moonbattery logo

Jan 05 2016

The Real Story Behind the Oregon Ranchers

In case media leftists have managed to create confusion as to who are the bad guys regarding the events that led to the occupation at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, readers are referred to a local account of the conflict from last fall, before outrage boiled over:

The latest scene involved two ranchers being sentenced to five years in federal prison for inadvertently burning about 140 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rangeland in two separate fires. That is an area big enough to feed about three cow-calf pairs for a year in that neck of the woods. …

Dwight Hammond, 73 and son Steven Hamond, 46, admitted in a 2012 court case to lighting two different fires. Both fires started on Hammonds’ private property.

The first fire was a planned burn to get invasive juniper trees under control. No BLM assistance was required to put it out. They had permission to start the fire.

The second was a defensive backfire, intended to protect their property from lightning fires, which are much more devastating now that there are few prescribed burns thanks to pressure from environmental extremists, due to brush building up. The BLM claims the backfire burned 1 acre of federal land, although it could have been the lightning that burned that acre.

The ranchers are paying the BLM $400,000 to cover the costs of fighting the fires. In addition,

The two men were sentenced to prison in 2012. Steven served eleven months and Dwight three. …

In order to draw the original court case to a close, the two men, in a plea deal, agreed that they would not appeal the 2012 sentence.

The Department of Justice news release said arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. Judge Michael Hogan, however, did not give the two men the minimum sentence called for under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, saying it would have been “grossly disproportionate” to the crime. He added that a longer sentence would not meet any idea he has of justice and that he didn’t believe congress intended that act to be applied in cases like the Hammond one. A longer sentence than the few months he gave them would “shock his conscience” he said.

The Department of Justice appealed for a full sentence.

Shocked consciences are not a problem at Obama’s Injustice Department.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to a review of the case and District Chief Judge Ann Aiken went ahead with a full sentence – five years in federal prison for both men, minus time already spent.

Obviously this decision was not reached in the interest of justice. Planned fires spilling over onto federal land are hardly unusual, but rarely result in arson prosecutions, much less terrorism charges. To find the government’s motive, we need to go back a little further:

In an effort to stave off what they feared was a pending Clinton/Babbitt monument designation in 2000, a group of ranchers on the scenic Steens Mountain worked with Oregon Representative Greg Walden, a Republican, to draft and enact the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act that would prevent such a deed. The ranchers agreed to work with special interest “environmental” groups like the aggressive Oregon Natural Desert Association and others to protect the higher-than 10,000-foot peak.

A number of ranchers at the top of the mountain traded their BLM permits and private property for land on the valley floor, allowing Congress to create a 170,000 acre wilderness in 2000, with almost 100,000 acres being “cow-free.”

“The last holdouts on that cow-free wilderness are the Hammonds,” said Maupin. Though some still have BLM grazing permits, the Hammonds are the last private landowners in the area.

Private landowners are anathema to the Marxists in Washington. Only when all land is owned by faceless bureaurats in the Debt Star can all ranchland be incrementally reduced to “cow-free wilderness.” Then the cows will stop causing imaginary global warming with their flatulence, people will munch arugula like Obama instead of eating meat, and everyone can live happily ever after.

If only this story were a 1950s Western. It would end with the Hammonds gunning it out with the land-grabbing scoundrels at high noon. Then everyone really would live happily ever after.

The tale boils down to local resistance to federal tyranny. It is no surprise that the media backs up the tyrants by referring to their victims as “terrorists” and “arsonists.” Hitler had his SS; the soft tyrant Obama has the media. Unfortunately, the protesters at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge have played right into the enemy’s hands. But it isn’t hard to see why they have had enough.

who-owns-the-west
There isn’t much land in the West the Feds don’t already own.

On a tip from Guest.



35 Responses to “The Real Story Behind the Oregon Ranchers”

  1. Saxon Warrior says:

    The missing amendment to the U.S. constitution:

    ‘The total amount of land that government should be allowed to own will be capped at a maximum of x% of the total land area of the nation.’

