White Militiamen Are Trying to Provoke a War with the Federal Government Again

[smilesammich 10,727]

let's just hope no cvs stores are harmed, if in fact patriots are tread upon...

https://youtu.be/9m2UpdOxmp0

You can see Ritzheimer in the above video in which he calls upon “patriots” to meet for a January 2nd “convoy” in Burns, Oregon. They are almost always heavily armed, and stated a willingness to kill during the Bundy conflict. In a letter to the public penned last month, the Bundy family warns the federal government to stay away from the Hammonds:

We warn federal agencies, federal judges and all government officials that follow federal oppressive examples that the people are in unrest because of these types of actions. The purpose of government is to protect the unalienable rights of the people, not to take them away. It is the duty of the people to defend their God given rights if government fails to do so or turns to devour them. Good, civil citizens wish only to live in tranquility and peace, but demand freedom while doing so. We call upon you and all civil servants to effectuate the true purpose of government and change your actions as needed by fulfilling your sworn duty to the Constitution and ultimately to the People.

“We further warn,” the letter continues, “that the incarceration of the Hammond family will spawn serious civil unrest.”

http://gawker.com/white-militiamen-are-trying-to-provoke-a-war-with-the-f-1750471652

[Ban Hammer 12,827]

yawn.

[lostinblue 1,989]

_{So why are they trying to protect this person.... The crime ?}

[smilesammich 10,727]

_{So why are they trying to protect this person.... The crime ?}

http://www.tsln.com/news/17302049-113/story.html

yawn.

yeah, what's to get excited about?

[lostinblue 1,989]

Hammonds set a backfire that successfully kept the Krumbo Butte fire from burning a large portion of their private land. Their backfire burned about one acre of federal land.

Years later, BLM pressed charges for the above-mentioned fires, citing endangerment of human lives and damage to federal property. However, the district court found that no one had been endangered by the fires, and that the fires had caused minimal damage. In fact, the court found, the fire had arguably increased the value of the land for grazing.

Meanwhile, on the civil side, a wholly separate civil case is being considered. The ranch is also paying $400,000 as part of a settlement agreement with BLM for the alleged costs of fighting fires for which BLM claims the Hammonds are responsible. If the Ham monds have to sell part of their ranch to make the payment, BLM managed (as part of the settlement agreement) to get first option to buy.

applying the “mandatory minimum” of five years cited in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act would “shock the conscience

The state is calling them terrorist ? .. For having a back fire jump off their own land . ....Or is it that the BLM wants their ranch ...the real reason?

[smilesammich 10,727]

Hammonds set a backfire that successfully kept the Krumbo Butte fire from burning a large portion of their private land. Their backfire burned about one acre of federal land.

Years later, BLM pressed charges for the above-mentioned fires, citing endangerment of human lives and damage to federal property. However, the district court found that no one had been endangered by the fires, and that the fires had caused minimal damage. In fact, the court found, the fire had arguably increased the value of the land for grazing.

Meanwhile, on the civil side, a wholly separate civil case is being considered. The ranch is also paying $400,000 as part of a settlement agreement with BLM for the alleged costs of fighting fires for which BLM claims the Hammonds are responsible. If the Ham monds have to sell part of their ranch to make the payment, BLM managed (as part of the settlement agreement) to get first option to buy.

applying the “mandatory minimum” of five years cited in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act would “shock the conscience

The state is calling them terrorist ? .. For having a back fire jump off their own land . ....Or is it that the BLM wants their ranch ...the real reason?

well, that's the hammond's version of events - they were convicted of arson so it isn't just the state calling them terrorists..pretty sure you've made the same comparison when rioters have set fire to businesses and such..

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.

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Jason Patric has really fallen on hard times since he was in The Lost Boys. :-/

[lostinblue 1,989]

well, that's the hammond's version of events - they were convicted of arson so it isn't just the state calling them terrorists..pretty sure you've made the same comparison when rioters have set fire to businesses and such..

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

So you can sat they are arsonist . Where does the terrorism charge fit in . ? Less than 200 acres of grassland burned at a cost of $400,000 to put out. That land is worth a few hundred dollars/acre at the most.... if you tried to buy it.outright.

