Canine
Well-known member
The Bundys are at it again.
Terrorism in Oregon
- Thread starter Canine
- Start date
Help Support Van Living Forum:
LeeRevell
Well-known member
New AG gets to show if she has the stuff of the Waco murderer. Break out the popcorn, folks. Gonna be a show.
"Hammonds case
The Pendleton, Oregon jury found the Hammonds guilty of the arsons in June 2012. Both were charged with igniting a series of fires on lands managed by the BLM.
Hammond Ranches has about 12,000 acres in the Diamond-Frenchglen area. Their livelihood is running cattle during the winter. Two years ago, the ranch used 26,420 acres of land belonging to the BLM for summer grazing.
Supporters of the Hammonds believe they were treated unconstitutionally because the two were convicted of arson under a provision of an expansive federal law punishing terrorism. They both served their prison terms for 2001 and 2006 fires, but were then told by appellate judges they had to go back to prison to serve more.
However, Hammonds said they did not welcome the Bundy group's help, CBS News reported.
"Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family," the Hammonds' lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff David Ward.
Ranchers use fire in eastern Oregon to burn invasive species. However, it is a dangerous practice, as several wildfires in the area have gotten out of hand, scorching hundreds of thousands of acres. "
https://www.rt.com/usa/327762-armed-bundy-militia-oregon-ranchers/
The Pendleton, Oregon jury found the Hammonds guilty of the arsons in June 2012. Both were charged with igniting a series of fires on lands managed by the BLM.
Hammond Ranches has about 12,000 acres in the Diamond-Frenchglen area. Their livelihood is running cattle during the winter. Two years ago, the ranch used 26,420 acres of land belonging to the BLM for summer grazing.
Supporters of the Hammonds believe they were treated unconstitutionally because the two were convicted of arson under a provision of an expansive federal law punishing terrorism. They both served their prison terms for 2001 and 2006 fires, but were then told by appellate judges they had to go back to prison to serve more.
However, Hammonds said they did not welcome the Bundy group's help, CBS News reported.
"Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family," the Hammonds' lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff David Ward.
Ranchers use fire in eastern Oregon to burn invasive species. However, it is a dangerous practice, as several wildfires in the area have gotten out of hand, scorching hundreds of thousands of acres. "
https://www.rt.com/usa/327762-armed-bundy-militia-oregon-ranchers/
heres the story as i know it
2 cattle ranchers,grand father and grandson burn blm land,both get convicted,grandfather 6 months,grandson 2 years,both do their time and get out,now a judge says they need to go back and do 4 more years each,both rancher say the will comply but have strong support,they did the time no need to send a 70 year old to prison for 4 years,then these nut job bundys come in from wherever and take over a building
2 cattle ranchers,grand father and grandson burn blm land,both get convicted,grandfather 6 months,grandson 2 years,both do their time and get out,now a judge says they need to go back and do 4 more years each,both rancher say the will comply but have strong support,they did the time no need to send a 70 year old to prison for 4 years,then these nut job bundys come in from wherever and take over a building
the judge is using a terrorism law to extend their sentences
the ranchers where wrong for setting blm land on fire,convicted,did their time
the feds are wrong for now classifying them as terrorist and issuing them four more years
the bundy group is an out of state group of nut jobs
the ranchers where wrong for setting blm land on fire,convicted,did their time
the feds are wrong for now classifying them as terrorist and issuing them four more years
the bundy group is an out of state group of nut jobs
I wonder how this would go if the whole siege was handled as a non-event. The govt. locks the immediate area down completely, cutting power, land line and cell communication, and preventing any media from partaking in the circus like the Bundys created in NV. Nobody goes in, anybody coming out gets cuffs and a ride to jail. No drama, no violence, no media whoring, a whole bunch of nothing. Might take a while, but it sure would stop the next clown who wants to create a show.
Canine
Well-known member
Westriver,you are making way too much sense.
LeeRevell
Well-known member
This entire media Dog&Pony Show could have been prevented at the source. Not nearly all the facts are being presented by the media whores in the networks.
Optimistic Paranoid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 4,534
- Reaction score
- 10
westriver said:
That might work . . . once. After that, anybody trying to stage such a thing would have "spokesmen" outside the actual area, willing to be interviewed on the network news. And of course, there would be one or more websites, hosted in a foreign country. They would go viral in a hurry as the tinfoil brigade spreads the word about the "truth" the government is trying to "suppress".
What is it they say? "Information wants to be free!"
Regards
John
buckwilk
Well-known member
Terrorism? Hardly. There are three letters that should make those of you here sit up and take notice, BLM. Regardless of where you come down on the side of government in this country, "things they are a changin". Ranchers who have used public land for decades today, you in your van tomorrow.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2010
- Messages
- 7,706
- Reaction score
- 56
We don't insult people here on this forum. You want a forum to insult people, start your own. I've not deleted any yet but there will be zero tolerance starting now.
