clients before lighting the fires since they flew their airplane over the area earlier that morning.

Later in the day Dwight and Steven took to the sky again in their airplane to examine the burnt area, telling Dusty they were going to check to see if the fire got rid of the juniper, which is an invasive species that robs water from grasses grazed by cattle.

Dusty said that when the Hammond hunting party returned to the house after setting the fires, “Dwight told me to keep my mouth shut, that nobody needed to know about the fire”. Eight years later 21-year old Dusty told investigators why he waited so long to speak up about the arson, saying that if Steven heard he provided information he would come to Dusty’s front door and kill him.

The writers of the sentencing report said the setting of the fires created a “conscious or reckless risk of death or serious bodily injury” to individuals including Dusty Hammond. The fires burned 139 acres of federal land.

2004 — Steven allegedly “sandpapered” off the chest of Dusty Hammond, then age 16, two initials he had tattooed on himself. Steven was charged with Criminal Mistreatment, but the charges were dismissed in 2005 when he entered into a diversion program.

A police report about the incident was introduced in the 2012 trial as evidence along with photos after the Hammonds referred to themselves as “dedicated family men who are highly regarded in their community”.

2006, August 17 — Steven told a BLM employee that he and Dwight had been setting fires in the area for years. Steven also said to not be surprised if more fires appeared after the next lightning storm in the area.

(Note from Bill: a resident who lives in a forested area told me that he has used lightning storms as cover for lighting fires. He assumed that one more fire, if several were started in the county, would not be looked at closely by investigators.)

2006, August 21 — A lightning storm hit the Steems Mountain area and ignited several fires, including the Krumbo Butte Fire. Dwight encountered the same BLM employee he had talked with on August 17 who was assigned to suppress the fire, telling him he wished the fires were larger.

2006, August 22 — A firefighter assigned to the fire with his crew that was spending the night on a hill saw three small fires below their location. The fire behavior and calm winds at the time made it very unlikely that they could have been spot fires started from embers generated by the main fire. When the three fires grew together he worried that the new fire could run up the hill endangering the crew. Concerned there was an active arsonist in the area, he moved the crew to a safer location.

2006, August 23 — Steven admitted to one of the firefighters that he set the fires the previous night “to provide feed for his cattle”, according to the BLM report about the Hammonds’ grazing permit. The report also goes into much detail about suspicious fires that started that day in an area near where Steven and Dwight were seen in the general vicinity of the main fire, the Krumbo Butte Fire. These new ignitions compromised the safety of firefighters nearby, some of whom were forced to retreat from the area. They were given advice and led to safety via radio by an orbiting Air Attack. Again, this occurred in a location that virtually ruled out ignition caused by embers from the main fire; one was three miles away.

Dwight had disappeared into the vegetation but when he was spotted by a firefighter who told him to stop, fled, but he eventually stopped.

Later a fire investigator determined that seven fires were intentionally set.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s office, Hammonds’ motive for setting the fires was to protect their winter feed, but Steven ignited the fires during a county wide burn ban and while a “red flag warning” was in effect, without notice or permission and while knowing BLM contract firefighters were in the area.

2006, August 24 — Steven was arrested for questioning about the suspicious fires.

2011 — Steven was convicted of unsworn falsification in state court for forging a landowner’s preference hunting form.

2012, June 21 — After a trial over arson charges, the jury found Dwight and Steven Hammond guilty of the 2001 arson and Steven Hammond of the 2006 arson, and not guilty of other arson charges. While the jury was deliberating on the remaining charges, the Hammonds negotiated a settlement with the government which resulted in acceptance of the guilty verdicts, the dismissal of the remaining charges, and a promise from the government not to recommend a sentence greater than the mandatory minimum of 5 years. The Hammonds acknowledged in open court that they knew the mandatory minimum prison term they were facing was 5 years.

2012, October 25 — The sentencing report prepared by the U.S. Probation Office recommend a 78-month prison sentence for Steven Hammond and a 63-month prison sentence for Dwight Hammond. The government kept its promise and asked for the minimum mandated by law, five years. The government argued the Hammonds were “arsonists,” not “terrorists.”

2012, October 30 — Dwight was given 12 months in prison and Steven received 3 months.

The U.S. Attorney appealed the sentences, since they did not conform to federal sentencing laws, and the appeals court imposed the required five year sentence. The Hammonds appealed that revised sentence all the way to the Supreme Court and lost in March, 2015.

2013, January 4 — The Hammonds began serving their prison time. Dwight was released in March, 2013 and Steven in January, 2014.

2014, February 14 — The BLM denied the renewal of the Hammonds’ grazing permit, citing the arson convictions and other issues.