[smilesammich 10,727]

So you can sat they are arsonist . Where does the terrorism charge fit in . ? Less than 200 acres of grassland burned at a cost of $400,000 to put out. That land is worth a few hundred dollars/acre at the most.... if you tried to buy it.outright.

i guess if you set a fire on government, uh, i mean 'public' land - it's terrorism.

Jason Patric has really fallen on hard times since he was in The Lost Boys. :-/

got to get a good shot of the earring..

[lostinblue 1,989]

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 breathtaking 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 the anti-grazing groups to create a 170,000 acre wilderness, with almost 100,000 acres being “cow-free.”

“The last holdouts on that cow-free wilderness were the Hammonds,” explained Maupin. And because the Hammonds have large chunks of private property in the heart of the cooperative management area, they carried a target on their backs.

“It’s become more and more obvious over the years that that the BLM and the wildlife refuge want that ranch. It would tie in with what they have,” said Inglis.

The Hammonds also lost their ability to water cattle on one BLM permit when refuge personnel drained a watering hole that the Hammonds had always used.

Maupin said the government scientists and resource managers working “on the ground” supported the Hammonds’ use of the water but that the high level bureaucrats backed special interest anti-grazing groups. “There is a huge disconnect between employees on the ground and the decision-makers,” she said, building tension between ranchers and federal agencies.

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

The federal government wants their land is what this is really about.

[smilesammich 10,727]

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 breathtaking 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 the anti-grazing groups to create a 170,000 acre wilderness, with almost 100,000 acres being “cow-free.”

“The last holdouts on that cow-free wilderness were the Hammonds,” explained Maupin. And because the Hammonds have large chunks of private property in the heart of the cooperative management area, they carried a target on their backs.

“It’s become more and more obvious over the years that that the BLM and the wildlife refuge want that ranch. It would tie in with what they have,” said Inglis.

The Hammonds also lost their ability to water cattle on one BLM permit when refuge personnel drained a watering hole that the Hammonds had always used.

Maupin said the government scientists and resource managers working “on the ground” supported the Hammonds’ use of the water but that the high level bureaucrats backed special interest anti-grazing groups. “There is a huge disconnect between employees on the ground and the decision-makers,” she said, building tension between ranchers and federal agencies.

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

The federal government wants their land is what this is really about.

what the government wants - the government takes. of course that's what it's really about. but thank god we've got armed patriots in militia men to fight against tyranny. ultimately we know how this will turn out.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Sometimes the correct statute under which a person is charged has a name which doesn't necessarily fit with what one might think fits the violation. Here, that statute is the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Nevertheless, if the accused has committed the actus reus of the crime and has the requisite mens rea, the statute is probably applicable. Here, the Hammonds were charged under 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1), which states:

Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.

Bear in mind that "malicious" is a term of art -- it means something more in the way of "this person intended to do this" as opposed to recklessly or intentionally. So we know the Hammonds intended to set the fire -- here's your mens rea. Was the land damaged or destroyed? Yes -- this element of the actus reus is fulfilled. Was the means of damage or destruction by fire or explosive? Yes -- another element. Was a building, vehicle or person or real property affected? Check -- real property. Was that real property in whole or in part owned, possessed by, or leased to the US or any department or agency, etc.? Yes -- last element. Mens rea + actus reus = violation of the statute.

A better question to ask is why arson on federal land is necessarily terrorism, when arson on private or state land is "mere" arson under this Act as read plainly. While one can see that blowing up or setting fire to a federal building could be terrorism, it isn't always the case. Sometimes it's just plain old arson. The Act is overbroad and its restrictions on habeas corpus are terrible in general. I am actually sympathetic to the Hammonds and the trial court judge's belief that sentencing under the Act at the mandatory minimum might be a violation of the Eighth Amendment. However, these militia jerkwads are a joke, and aren't focused on what the real issue is, and it's not in Article I.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Killary

[smilesammich 10,727]

Nevertheless, if the accused has committed the actus reus of the crime and has the requisite mens rea, the statute is probably applicable. Here, the Hammonds were charged under 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1), which states:

english only pls. some of us are stupid.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

english only pls. some of us are stupid.

Mens rea = your thinkity thoughts at the time of the crime

Actus reus = the stuff you did

[smilesammich 10,727]

Mens rea = your thinkity thoughts at the time of the crime

Actus reus = the stuff you did

i swear i took latin in hs