Bob
Bob
highdesertranger
R.I.P HDR
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2012
- Messages
- 22,892
- Reaction score
- 89
ok first off I DO NOT condone the occupation of the wildlife refuge. but let's get our facts strait. the Hammond's were doing prescribed burns ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY. this is common practice to improve range land and control invasive species. 2 of those burns 1 in 2001 and 1 in 2006 jumped the fire breaks and burned 160 acres of the wildlife refuge. 160 acres was a total from both fires. btw the refuge is 187,000+ acres. so the feds charge these 2 with arson. they went to trail, were found guilty, and sentenced. they went to federal prison, served their sentences and were released. then some other judge who had nothing to do with the original case, comes in and says they should have been charged with terrorism and changed their sentences. this is all after they had already been sentenced, served their time and had been released.
now if we as free Americans are not outraged by this, I don't know what to say.
let me end this by saying this. it's crap like this that is stoking anti-government sediment through out the rural west. it's not any one incident that's fueling this but a culmination of heavy handed government tactics. peace, highdesertranger
now if we as free Americans are not outraged by this, I don't know what to say.
let me end this by saying this. it's crap like this that is stoking anti-government sediment through out the rural west. it's not any one incident that's fueling this but a culmination of heavy handed government tactics. peace, highdesertranger
Canine
Well-known member
HDR,I'll have to respectfully disagree.Th3e way I understand it,the fires were set to destroy evidence of massive poaching.They were arrested,charged and found guilty by a jury of their peers.The reason for having to go back to prison is because the original judge for whatever reason erred in not sentencing them to the minimum required by federal law.Why the Bundys had to stick their nose in it,I don't know.Bob,I realize it's your forum and I respect that.But I have to say I don't see any insults to anyone.
highdesertranger
R.I.P HDR
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2012
- Messages
- 22,892
- Reaction score
- 89
that's the first time I have heard that. I do know people in the area and have been following this story for awhile. I guess they all could be lying. do you have a source of that pouching story you would like to share? highdesertranger
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/a...-u-s-wildlife-reserve-call-for-others-to-join
This version is a little different from what I have read here, but I don't see anything bout poaching.
"Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit the fires on federal land in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires."
This version is a little different from what I have read here, but I don't see anything bout poaching.
"Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit the fires on federal land in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires."
highdesertranger
R.I.P HDR
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2012
- Messages
- 22,892
- Reaction score
- 89
unfortunately since this has become a national story all the previous reporting is now buried deep into the interweb. I just did a quick search and everything thing I find is from the last couple of days. the story line I posted was common knowledge before last weekend. however it's now a muddled mess. I am leaving for RTR early tomorrow morning Monday, when I get there I will try to contact my friends up there and see if I can come up with something tangible. highdesertranger
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...fight_with_feds_spark.html#incart_river_index
This one mentions poaching.
"The first fire came in 2001: a simple prescribed burn, intended to take out invasive juniper, by Steve and Dwight Hammond's account.
But federal prosecutors said the men's real motive for starting the blaze, which consumed 139 acres and forestalled grazing for two seasons, was to cover up evidence of an illegal slaughter of deer. The government presented evidence that Steven Hammond called an emergency dispatcher to ask if it was OK to burn -- roughly two hours after they already lit the fire."
"The government acknowledged that the next fire, in 2006, was intended as a defensive move. Steve Hammond set backfires to keep a lightning-caused fire from burning onto the Hammonds' ranch and hitting their winter feed.
But the government said Steve Hammond lit up on the flanks of a butte, despite a countywide burn ban and the knowledge that young part-time firefighters were camped up higher. Their crew boss spotted the fires, which were set at night, and moved the crew."
This one mentions poaching.
"The first fire came in 2001: a simple prescribed burn, intended to take out invasive juniper, by Steve and Dwight Hammond's account.
But federal prosecutors said the men's real motive for starting the blaze, which consumed 139 acres and forestalled grazing for two seasons, was to cover up evidence of an illegal slaughter of deer. The government presented evidence that Steven Hammond called an emergency dispatcher to ask if it was OK to burn -- roughly two hours after they already lit the fire."
"The government acknowledged that the next fire, in 2006, was intended as a defensive move. Steve Hammond set backfires to keep a lightning-caused fire from burning onto the Hammonds' ranch and hitting their winter feed.
But the government said Steve Hammond lit up on the flanks of a butte, despite a countywide burn ban and the knowledge that young part-time firefighters were camped up higher. Their crew boss spotted the fires, which were set at night, and moved the crew."
i'm in nw oregon which is a completely different world from eastern but all i have heard and seen was about a fire until today when poaching came up but until today all print and t.v. news was about a fire no mention of poaching
