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

[EllieBee]

You're right. Here is what they say they want.


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...tia-standoff-explained-20160103#ixzz3wKeIePNm
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

But I..........(who cares right?) want it to remain a refuge. I wonder what makes them think they get to decide?

Well, see, they got the big guns and are threatening to kill anyone who tries to lawfully intervene. So they win.

 

[LaborDayRN]

and I have varying opinions depending on the specific circumstances. Our family vacation time is basically spent enjoying the federally owned lands in the west. I am a huge supporter of national parks and the forest service. But I have also come to appreciate the issues large federal holdings cause for the local population. It's not something I know a whole lot about given I live in New England but some of these cases have made me more aware of the impact of federal policies on local populations.

I read the background on the Hammond case and, on balance, I do have sympathy for them. They actually have nothing to do with the protest but I do believe the federal government has gone after them out of proportion to their wrongdoing. From what I understand and believe they (1) set a backfire to prevent their own land and buildings from burning (this is common practice by the firefighters-my DH was one in the summers when he was younger) and (2) set another controlled burn to eliminate invasives and fire danger. They were charged with terrorist offenses and yet were only sentenced to under the minimum by the judge who must have also felt the charges were exaggerated. Then the feds appealed and now they each have to serve 5 more years. I feel this is overreach on the part of the feds. Altogether the Hammonds burned about 140 acres of federal land. That is very little. The Hammonds are pretty universally loved and respected as valuable and generous community members. But over the years they have repeatedly clashed with the feds, specifically the BLM.

The BLM is the federal land related agency I know the least about and also the one that tends to generate the most criticism because of their practices. I think this is a reasonable topic of discussion. Just how much land should the federal government be allowed to own in a state and for what purposes? Does the state have a legitimate interest in allowing its citizens to farm, ranch, utilize the land within that state to make a living and keep certain ways of life, such as ranching, alive?

I think the Bundy's are basically nuts and the Hammonds themselves wanted nothing to do with them. But the ridiculous nature of the current "occupation" does not eliminate the fact that there are legitimate issues that probably need to be addressed. I know from personal legal experience that when the federal government wields it's power against a person or entity it is almost impossible to outlast them. They have essentially unlimited resources and they will bring them all to bear.

Couple articles about the actual people behind what was the actual issue:

http://www.thefencepost.com/news/18847695-113/two-members-of-oregons-hammond-family-to-serve

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/04/the-mysterious-fires-that-led-to-the-bundy-clans-oregon-standoff/

And an article from this evening with a short history of federal land issues in Oregon. The federal government owns more than 50% of the land in Oregon.



There is bound to be tension when urban professionals out of Washington own and control most of the land in the west especially when that land has been subjected to ever increasing regulation that means long time ranchers can no longer make a living and when communities of these ranchers can no longer maintain their way of life.

I agree with much of your post. The Hammonds however, don't have to serve 5 more years. They have to complete the original sentence that ALL parties agreed to during the trial. It's the minimum sentence for arson of federally held lands.

 

[pappa rob]

How do they explain this and how many of these militia men are Constitutional Scholars?

I almost choked when I read that, scholars, surely you jest.. :gaah:

 

[IzzyBlanche]

and I have varying opinions depending on the specific circumstances. Our family vacation time is basically spent enjoying the federally owned lands in the west. I am a huge supporter of national parks and the forest service. But I have also come to appreciate the issues large federal holdings cause for the local population. It's not something I know a whole lot about given I live in New England but some of these cases have made me more aware of the impact of federal policies on local populations.

I read the background on the Hammond case and, on balance, I do have sympathy for them. They actually have nothing to do with the protest but I do believe the federal government has gone after them out of proportion to their wrongdoing. From what I understand and believe they (1) set a backfire to prevent their own land and buildings from burning (this is common practice by the firefighters-my DH was one in the summers when he was younger) and (2) set another controlled burn to eliminate invasives and fire danger. They were charged with terrorist offenses and yet were only sentenced to under the minimum by the judge who must have also felt the charges were exaggerated. Then the feds appealed and now they each have to serve 5 more years. I feel this is overreach on the part of the feds. Altogether the Hammonds burned about 140 acres of federal land. That is very little. The Hammonds are pretty universally loved and respected as valuable and generous community members. But over the years they have repeatedly clashed with the feds, specifically the BLM.