2014, December 4 — A civil suit related to the arson brought against the Hammonds by the federal government was settled, with Dwight and Steven agreeing to pay $200,000 each. If they had to sell their property in order to make the payments, under the agreement the government had first right of refusal. However the two payments of $200,000 were received, and there was no sale of property.

2015, October 7 — A federal judge re-sentenced the Hammonds to fire years. They were scheduled to return to prison January 4, 2016.

edit: for spelling.

[bilateralrope]

There are regular federal arson laws, the prosecutors specifically selected the terrorism one. They could do that because it was poorly written to be vague, and as they proved it can be applied to anything. They didn't have to use that law, they chose to.

Do you think the crimes as accused were terrorism?

The part that gives the mandatory minimum sentence:

(f)
(1) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.

What exactly is vague about this law ?

Because it seems pretty clear to me.


I'd like to see some proof that the prosecutors could have used a different law. Cite that specific law. Show me that it was in force at the time of their arson. Show me that it applies to their arson. Show me the minimum sentence that law requires.

There have been some questions about the arson convictions of the original two ranchers who sparked this clusterfuck. Here is the best rundown on their past behavior and convictions that Ive seen. They are a couple of jackasses that have consistently acted like no rules apply to them and have had multiple run ins with state and federal law enforcement. Exactly the poster boys the militia movement loves as they have no respect for anything but their own "freedom."

Wow. It sounds like they got off really lightly even with the 5 year sentence.

2012, October 25 — The sentencing report prepared by the U.S. Probation Office recommend a 78-month prison sentence for Steven Hammond and a 63-month prison sentence for Dwight Hammond. The government kept its promise and asked for the minimum mandated by law, five years. The government argued the Hammonds were “arsonists,” not “terrorists.”

2012, October 30 — Dwight was given 12 months in prison and Steven received 3 months.

The U.S. Attorney appealed the sentences, since they did not conform to federal sentencing laws, and the appeals court imposed the required five year sentence. The Hammonds appealed that revised sentence all the way to the Supreme Court and lost in March, 2015.

Probation Office recommends sentences longer than 5 years. The government asked for a 5 year sentence. The Hammonds agreed to the 5 year sentence. The law states that the mandatory minimum sentence is 5 years. Yet the judge decided to excersize discretion that he did not have in order to give them a shorter sentence.
Something is fishy about that judge.

[Broomstick]

And now for a bit of levity:

[Solauren]

hmmmm....

Isn't it interesting just when the idiots were to report to jail, they pull this?

[Gandalf]

Another in slate's series of articles demonstrating how the US media would cover these events if they happened overseas.

BURNS, United States—An armed rebel group has seized control of a government building in the country’s sparsely populated northwest frontier territories. The ongoing standoff in Oregon state poses a serious challenge to the authority of the government in the capital, Washington, more than 2,000 miles away.

The militant faction, calling itself Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, is affiliated with a family clan known as the Bundys. Political power is often passed down through families in this heavily patriarchal society, and while the Bundys are not yet as powerful as well-known clans like the Bushes, Clintons, and Kochs, they have amassed a sizable arsenal of weaponry and gained a substantial number of loyal followers after another armed confrontation with the central government in 2014.

The Bundys are followers of Mormonism, a religious sect living primarily in America’s restive western regions with a history of persecution by America’s protestant-dominated government. However, scholars note that the vast majority of Mormons are peaceful and that the Bundys’ grievances do not appear to be religiously motivated.

Rather, the latest incident is rooted in a long-running conflict between pastoralist tribal groups and the central government. These tribes believe the traditional way of life they have practiced for centuries is under threat from a government that restricts their right to graze their herds of cattle where they please. While the latest standoff is related to a case involving another pastoralist family, the Hammonds, setting fire to forests owned by the government to acquire more grazing land, it likely reflects large prevailing anxieties among a portion of the citizenry over economic development, political centralization, and globalization. Experts believe conflicts over grazing land may only become more common and intensify thanks to the changing weather patterns caused by climate change.

The events in Oregon suggest that militant factions may be taking advantage of the power vacuum caused by America’s political dysfunction to increase their territorial control in areas where the government’s control is weaker. The U.S. central government has been paralyzed for years by feuding between the center-left Democratic Party, which controls the executive branch, and the center-right Republican Party, which dominates the legislature. The country’s traditional governing elite have also been threatened this year by the rise of oligarch Donald Trump and his ultranationalist, populist campaign for president.

In a bid to demonstrate his continued legitimacy, the country’s embattled President Barack Obama announced new firearms-control measures on Tuesday. The country is currently awash with high-powered weapons, which are designed primarily for military use, but have frequently fallen into the hands of anti-government extremists representing a number of religious and secular ideologies.

