According to that same source, they were not charged at the time, when all the facts were presumably known:
Quote:
In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.
The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff’s office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined that the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.
Five years later, the feds charges them with terrorist acts. There does seem to be the appearance of ill-will towards the Hammonds coming from the feds. See next post..
In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out that the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive towards the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found that the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds..
The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.
Shortly after the sentencing, Capital Press ran a story about the Hammonds. A person who identified as Greg Allum posted three comments on the article, calling the ranchers “clowns” who endangered firefighters and other people in the area while burning valuable rangeland. Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, soon called Capital Press to complain that he had not made those comments and request that they be taken down from the website. Capital Press removed the comments. A search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments revealed it is owned by the BLM’s office in Denver, Colorado. Allum said, he is friends with the Hammonds and was alerted to the comments by neighbors who knew he wouldn’t have written them. “I feel bad for them. They lost a lot and they’re going to lose more,” Allum said of the ranchers. “They’re not terrorists. There’s this hatred in the BLM for them, and I don’t get it,” the retired BLM employee said. Jody Weil, deputy state director for communications at BLM’s Oregon office, indicated to reporters that if one of their agents falsified the comments, they would keep it private and not inform the public.
This is all from the same source, claiming to tell the "whole story." Although I quoted from it at length there's still more there that sounds dubious. I don't know what's true here, but there is definitely more than one side to it.
I wouldn't consider destructive tactics by an aggrandizing federal agency with it's own agenda out of the question, by any means.
0 Replies
boomerang
2
Sun 3 Jan, 2016 10:42 pm
@Lash,
That article only says that Bundy says that's what happened. I haven't seen anything that corroborates his opinion and I've honestly been looking for it.
0 Replies
glitterbag
1
Sun 3 Jan, 2016 10:46 pm
What I don't understand is why these 'sovereign citizens' think they can
exist outside any larger community and enjoy the benefit of our largess. I'm aware that folks like to demonize government of any size, Federal (the big Satan), State (the lesser Satan) City (awful) and County (an affront to the Constitution).
They use taxpayer funded public areas to fed their livestock (big win, I feed my animals but then again I'm not one of the enlightened 'sovereign citizens'. The entire population pays for highways, bridges and county and State roads. These independent tax cheats use the same roads as the rest of us.
Do you suppose these welfare ranchers will spring to build roads, libraries (they won't, they only need the bible) public education (hahahahah, they don't need no stenken education) airports and air traffic controllers (maybe not, they have their god given land) doctors or dentists (well they can always send a signal to Jesus). What about our ground forces, navy or air forces? Probably not, those deadbeats think they can thwart attacks from China, Russia, Korea, Pakistan, India and all the other Nations that have nuclear capabilities.
All I need ' my Lawd', is my bible, my guns and my freaking sovereign status. Do these moochers think they can manage 2.3 billion acres of the County I live in? Who wants to worship these deadbeats because they speak nonsense to power. These thieves are feeding at the public trough, on the money that the rest of provide as a civic duty. In the end, these people are greedy and ungrateful, and spit in the faces of every other citizen in this country.
I don't want another dependent, certainly not one of these entitled opportunists.who think they can live on my dime If this group of assholes want their own country, lets bill them for all of the public funds they plundered and return that money to the 318.9 million taxpayers who have been propping up those 'sovereign individuals' from the very minute of their birth.
0 Replies
boomerang
1
Sun 3 Jan, 2016 10:49 pm
@layman,
Thank you!
0 Replies
layman
-1
Sun 3 Jan, 2016 10:52 pm
This guy sounds like he's willing to die over this issue.
This marine doesn't sound like a kook of any kind. He believes it's his duty to "fight the oppression" and die for this cause, if necessary. You can mock that sentiment, if you want, but he believes it and, unlike the vast majority, is actually willing to take a potentially life-threatening stand for the principles he believes in.
Agree with him or not, I think you have to respect him.
