Terrorism in Oregon

[highdesertranger]

again a recent story, 12/31/15. do a dare say which way the Oregonian bias their stories? highdesertranger

 

[BC Guy]

Oct. 7, 2015
http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/e...convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison
Five Years in Prison

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.

June 13, 2012
http://www.opb.org/news/article/hammond_witness_describes_setting_fire_in_2001/
Nearly 11 years after the fact, Dusty Hammond recalled for a jury Wednesday in a U.S. District Court how he stumbled through juniper and sagebrush to escape a fire bearing down on him, a fire he helped set.
Hammond, 24, softspoken and clean cut, explained how his first-ever deer hunt near Frenchglen turned to arson after his uncle Steve Hammond passed out boxes of strike-anywhere matches to the four-man hunting party.
“Light the whole countryside on fire,” Dusty said his uncle told him. “I started lighting matches.”
Afterwards, he said, over lunch his grandfather and uncle instructed him to “keep my mouth shut; nobody needed to know anything about the fire.”
Steve Hammond and his father, Dwight L. Hammond Jr., are on trial in Pendleton on nine counts, including conspiracy and setting fire to public grazing lands in Harney County between 2001 and 2006. A superseding indictment May 16 alleges the father and son ranchers illegally burned public rangelands, a practice used to reduce juniper growth and improve grazing areas. The indictment also alleges a fire the pair started in 2006 threatened to trap four BLM firefighters, one of whom confronted Dwight Hammond at the fire scene.

 

[Canine]

There is no militia that went into that Federal building. It is a group of people unrelated to the militia. If the militia felt this was something they needed to be involved in, they would be there, but this isn't the case.

As best as I can tell, Hammond does not support the people that took over the building. The people in there are doing something, but I'm not able to figure out what the real reason is. The media reports are a mess.

But the world is full of people who make poor judgments. Those people have trespassed; that is an extremely minor crime. Let them have their say and the whole thing will peter out like westriver said. Would be easy to escalate that situation that's for sure.

The organizers/leaders probably should get more than a slap on the wrist if they aren't in there for a good reason. I'm having some doubts on them having a good reason.

 

[gadgetMe]

This seems  to be the most reasonable background info I can find

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternativ...-persecution-video-and-much-more-3270328.html

 

[highdesertranger]

well what can I say, I guess the people I know in the area were all lying about the whole thing. never knew these people to tell lies like that before but I guess there is a first time for everything. after all if our government says is true, it must be. highdesertranger

 

[Kevin H]

I'm not a lawyer nor am I very educated in these things but aren't they protected under the Double Jeopardy laws? They were accused, found guilty, sentenced and served their time. If they are charged or incarcerated again on for the same crimes isn't that Double Jeopardy? Where is the State Supreme Court in all this?

Can someone explain how they could be considered terrorists? "The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R.)

Arsonists? - Yup. Poachers? - Yup. But Terrorists - I don't see it.

 

[Canine]

well what can I say,  I guess the people I know in the area were all lying about the whole thing.  never knew these people to tell lies like that before but I guess there is a first time for everything.  after all if our government says is true,  it must be.  highdesertranger

You know how gossip works. People feed off each other and the story gets bigger and bigger. I've seen the most professional and respected of people escalate situations into something that vaguely resembled what really happened. If you have insiders that can give you first hand information, that would be great! I am really curious what is truly happening. Lots of us here respect what you say and like to hear from you.

 

[Canine]

I'm not a lawyer nor am I very educated in these things but aren't they protected under the Double Jeopardy laws?

Double Jeopardy is a weird thing. A person can be wrongly convicted of murder, spend 20 years in jail, finally prove their innocence, but find themselves back in jail for a new crime such as conspiring to commit murder.

I had a Double Jeopardy case where I sued a judge. She dropped the case. Woohoo!

I think if a person is found innocent of State crimes, the Feds can try the same person for the exact same crime, but at the Federal level.

A person can be found innocent of a DUI, but can be convicted of DUI per se. Definitely some areas a layman would consider grey areas.

 

[Kevin H]

Canine, I see what you are saying but the clincher in your example is that the person could be convicted of a different crime committed in the original act. My understanding on this is that a judge determined that the original sentence was inadequate and ordered him back to prison on the same charge and conviction. I am not aware of any new charge, trial or conviction.

 

[buckwilk]

My comments must be approved by a moderator before being posted so if you are reading this it probably isn't going to hurt you. hdr, you and I have lived our life in the southwest dealing, on one level or another, with government. In my instance in a rural setting, most likely you also. Folks who are not from a rural setting may not understand how intrusive government can be. They may not understand the arrogance of government leo's and their complete ignorance of the laws ranchers have worked with for decades that are being usurped randomly. The political leanings of government have no true. Those of you who get your "news" from regular sources are being duped. The interesting aspect is you will be next, if you expect to live part of your life on public land. What is going on in Oregon is the tip. Your decision is what part of government do you trust ? The other question you must ask yourself is why would you trust a government at all.