The BLM is the federal land related agency I know the least about and also the one that tends to generate the most criticism because of their practices. I think this is a reasonable topic of discussion. Just how much land should the federal government be allowed to own in a state and for what purposes? Does the state have a legitimate interest in allowing its citizens to farm, ranch, utilize the land within that state to make a living and keep certain ways of life, such as ranching, alive?

I think the Bundy's are basically nuts and the Hammonds themselves wanted nothing to do with them. But the ridiculous nature of the current "occupation" does not eliminate the fact that there are legitimate issues that probably need to be addressed. I know from personal legal experience that when the federal government wields it's power against a person or entity it is almost impossible to outlast them. They have essentially unlimited resources and they will bring them all to bear.

Couple articles about the actual people behind what was the actual issue:

http://www.thefencepost.com/news/18847695-113/two-members-of-oregons-hammond-family-to-serve

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/04/the-mysterious-fires-that-led-to-the-bundy-clans-oregon-standoff/

And an article from this evening with a short history of federal land issues in Oregon. The federal government owns more than 50% of the land in Oregon.



There is bound to be tension when urban professionals out of Washington own and control most of the land in the west especially when that land has been subjected to ever increasing regulation that means long time ranchers can no longer make a living and when communities of these ranchers can no longer maintain their way of life.

BBM for focus.
That is the Hammonds' stories.
The legal decision that LaborDayRN helpfully keeps bumping says otherwise.

Just saying. Obviously anyone can choose which side to believe.

 

[Jolynna]

Labor Day RN,

That the Hammond's started the fire is not in dispute. However, as the first judge, Michael Hogan, put it:

Well, the damage was juniper trees and sagebrush, and there might have been a hundred dollars, but it doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t affect the guidelines, and I am not sure how much sagebrush a hundred dollars worth is. But I think this probably will be — I think mother nature’s probably taken care of any injury.
​

Regarding the five-year mandatory minimum for both defendants, Judge Hogan said:

I am not going to apply the mandatory minimum and because, to me, to do so under the Eighth Amendment would result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here.


With regard to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, this sort of conduct could not have been conduct intended under that statute.


When you say, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles where there are houses up those ravines? Might apply. Out in the wilderness here, I don’t think that’s what the Congress intended. And in addition, it just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality. I am not supposed to use the word “fairness” in criminal law. I know that I had a criminal law professor a long time ago yell at me for doing that. And I don’t do that. But this — it would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me.


​

Hogan sentenced the Hammonds to shorter times, three months for Dwight Hammond, the dad, and twelve months and a day for Steven Hammond, which they have served. The Ninth Circuit held that the minimum five-year sentence was not so disproportionate as to violate the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” clause. Now they have been re-sentenced to five years in prison, under the anti-terrorism law passed by Congress.

In my opinion, the second sentence should never have happened. Besides being quasi double-jeopardy, the punishment (in addition to the $400,000 for damages) is excessive for an act of maintenance and stewardship of land adjoining neglected government property.

 

[pappa rob]

They might be afraid of the same thing which is why they are exercising their right to bear arms.

They have the right to own and use weapons. They do not have the right to threaten anyone with that weapon. They're exercising their rights to act like fools. We all have that right, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights.

 

[bluesneakers]

I almost choked when I read that, scholars, surely you jest.. :gaah:

I'm trying to figure out how what they're doing is "in accordance with the Constitution" and what rights they believe have been infringed. They said they have to use their 2nd Amendment rights to defend their 1st Amendment rights, but I've seen no evidence of anyone taking away their 1st (or 2nd) Amendment rights. The obvious conclusion, obviously, is they understand the Constitution and I do not. I'll bet they know it even better than John Roberts does.