However, the president is acting solely on his own limited authority, and without the support of the legislature. With armed groups increasingly challenging his government, it’s unclear whether he still has the power to enforce his edicts.

[Rogue 9]

hmmmm....

Isn't it interesting just when the idiots were to report to jail, they pull this?

The Hammonds, to their credit, explicitly want nothing to do with this bullfuckery. This is the Bundy clan taking another pretext to poke the feds in the eye, nothing more.

[Broomstick]

The Hammonds also reported to jail as required by the courts without incident. They're not happy about it, of course, but they're not engaged in any way with the Malheur bullshit.

[His Divine Shadow]

I was reading up on this whole issue, and it seems to center on these farmers being accused of setting fires on federal land... what are they actually protesting?

They're protesting the notion that the Federal government owns any land at all. They want to continue the great, western tradition of extracting the resources from an area at no cost to the exploiters and damn the consequences.

That's pretty funny thing for these people to protest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e7-7vWWW6Y

[Dominus Atheos]

Someone actually asked the Paiutes what they think of this:

As the media continue spotlighting the armed extremists occupying the federal headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, their complaints about federal government “over-reach,” and their demands that the feds “give the land back,” members of another group say that if there were to be any giveback, they ought to be first in line.

They are the Burns Paiute Tribe, descendants of the people the U.S. Army under Gen. George Crook starved and murdered into submission in the 1860s in a successful effort to confine them to a 1.8 million-acre reservation. This was later reduced to the 1,000 or so acres where the 420-member tribe is now headquartered. The Paiute leaders are profoundly irked by the occupiers’ demands. Amanda Peacher reports:

(Paiute's tribal Chair Charlotte Rodrique) said she told a friend she was offended by the militants’ notion that they could return the refuge lands to their rightful owners.

“I’m sitting here trying to write an acceptance letter for when they return all this land to us,” Rodrique said.

[Flagg]

These assholes still haven't been arrested/ killed? Dollars to donuts if Texas seceded Obama wouldn't do anything about that, either. Spineless worm.

[gizmojumpjet]

These assholes still haven't been arrested/ killed? Dollars to donuts if Texas seceded Obama wouldn't do anything about that, either. Spineless worm.

I know, right? I mean, it truly baffles the mind to see law enforcement fail to take action against these people who are harming precisely no one! Why hasn't law enforcement taken steps which might put lives at risk instead of just playing the waiting game where no lives are at risk? It's FUCKING MADNESS.

Cops, we give you guns why aren't you using them to shoot people?

This country is going to shit.

Thanks, Obama!

[Zaune]

Indeed. For all their macho posturing, these guys are basically just staging a sit-in protest; the only verifiably illegal actions they've taken are trespassing and possibly B&E. There's no evidence they brought any firearms they didn't acquire legally, they're not holding anyone there against their will; have they even tried bagging some deer out of season?

Far as I can tell, the only difference between them and Occupy or Black Lives Matter is they're not ideologically commited to letting the cops kick the shit out of them without fear of retaliation.

[Edi]

Indeed. For all their macho posturing, these guys are basically just staging a sit-in protest; the only verifiably illegal actions they've taken are trespassing and possibly B&E. There's no evidence they brought any firearms they didn't acquire legally, they're not holding anyone there against their will; have they even tried bagging some deer out of season?

Far as I can tell, the only difference between them and Occupy or Black Lives Matter is they're not ideologically commited to letting the cops kick the shit out of them without fear of retaliation.

And therein is a problem: They made what amounted to armed threats against law enforcement. "Nobody will get hurt as long as the law enforcement agencies refrain from enforcing any laws we may be violating, but if someone does, we're willing to shoot" was the gist of the message.

Substitute any situation where a group of black men or other minorities staged a similar demonstration and used similar rhetoric and tell me with a straight face that they would be treated with such kid gloves. Were I you, I wouldn't take that bet. The only group in America that this kind of shit is tolerated from is white conservatives.

[gizmojumpjet]

So are you mad that the police haven't killed these white people or that they kill too many black people?

[Elheru Aran]

have they even tried bagging some deer out of season?

Just a quick note. While a permit or game tag is generally required in whatever county you hunt (usually easily available from local DNR office or can even be bought online), winter is typically deer season in most parts of the US. So it's not really 'out of season'. Don't know what the local ordinance is in that part of Oregon, of course. But I suspect whoever's in charge has directed them to not go shooting off their guns at anything unnecessarily.

[Zaune]

And therein is a problem: They made what amounted to armed threats against law enforcement. "Nobody will get hurt as long as the law enforcement agencies refrain from enforcing any laws we may be violating, but if someone does, we're willing to shoot" was the gist of the message.

