BLM Going After Hammond Family! Declared Terrorists Sentenced to 5 Years in Federal P [Archive]

monty

3rd December 2015, 04:22 PM

Login (http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20151007/judge-sends-oregon-ranchers-back-to-prison#)
Register (http://capitalpress.or.newsmemory.com/?activate=1)
Subscribe (http://www.capitalpress.com/subscribe)
e-Editions (http://www.capitalpress.com/e-edition)
Classifieds (http://www.cpmarketplace.com)

http://www.capitalpress.com/images/site-logo.jpg (http://www.capitalpress.com/)

The West's AG Weekly Since 1928 • December 3, 2015

Info (http://www.capitalpress.com/)
State (http://www.capitalpress.com/state)
Nation & World (http://www.capitalpress.com/nation_world)
Ag Sectors (http://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors)
Opinion (http://www.capitalpress.com/opinion)
Special Sections (http://www.capitalpress.com/specialsections)

1-800-882-6789 (http://www.capitalpress.com/contactus)

Home (http://www.capitalpress.com/) » State (http://www.capitalpress.com/State) » Oregon (http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon) Judge sends Oregon ranchers back to prison
Mateusz Perkowski (http://www.capitalpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=staff&template=staffProfilePages&staffID=mperkowski)Capital Press

Published: October 7, 2015 1:21PM
Last changed: October 7, 2015 4:45PM

http://EOR-CPwebvarnish.newscyclecloud.com/storyimage/CP/20151007/ARTICLE/151009880/AR/0/AR-151009880.jpg&MaxW=600 Steven Hammond

http://www.capitalpress.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/staticimage/images/icon_previous.gif1
of
2

http://www.capitalpress.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/staticimage/images/icon_next.gif

A federal judge in Eugene, Ore., gave the father and son credit for time served but ordered them to serve the remainder of their mandatory five-year sentences for burning BLM rangeland.

EUGENE, Ore. — A father and son who raise cattle in Eastern Oregon are headed back to federal prison for committing arson on public land.
Dwight Lincoln Hammond, 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, were sentenced on Oct. 7 to five years in prison for illegally setting fires on U.S. Bureau of Land Management property near Diamond, Ore.

The ranchers had already served shorter sentences because the federal judge originally overseeing their case said the five-year minimum requirement “would shock the conscience.”
The Hammonds were subject to re-sentencing because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out those original prison terms for igniting fires in 2001 and 2006 as too lenient.
Previously, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, who is now retired, found that a five-year term would violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because it’s “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here.”

Dwight Lincoln Hammond, who was only convicted of the 2001 fire, received three months in prison, while his son was sentenced to one year, followed by three years of supervised release for each man.
Federal prosecutors challenged those sentences, and the 9th Circuit agreed that judges don’t have the “discretion to disregard” such requirements.

The appeals court rejected claims by the ranchers’ defense attorney that the federal arson statute was intended to punish terrorism, rather than burning to remove invasive species or improve rangeland.
At the Oct. 7 re-sentencing hearing, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken said the ranchers cannot disregard the law in regard to setting fires on BLM property.
“You don’t have the right to make decisions on public lands when they’re not yours,” she said.

Aiken compared the situation to “eco-terrorism” cases in which activists damaged property in reaction to environmental decisions with which they disagreed.
“They didn’t necessarily like how the government was handling things, either,” she said.

Similarly, people who violate hunting and fishing regulations are also subject to sanctions, Aiken said.

“The rules are there for a reason,” she said.

Aiken said she would use discretion in sentencing the Hammonds if she could, but that wasn’t a possibility given the mandatory minimums and the jury’s decision to convict them of arson.
“It wasn’t a jury of people from Eugene, it wasn’t a jury of people from Portland. It was a jury of people from Pendleton — your peers,” she said.

Frank Papagni, the U.S. attorney who prosecuted the Hammonds, said the ranchers should be subject to the five-year sentence but disagreed with recommendations from the U.S. Probation Office that they receive even longer sentences.