 

[Boytwnmom]

them with terrorism. They had to be minimum sentenced because of the feds decision to prosecute under that statute instead of another. That's solely within the prosecutorial discretion of the DOJ. Some of us who've dealt with the feds know this type of charging itself is a form of punishment and a warning. I personally feel this type of use of a terrorism charge is what makes people anti-government. The statute utilized was not intended to deal with the type of issue here. The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) created the five-year mandatory minimum sentences that the Hammonds face for arson on public property. That law sailed through a Republican Congress in the wake of the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

And I also still agree with the Judge that

the sentence is “grossly
disproportionate to the severity of the offenses” and would “shock the conscience

and appreciate his stance even though he knew the feds could go over his head and force the excessive sentence. But he wasn't going to be complicit in the misuse of federal law.

Regarding the Hammonds' sentence.

The crime of which they were convicted carried a MANDATORY 5-year sentence. The judge who gave them less time BROKE that law.

The government appealed the sentence and they were re-sentenced to the mandatory 5 years.

There was no double jeopardy as they weren't found not guilty and then tried again.

It seems to me anyone who thinks the sentence was unnecessarily harsh should work to have the law changed rather than defend its not being enforced, by a judge, no less.

But the Hammonds aren't the issue for the occupiers. They've made that clear, IMO.

 

[Jolynna]

If the case was a clear-cut act of terrorism why did it take the government a decade to realize that the 2001 fire was an act of it?

 

[Jolynna]

them with terrorism. They had to be minimum sentenced because of the feds decision to prosecute under that statute instead of another. That's solely within the prosecutorial discretion of the DOJ. Some of us who've dealt with the feds know this type of charging itself is a form of punishment and a warning. I personally feel this type of use of a terrorism charge is what makes people anti-government. The statute utilized was not intended to deal with the type of issue here. The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) created the five-year mandatory minimum sentences that the Hammonds face for arson on public property. That law sailed through a Republican Congress in the wake of the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

And I also still agree with the Judge that and appreciate his stance even though he knew the feds could go over his head and force the excessive sentence. But he wasn't going to be complicit in the misuse of federal law.

Thank you.

The terrorism law is poorly written and needs to be changed immediately so that over zealous feds can't misuse it again. (imo)

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I'm trying to figure out how what they're doing is "in accordance with the Constitution" and what rights they believe have been infringed. They said they have to use their 2nd Amendment rights to defend their 1st Amendment rights, but I've seen no evidence of anyone taking away their 1st (or 2nd) Amendment rights. The obvious conclusion, obviously, is they understand the Constitution and I do not. I'll bet they know it even better than John Roberts does.

They think the Constitution forbids the government from owning land at all.

Let us go to article IV sec. 3 of the Constitution which states: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States ... This section of the Constitution grants Congress the power to make needful rules and regulations while the land is still a Territory (capital T) and grants Congress the power to dispose of the land. It does not grant unto congress the power to retain the land, only to dispose of it. This means that the federal government does not and never will OWN the land, which is a Territory. They can make the rules while it is a Territory, but they have the obligation, duty and authority to dispose of it. In other words, the people OWN the land and have charged the Federal government to be administrators until it can be disposed of.

Oops, forgot link: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-constitution-of-united-states-on.html

 

[ILOKAL]

They have the right to own and use weapons. They do not have the right to threaten anyone with that weapon. They're exercising their rights to act like fools. We all have that right, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights.

I don't believe they have threatened county, state, or federal LE (the subjects of my post), which was in response to you referring to this group as a "large crowd of idiots with guns". They know all about large crowds of idiots with guns, and they're prepared to stand their ground against them. At this time they are not infringing on anyone else's rights. IMO. Oh, and how does one come to recognize a constitutional scholar? I mean, does it take one to know one?

 

[Boytwnmom]

the other sensationalist "story" appears manufactured by a disaffected and estranged young family member who the feds went after. That story neither makes any sense nor is it consistent with the character of the Hammonds otherwise, which, from all accounts by their neighbors and community members is excellent. If they were willy nilly handing out matches and instructing people to burn indiscriminately much more than 140 acres would have been burned. And they would have endangered and perhaps ruined their own ranch. If it makes no sense I don't tend to believe it. Their actions were consistent with a successful back burn and a targeted burn.