    I’ll leave you to decided what ‘x’ should be. If the Founding Fathers had the foresight to introduce this, the tentacles of government would have never been allowed to grow so big!

  2. Saxon Warrior says:

    The missing amendment to the U.S. constitution:

    ‘The total amount of land that government should be allowed to own will be capped at a maximum of x% of the total land area of the nation.’

    I’ll leave you to decided what ‘x’ should be. If the Founding Fathers had the foresight to introduce this, the tentacles of government would have never been allowed to grow so big!

  3. trapper2013 says:

    I disagree only in the respect that the constitution does limit federal land to military installations, forts, batteries,docks. They went right past that at warp speed!

  4. trapper2013 says:

    I disagree only in the respect that the constitution does limit federal land to military installations, forts, batteries,docks. They went right past that at warp speed!

  5. Saxon Warrior says:

    It’s easy to claim any land for military use, even a National Park could be used for such purposes, so a percentage cap would have been less likely to have spawned loopholes.

  6. Saxon Warrior says:

    It’s easy to claim any land for military use, even a National Park could be used for such purposes, so a percentage cap would have been less likely to have spawned loopholes.

  7. Jack Fisher says:

    “The latest scene involved two ranchers being sentenced to five years in federal prison for inadvertently burning about 140 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rangeland in two separate fires.”

    a jury of their peers determined it was arson. end of debate.

  8. Jack Fisher says:

    “The latest scene involved two ranchers being sentenced to five years in federal prison for inadvertently burning about 140 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rangeland in two separate fires.”

    a jury of their peers determined it was arson. end of debate.

    this is from the Ninth Circuit opinion

    http://www.landrights.org/or/Hammond/Hammonds%20Appeal%209th%20district%20court.pdf

    In August 2006, a lightning storm kindled several fires
    near where the Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven
    responded by attempting back burns near the boundary of his
    land. Although a burn ban was in effect, Steven did not seek
    a waiver. His fires burned about an acre of public land.
    The government ultimately prosecuted the Hammonds on
    charges related to these and other fires. After trial, the jury
    deliberated several hours and returned a partial verdict. The
    jury convicted Steven of two counts and Dwight of one count
    of maliciously damaging the real property of the United
    States by fire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1), based on
    their respective roles in the September 2001 and August 2006
    fires. The jury also acquitted the Hammonds of some charges
    and failed to reach a verdict on others, including conspiracy
    charges brought against Steven and Dwight. The judge then
    instructed the jury to continue deliberating.
    While the jury deliberated on the remaining charges, the
    parties reached an oral agreement and presented it to the
    court. 1
    The government told the court that the Hammonds had
    agreed to “waive their appeal rights” — except with respect
    to ineffective assistance of counsel claims — “and accept the
    verdicts as they’ve been returned thus far by the jury.” In
    return, the government promised to “recommend” that
    Steven’s sentences run concurrently and agreed that the
    Hammonds “should remain released pending the court’s
    sentencing decision.”

    The Hammonds agreed with the government’s summary
    of the plea agreement. Their attorneys also added that the
    Hammonds wanted the “case to be over” and hoped to “bring
    th[e] matter to a close.” According to the defense, the “idea”
    of the plea agreement was that the case would “be done with
    at the sentencing” and that the “parties would accept . . . the
    sentence that’s imposed.” The district court then accepted the
    plea agreement and dismissed the remaining charges.

    ———-
    footnote 1:

    Although the Hammonds did not enter guilty pleas, the Hammonds
    agreed not to contest the jury verdicts in exchange for the government
    moving to dismiss other charges. The resulting posture is the same as that
    following a plea agreement. We thus will refer to the oral agreement here
    as a plea agreement and apply to it the law governing plea agreements.

  9. Rotohammer says:

    So in the future, when a government-initiated “controlled” burn gets out of hand, and firefighters have to go to expense and risk to contain it, those who started the burn need to serve a minimum of five years prison time.