Substitute any situation where a group of black men or other minorities staged a similar demonstration and used similar rhetoric and tell me with a straight face that they would be treated with such kid gloves. Were I you, I wouldn't take that bet. The only group in America that this kind of shit is tolerated from is white conservatives.

Actually, I would take that bet. It's not as if middle-class white liberals have been issued issued Get Out Of Being Pepper-Sprayed Free Cards, and in any case, a black civil rights activist or a white liberal with a rifle is no less capable of inflicting police casualties than a white conservative with a rifle.

I am fairly sure the United States has not sunk to such a level that these white conservatives being allowed to have their peaceful sit-in protest is only because they're white conservatives, and the state or federal government is perfectly happy to send police officers to their deaths to shut down peaceful sit-in protests by liberals and/or minorities. The state and federal governments might be overly aggressive and heavy-handed in preserving the status quo, but they're not yet being selective about it. I don't think.

And yes, that's a fine distinction, but it's still an important one. It's as good a metric as any I can think of for the line between being in one of the failure modes for democracy and ceasing to be a democracy at all.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I'm getting the impression people are getting just a little bit pissed that apparently being white and armed to the teeth means you can get away with threatening violence on government officials and ignore the laws you've broken. Their entire game here (supposedly) was they wanted to prevent someone from going to jail.

Honestly, I don't see it as much about race as much as it is about who they're protesting, and the fact they're armed. Tons of lily white Occupy protesters got maced and assaulted by police. Difference being, they were unarmed and protesting the corporate overlords, and that one simply cannot stand. The Bundy group being able to get away with is contributed to by their being white, most likely, as I don't see "just ignore it" happening if they were of an ethnicity that makes people nervous.

That they're being ignored entirely as they do this reinforces the message from the Bundy Ranch: If you're armed (and white), you can threaten the government and ignore the law and they'll probably let you keep doing whatever you want.

People are pissed at the injustice, and when people get angry they don't always demand the rational course of action. I'm inclined to say the main anger is at the killing black people at the drop of a hat, the government and media's quickness to call a Muslim a terrorist but they won't use the t-word for a white motherfucker that shoots a dozen people for political reasons. By his own fucking admission. The calls for slaughtering these "militiamen" are overboard and not productive, but you need to understand people are pissed at the blatantly disparate reaction law enforcement displays at every level when a suspect is white vs when the suspect is black, Hispanic, Muslim...

Oh, and there's the whole "essentially armed insurrection" since these fucks are pretty vocal about not recognizing the federal government's authority.

[Edi]

So are you mad that the police haven't killed these white people or that they kill too many black people?

I refer you to Napoleon the Clown's post.

[His Divine Shadow]

So are you mad that the police haven't killed these white people or that they kill too many black people?

Bit of both?

[Flagg]

So are you mad that the police haven't killed these white people or that they kill too many black people?

I refer you to Napoleon the Clown's post.

This, exactly.

When you can be white and armed to the teeth using women and children as human shields while pointing assault weapons at law enforcement with impunity, but black in a big-box store looking at an air rifle you may want to purchase and be gunned down by the police without repercussion there's a problem. And anyone who thinks differently should be committed.

[Gandalf]

So are you mad that the police haven't killed these white people or that they kill too many black people?

I refer you to Napoleon the Clown's post.

This, exactly.

When you can be white and armed to the teeth using women and children as human shields while pointing assault weapons at law enforcement with impunity, but black in a big-box store looking at an air rifle you may want to purchase and be gunned down by the police without repercussion there's a problem. And anyone who thinks differently should be committed.

On the upside, none of the press covering the event have had rubber bullets and tear gas fired at them.

So that's... progress?

[the atom]

I have to concur with Napoleon the Clown's post. I don't support a massacre, but these assholes should have had, at the very minimum, an armed cordon of National Guard surrounding them a week and a half ago. Instead, they're running around destroying more government property: https://www.rt.com/usa/328572-oregon-fence-bundy-down/

[Gaidin]

Eh. FBI took some form of command fairly early. FBI handles next Waco better. We'll bitch because they're not handling white people like NYPD does black people. Nevermind that they're not commanded by the same people.

Carry on.

[Rogue 9]

have they even tried bagging some deer out of season?

Just a quick note. While a permit or game tag is generally required in whatever county you hunt (usually easily available from local DNR office or can even be bought online), winter is typically deer season in most parts of the US. So it's not really 'out of season'. Don't know what the local ordinance is in that part of Oregon, of course. But I suspect whoever's in charge has directed them to not go shooting off their guns at anything unnecessarily.

There is no big game hunting allowed on the preserve they're occupying, period.