 

[highdesertranger]

like I said I will try to make contact with them next week. what about what Kevin posted. that was the original intent of my first post. how can you be tried, convicted, served your time, then some other judge says it's not enough you need to go back and serve more time. were does that leave us. so you get a ticket, pay it, then 3 years later they come back and say you owe more money. were does it stop. is this a precedent we as Americans want. that was my feeling on my first post. so how do you all feel on this? at any time they can come and say, you know what that ticket you got 10 years ago and you paid was not enough you owe us more. is this what we have come to? highdesertranger

 

[Gary68]

thats story #1

story #2 is the bundy group just showing up from out of state and taking control of a building and it looks like they are the extreme right militia type and could be well armed and set up for the long hall

but we had a couple inches of snow so thats where the local media is

 

[WriterMs]

I had not been following this story.. not really following national news at all for the last couple of weeks. But I'll throw my "thoughts" in about what I've read here:

1. HDR... To bring up the reports from the time of the trial, you might try a Google search and include the word "poach" among the other keywords. You can also scan results quickly by looking for the date of each search result entry. OH..and when you do the search, you can then pull down "Search Tools" in the Google header area. One option lets you choose a date range for your results.

2. The cumulative effect mentioned wherein people or a group feel there is a pattern of heavy-handedness -- this can definitely affect what "facts" your friends may have deemed as true. If you already believe it must be the government's fault, you tend to dismiss any information that would challenge what you already believe. We all come with that mindset of making new info agree with "old info." So your friends do not have to be "lying" about the facts -- they may have dismissed some of the story as untrue OR.. maybe, even though they live there, they really do not KNOW all the facts?

2a. (LOL) I lived 10 years in Montana. One of my best friends up there is from a ranch family and has family actively running their large ranch. So the rancher comes home from a monthly lunch with other area ranchers. Some guy at the lunch had brought a handful of "official government forms" and told the group that there was going to be a tax on home gardens on the 2015 1040s. All the ranchers were up in arms. My good friend heard all this from her sibling who had "seen the official forms and documents." Nothing I could say would make her believe that this "home garden tax" was not real. She and her relatives "wanted" to believe this was true. I know this borders on political, but I tell this story as an example of me personally witnessing an existing perception coloring the "facts."

3. My gut would lean toward the poacher stuff being real mainly because the original conviction would have required LOCAL folks to be convinced that something more than range management had occurred.

4. A question -- just how would this Bundy group see any outcome that would be a good ending for them?

 

[Kevin H]

Bob - Thanks for your tolerance on this topic.

on edit: I don't see a connection between the Bundy Occupation and the Hammonds conviction, other than Bundy's taking advantage of the demonstration and the Hammonds issue to initiate the occupation and gain media attention. I know the media has tried to make one but I don't see it. I am scared we may be looking at the beginning of another Waco event. Pray it does not go that way....

 

[Canine]

were does that leave us.  so you get a ticket,  pay it,  then 3 years later they come back and say you owe more money.

That happened to me. I was issued a ticket that really shouldn't have been written. Went to court, pled guilty, paid the fine, then had to go back to court for the exact same thing. I wanted to spank that judge hard, but took the easy way out. (Later I tried to get her opponent elected the following election, but didn't succeed. There's always next election. This $85 ticket has cost me thousands of dollars so far.) Since one can never know if you will be found guilty or not until the actual end of all the expensive court hearings and appeals, I settled for a dismissal and return of court fees and fines as I didn't want a gun crime on my record to be used against me in the future. Sometimes when a person does something, it isn't a crime until years later and that crime can be applied retroactively and used against them.

I wouldn't be surprised a particle if the Feds were over reaching yet again, but I'd really like to see the correct facts about the "militia" in the building.

 

[LeeRevell]

The "Bundy Thing" is a misconception, likely created by the Drive By Media.  The Hammonds are very vociferous about NOT taking any support or having any connection with the Bundys.  That is a total nonissue.
The "Militia" thing, too, is a media fabrication.  Sensationalism sells, and this is all SOP for the big media.  They are chumming the waters.
A bigger issue is concerning The Peoples' right to use of public lands.  Though this case does seem to include criminal wrong doing on the Hammonds' part, it still shows the high handedness of the BLM in dealing with it.   This case cannot help but become political - that is the whole essence of it.  Might be better if this thread were dropped.  We have two opposing viewpoints here, and tempers will flare.

 

[Canine]

That is just somebody's blog and bears little relation to the facts.The facts are a judge tried to play favorites and give them a slap on the wrist.Laws and punishment should be for all equally.If these people were black or muslim,you would be hearing just the opposite from some folks.I think this is a good discussion and so far everyone has expressed their viewpoint without undue rancor.I think I'll leave now,before things degenerate.Hope everyone has a good day.

 

[ccbreder]

The Bundys want to use public land to profit their cattle ranch, but not pay anything to the public for the use. Remember, We are the public.

 

[johnny b]

Federal judge was 9th Circuit Court, San Fran....'nough said!  

 

[gcal]

Westriver,you are making way too much sense.

(Shrug) This is Oregon, people. It is chilly at night. Cut off the water and electric. Don't let anyone else in with supplies. Keep the media away. Impound their vehicles for illegal parking and let them figure out how to get home as they straggle out.