  10. Rotohammer says:

    So in the future, when a government-initiated “controlled” burn gets out of hand, and firefighters have to go to expense and risk to contain it, those who started the burn need to serve a minimum of five years prison time.

  11. Rotohammer says:

    Note to self: when signing a plea agreement where I can’t appeal, make sure the prosecution can’t appeal either.

  12. Rotohammer says:

    Note to self: when signing a plea agreement where I can’t appeal, make sure the prosecution can’t appeal either.

  13. Rotohammer says:

    In the Hammonds’ plea agreement in the 2012 trial, the BLM obtained the
    first right of refusal should the family have to sell their private
    land…

    Gosh, can’t think of any reason why the Hammonds might have to sell their land. They only had to pony up $400,000 in fine and will be unable to work their land while in prison.

  14. Rotohammer says:

    In the Hammonds’ plea agreement in the 2012 trial, the BLM obtained the
    first right of refusal should the family have to sell their private
    land…

    Gosh, can’t think of any reason why the Hammonds might have to sell their land. They only had to pony up $400,000 in fine and will be unable to work their land while in prison.

  15. Bully says:

    Why should the Federal Government own any land above what’s spelled out in the constitution? That right of ownership should only belong to the King. Say what?

  16. Bully says:

    Why should the Federal Government own any land above what’s spelled out in the constitution? That right of ownership should only belong to the King. Say what?

  17. Ralph Cramden says:

    Phuque the government!! When the government fears its citizens that government is an honest one!

    Also, *NEVER* ever *NOT* want to do jury duty!! If it was you being persecuted by corrupt government officials, you’d want every *decent* person you could get on that jury.

    Before you even ever get to any jury duty, learn about Jury Nullification!! The judge(s) and persecutors will *NEVER* tell you about it because they hate not being able to control you!

    Fully Informed Jury Association http://fija.org/

  18. Ralph Cramden says:

    Phuque the government!! When the government fears its citizens that government is an honest one!

    Also, *NEVER* ever *NOT* want to do jury duty!! If it was you being persecuted by corrupt government officials, you’d want every *decent* person you could get on that jury.

    Before you even ever get to any jury duty, learn about Jury Nullification!! The judge(s) and persecutors will *NEVER* tell you about it because they hate not being able to control you!

    Fully Informed Jury Association http://fija.org/

  19. katya kakhov says:

    Those guys got fucked and fucked and FUCKED , and when that wasnt enough they fucked them some more https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1JzuQf4DMU

  20. katya kakhov says:

    Those guys got fucked and fucked and FUCKED , and when that wasnt enough they fucked them some more https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1JzuQf4DMU

  21. Rachel Coombs says:

    ❝my neighbor’s stride mother is making 98$ HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    qn.
    ➤➤
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

  22. Robert17 says:

    Sooooooo, I guess we can expect 5-year sentences and $400,000 fines for the EPA folks turning the Animas River yellow?

  23. Robert17 says:

    Sooooooo, I guess we can expect 5-year sentences and $400,000 fines for the EPA folks turning the Animas River yellow?

  24. Nobama says:

    You mean arson, as in “Let’s burn this motherf*cker down” arson in Ferguson? Did anyone go to prison for that? Was anyone even arrested?

    #BlackPrivilege

  25. Come&TakeIt says:

    You mean arson, as in “Let’s burn this motherf*cker down” arson in Ferguson? Did anyone go to prison for that? Was anyone even arrested?

    #BlackPrivilege

  26. Jack Fisher says:

    you don’t like juries? its a free country, you don’t have to like the constitution.

  27. Jack Fisher says:

    you don’t like juries? its a free country, you don’t have to like the constitution.

  28. Nobama says:

    No. What I don’t like is the law being applied differently to some.

  29. Come&TakeIt says:

    No. What I don’t like is the law being applied differently to some.

  30. Jack Fisher says:

    it was the jury’s call, right?

  31. Jack Fisher says:

    it was the jury’s call, right?

  32. Nobama says:

    Irrelevant to my point.

  33. Come&TakeIt says:

    Irrelevant to my point.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy