OR - Militia members occupy federal building in Oregon after protest #1

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just saw this in my Facebook feed and immediately checked here for a thread.

Oregon ranchers reject Cliven Bundy family occupation

BURNS, Ore. - A group of angry anti-government protesters have occupied a building at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon in what they say is an act of solidarity for a pair of ranchers facing jail time for burning government land.

However, the Hammond family, the Oregon ranchers at the center of the dispute, say they don't want them there, reports CBS affiliate KOIN in Portland, Ore.

eta reading comprehension fail.
 
(CNN)Armed anti-government protesters have taken over a building in a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, accusing officials of unfairly punishing ranchers who refused to sell their land.

One them is Ammon Bundy, the 40-year-old son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who is well-known for anti-government action.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/

Among the occupiers are several members of the Bundy family, whose patriarch — Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy — was involved in an armed standoff with government agents over grazing rights in 2014.

[...]


“The Refuge represents a crucial stop along the Pacific Flyway and offers resting, breeding, and nesting habitat for hundreds of migratory birds and other wildlife,” a statement on the site says. “Many of the species migrating through or breeding here are highlighted as priority species in national bird conservation plans.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-take-over-federal-building-in-rural-oregon/
 
At least one person could be seen in video footage with a gun, but it was unclear what kind of weapons the protesters had, or if they were part of any larger organization — although local residents were visibly worried and had even posted signs saying "Militia go home."

"It's sort of frightening when there are people making threats and people toting guns," Burns resident Kainan Jordan told KTVZ. "We're not used to this kind of thing here."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...cupy-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-n489311


 
They use the land for free . Such entitlement for them to graze their cattle while other ranchers have to pay for feed. Pathetic .

And protesting an arson charge. Yup. Arson is no issue. So if people die . No biggie to them
 
Thanks for making a thread on this.
 
Update at 9:15 p.m.: Statement from Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward: "After the peaceful rally was completed today, a group of outside militants drove to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they seized and occupied the refuge headquarters. A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation."

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html
 
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.

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 tried to remove them, they said.

"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."

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html
 
They use the land for free . Such entitlement for them to graze their cattle while other ranchers have to pay for feed. Pathetic .

And protesting an arson charge. Yup. Arson is no issue. So if people die . No biggie to them

I don't believe you understand the arson event and they purchase those allotments to graze public land. They have been encroached upon by the Government reneging on the purchases.

The arson was a grass fire that got into "public" lands from their land and they served their sentence. then a Judge decided they didn't serve enough years ago and ordered them back to jail for more sentencing.
 
The ranchers: The case of Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son Steven brought Ammon Bundy and his supporters to Burns.The two men scheduled to report to federal prison on Monday after they were convicted in 2012 of arson. They set public land on fire near their ranch south of Burns. The occupiers are demanding they not be imprisoned. The Hammonds have had several run-ins with the government, including a 1994 episode involving the refuge. The Hammonds got into a dispute over access to water for their cattle after refuge officials began fencing off part of the refuge. Dwight Hammond was arrested in connection with the episode but was never prosecuted.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...cart_most-read_pacific-northwest-news_article
 
MSM rarely covers things here that have the word ' militia ' in them. When it ends, you 'll see why .

I don't watch TV, but it was trending on Facebook and a lot of news articles come up. Including the CBC, which seems weird. And the whole thing is scary. JMO

How do you think it's going to end?
 
Just a small bit of the decision:

The September 2001 fire. On September 30,
2001, petitioners led an unauthorized hunting expedition
on federal land and illegally shot several deer.
C.A. E.R. 77, 82, 87-89, 92-96, 239-240. A BLM district
manager, who was lawfully hunting in the same
area, ran into and spoke with Dwight at about 8 a.m.;
witnessed the shooting of several deer about 30 to 45
minutes later; and then briefly saw Steven at the
scene before Steven ducked into the brush to hide. Id.
at 50-51, 79, 92-94, 96-97. As the district manager
drove away in his truck with his companions, they saw
a group of four men behind them carrying rifles. Id.
at 95. The district manager told his companions that
he was “very uncomfortable with the situation, and
[they] needed to leave,” which they did. Id. at 95-96.
After the district manager departed, Steven handed
out boxes of matches and stated that “we [a]re
going to light up the whole country on fire.” C.A. E.R.
202-203; see Pet. App. 3; see also C.A. E.R. 97-99
(sequence of events). Steven gave one of the boxes of
matches to his then 13-year-old nephew, Dusty Hammond,
and instructed the boy to walk in the direction
along the fence line and to drop the lit matches “until
[he] r[a]n out.” C.A. E.R. 204-205, 207. Dusty complied,
dropping lit matches to the grass along the
fence line separating petitioners’ land from federal
land.

http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...02/12/hammond-cert2-br_in_opp-osg_aay_v2b.pdf
 
Appealing the minimum sentence for their setting fire to federal property convictions was denied? I think I understand that part but what is the second part about their agreement not to appeal?

Great find, btw! Thanks.

hahaha, I haven't finished reading the whole thing yet.
 
"Prosecutors said the Hammonds set a fire that burned about 130 acres in 2001, to cover up poaching. They were sentenced to five years in prison."...
..."The Hammonds, who are set to turn themselves in Monday afternoon, have said they set the fire to reduce the growth of invasive plants and to protect their property from wildfires, CNN affiliate KTVZ reported."
[video=cnn;us/2016/01/03/oregon-armed-protesters-occupy-federal-land-sandoval-dnt.cnn]http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/index.html[/video]

Trying to figure out the crux of the argument.
 
While the jury continued deliberating, the parties
reached an agreement that they presented orally to
the district court. Petitioners agreed to “waive their
appeal rights and accept the verdicts as they’ve been
returned thus far by the jury.” C.A. E.R. 1268; see
Pet. App. 4. In exchange, the government would accept
the partial verdict and agreed to recommend that
(1) petitioners “remain released pending” sentencing
and (2) Steven’s sentences run concurrently. C.A.
E.R. 1268.
The government specifically advised petitioners
that the mandatory minimum sentence for
their Section 844(f)(1) offenses was five years of imprisonment.
Id. at 1271.
The district court accepted
petitioners’ waiver of their appeal rights and dismissed
the remaining counts of the indictment that
were not resolved by the partial verdict. Id. at 1270.
b. Over the government’s objection, the district
court held an expedited sentencing hearing (C.A. E.R.
1-33) without waiting for petitioners’ Presentence
Reports to be prepared. Id. at 20; see id. at 18; Pet.
App. 13. The district court accepted petitioners’ argument
that imposing the five-year statutory minimum
sentence would constitute cruel and unusual
punishment violating the Eighth Amendment and sentenced
Dwight to three months and Steven to one year
and one day of imprisonment. Pet. App. 16-20.

http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...02/12/hammond-cert2-br_in_opp-osg_aay_v2b.pdf

So as I read it, the parties agreed to a minimum 5 year sentence but the district court judge passed down a sentence of much less time. That's what caused the government to appeal the decision. There's a lot more information in the decision.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
71
Guests online
2,680
Total visitors
2,751

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,914
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top