This marine doesn't sound like a kook of any kind. He believes it's his duty to "fight the oppression" and die for this cause, if necessary. You can mock that sentiment, if you want, but he believes it and, unlike the vast majority, is actually willing to take a potentially life-threatening stand for the principles he believes in.
Agree with him or not, I think you have to respect him.
That thinking also apply to ISIS and all other middle east terrorists so no I do not respect him for being willing to throw his life away and perhaps take others with him for nonsensible reasons.
That thinking also apply to ISIS and all other middle east terrorists so no I do not respect him for being willing to throw his life away and perhaps take others with him for nonsensible reasons.
You can't equate the two. This guy isn't trying to blow himself up or just go out and kill innocent people. He's not "looking for trouble," in that sense.
This marine doesn't sound like a kook of any kind. He believes it's his duty to "fight the oppression" and die for this cause, if necessary. You can mock that sentiment, if you want, but he believes it and, unlike the vast majority, is actually willing to take a potentially life-threatening stand for the principles he believes in.
Agree with him or not, I think you have to respect him.
That thinking also apply to ISIS and all other middle east terrorists so no I do not respect him for being willing to throw his life away and perhaps take others with him for nonsensible reasons.
Bill, this might be one of the few times we are in agreement.
0 Replies
layman
0
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 12:57 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
That thinking also apply to ISIS and all other middle east terrorists so no I do not respect him for being willing to throw his life away and perhaps take others with him for nonsensible reasons.
"That kind of thinking" applies to every soldier or patriot who is willing to die for "freedom" or "the good of his country," or "the prosperity of his children," etc. You are free to call that "nonsensible" all you want, but this guy thinks it's an issue worth fighting for.
I'm not sure what these guys really hope to accomplish--whether it's to call attention to their grievances, or what, exactly. Whatever, they are doing more than making facebook statements of "support" for these ranchers, and others, who think they have legitimate bitches about the use/abuse of federal power. They are putting themselves on the line for their principles.
If the Government ever makes Muslims carry ID cards or shuts down mosques, I will have no choice but to take up arms against my government. (Montel Williams 11-20-15)
Quote:
I'm calling on Govt to end terrorist siege perpetrated by a bunch of hillbilly American Taliban....Put this down using National Guard with shoot to kill orders...Totally fine with a massive use of deadly force in Oregon to take out Ammon Bundy...(Montel Williams 1-3-16)
Anyone surprised that left-wingers want to shoot to kill trespassers (Oops, I meant to say "terrorists," of course) who are "hillbillies," and shoot up government officials for monitoring muslims? The left wing cheered on union protesters who took over the capitol building in Wisconsin a few years back. They weren't rednecks, though. They were brave freedom fighters righteously resisting a tyrannical government.
People prepared to shoot the law in Oregon, the same as unarmed protesters?
0 Replies
Lash
1
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 06:10 am
@layman,
I should say now that this is the primary reason I'm attempting to mitigate perspective on this thread. These people are virulently unpopular. What they are doing lends to criticism, and some of their views are deplorable. Not a popular bunch.
Ranchers have rifles. Lifestyles among ranchers and country-folk call for rifles. It's legal. You can bet your ass the BLM has them. I think the liberal base now feels righteous in the immediate condemnation of anyone who has a firearm.
I don't support everything they've done and said, but the wider story should be heard. The BLM isn't innocent in this issue - and hatred of these guys due to beliefs and lifestyles seems hypocritical compared to the liberal railing here for the rights of divergent lifestyles and beliefs.
Anyway, I consider this to be an accident waiting to happen. The rhetoric is escalating. I think this is a desperate attempt to save their lifestyle.
No he just looking to get into an arm conflict with federal agents who one are not all males and two have families and wives and husbands and children and even grandchildren.
In other word he is looking to be a killer and for non-sensible reasons and no I do not respect him or anyone like him.
How ya figure that, eh, Bill? They all say they aint lookin for no trouble and want to remain peaceful. The guy is willing to defend himself, but that don't mean he's out to kill somebody, eh?