And whatever their actions were I'm pretty darn sure they weren't "terrorism" and I think we should all look askance at the federal government using a "terrorism" charge in such a circumstance.

BBM for focus.
That is the Hammonds' stories.
The legal decision that LaborDayRN helpfully keeps bumping says otherwise.

Just saying. Obviously anyone can choose which side to believe.

 

[Dr. Know?]

You have to take care of the animals, natural vegetation, air, water, roads and the list goes on. You just have to. mop

This happening is just a sticky wicket. I feel for the ranchers but then again, I wouldn't take over public land nor lease it. You'd want to own it & not ***** about your landlord, iykwim? The documents posted clearly show a not so honorable burning took place.

The article explaining the appeal doesn't sound like how the protesters were making it sound. jmo

To be charged and sentenced then sentenced again, doesn't sound right either, but that's law & I've read this particular law for judges & sentencings for another case...

I can only see this topic being a highly disputed topic that will once again let me down with a closed thread...bummer, but life goes on.

My opinion, they don't own the land. If it was intentionally burned, you go to jail. Why or what's of their first sentence came about is a mystery to me. If it sways too far from guidelines, I do know it can be overruled. It was. The Hammonds accepted it. whew

The protesters or whatever anyone wants to call them, they need to pack up and go home. They are on rented fed controlled land, the public own. I say go home & peacefully go home. Don't forget the good camper rules either. Clean up, clean up...

Tomorrow I might say "get the f off my land if you are going to hold anyone, anything hostage in the US, burn it, harm it in anyway", it doesn't fly anymore. Done with it. jmo

 

[IzzyBlanche]

them with terrorism. They had to be minimum sentenced because of the feds decision to prosecute under that statute instead of another. That's solely within the prosecutorial discretion of the DOJ. Some of us who've dealt with the feds know this type of charging itself is a form of punishment and a warning. I personally feel this type of use of a terrorism charge is what makes people anti-government. The statute utilized was not intended to deal with the type of issue here. The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) created the five-year mandatory minimum sentences that the Hammonds face for arson on public property. That law sailed through a Republican Congress in the wake of the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

And I also still agree with the Judge that and appreciate his stance even though he knew the feds could go over his head and force the excessive sentence. But he wasn't going to be complicit in the misuse of federal law.

Is there a lesser charge they could have been charged with? I haven't heard of one, but I don't know.

I don't think any judge should consider himself or herself above the law. Time and again here on websleuths we've seen judges say they wished they could give the convicted a lesser or stricter sentence, but they have to follow the law. I don't think this judge gets a special pass.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I don't believe they have threatened county, state, or federal LE (the subjects of my post), which was in response to you referring to this group as a "large crowd of idiots with guns". They know all about large crowds of idiots with guns, and they're prepared to stand their ground against them. At this time they are not infringing on anyone else's rights. IMO. Oh, and how does one come to recognize a constitutional scholar? I mean, does it take one to know one?

Well, actually they are. They are infringing on the rights of the American people whose rights they care so strongly about to visit the wildlife refuge. They are infringing on the rights of the children who are being kept out of school due to safety concerns.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

It's so interesting. Government land is publicly owned land. It's one thing to protest about how that land is used, but it's another thing entirely to attempt a land grab to use for your own purpose. That has never gone well in history. I'd imagine a lot of Americans don't like the idea of militia groups taking over land owned by the public.

I think even more Americans don't like the idea of the government taking over private land and homes as in eminent domain. jmo

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I think even more Americans don't like the idea of the government taking over private land and homes as in eminent domain. jmo

I agree. Are you stating this in general? If not how does it apply to this case?

 

[ILOKAL]

Well, actually they are. They are infringing on the rights of the American people whose rights they care so strongly about to visit the wildlife refuge. They are infringing on the rights of the children who are being kept out of school due to safety concerns.

Of course, that same "infringement" is why this began in the first place.

 

[EllieBee]

I think even more Americans don't like the idea of the government taking over private land and homes as in eminent domain. jmo

So the Fifth Amendment is rubbish, unlike the First and Second Amendments?
As far as I understand, they are all Constitutionally protected.