The U.S. Probation Office said that Dwight Hammond should serve five years and three months, while Steven Hammond should serve six year and six months years.
Papagni said those enhanced sentences were inappropriate because the fires didn’t directly endanger the lives of nearby firefighters and hunters.
Nonetheless, the five-year terms are appropriate for the Hammonds’ actions, he said.

“These grazing leases don’t give them the exclusive right to use these lands,” Papagni said. “It doesn’t give them the right to burn the property. It’s not theirs.”
Attorneys for the Hammonds did not object to the five-year sentences in light of the 9th Circuit ruling, but asked that they receive credit for time served.
Aiken agreed to that request and said she would recommend both men serve their time together at the federal prison in Sheridan, Ore.

Before the sentencing, the Oregon Farm Bureau tried to convince the BLM to drop the arson charges against the Hammonds and replace them with charges that would not require a mandatory minimum sentence, said Dave Dillon, the organization’s executive vice president.

When that route did not yield the desired results, the organization decided to circulate a “Save the Hammonds” petition that has been signed by about 2,400 people.

“We did not make the progress we thought we should, so we’re taking a more public approach,” Dillon said.

Dillon said he recognized that the Hammonds faced slim chances of receiving less than five years, given the 9th Circuit’s ruling, but said he hoped the petition may convince the Obama administration to grant them clemency.

Not only have both men served time in federal prison, but the BLM has refused to renew their grazing rights for two years, he said.
The BLM likely does not subject its own employees to arson charges when they’ve made mistakes during prescribed burns, so the punishment for the Hammonds was excessive, Dillon said.
“To treat them as terrorists, we think, is horribly unjust and secondly, hypocritical,” he said. “Why does the federal government need to get more?”

Share and Discuss Guidelines (http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20151007/judge-sends-oregon-ranchers-back-to-prison#)
User Comments

© 2015 Capital Press (http://www.capitalpress.com/)
Privacy Policy (http://eomediagroup.com/privacy-policy/)
Terms of Service (http://eomediagroup.com/terms-of-service/)

http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20151007/judge-sends-oregon-ranchers-back-to-prison

boogietillyapuke

3rd December 2015, 04:35 PM

monty

3rd December 2015, 05:06 PM

http://bundyranch.blogspot.com.co/2015/11/hammond-family-declared-as-terrorist.html

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qlquGjPM6nM/VjkdsoHOZGI/AAAAAAAABUA/36eMcBSyzJM/s640/Hammond%2BRanch%2B3.png

BLM is obviously intent on acquiring the Hammond Ranch.

I am able to see all the BLM land on a map supplied by the BLM. This shows how the BLM has designs on the Hammond Ranch. Notice that ALL the BLM "Conservation Areas" in Oregon are around the Hammond Ranch.

Yellow areas are BLM claimed lands. Red hatched areas are BLM "Conservation Areas", different than ACECs. Black hatched areas are ACECs and BLM monuments. There are vastly many more ACECs than shown on this map, principally in western Oregon. Each of the ACECs in western Oregon is small, but I could tell the number was vast because there were so many labels. I had to leave the labels off, else there were so many they would cover the rest of the map.

Dwight and Chuck explained that the BLM has had a vendetta against the Hammonds since a water rights dispute about 1993. The Hammonds won that dispute and the BLM has resented the Hammonds since.

mick silver

3rd December 2015, 05:18 PM

were all Terrorists in this country it just take other longer too see this ...

monty

3rd December 2015, 05:37 PM

What the Hammonds need right how

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U1BCMJlV83E

Cebu_4_2

3rd December 2015, 05:45 PM

http://bundyranch.blogspot.com.co/2015/11/hammond-family-declared-as-terrorist.html

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qlquGjPM6nM/VjkdsoHOZGI/AAAAAAAABUA/36eMcBSyzJM/s640/Hammond%2BRanch%2B3.png

Although very hard to do they need to GTFO! There is no other way unless BLM is stopped tho I don't see that happening any time soon.

Ares

3rd December 2015, 06:10 PM

Although very hard to do they need to GTFO! There is no other way unless BLM is stopped tho I don't see that happening any time soon.

Another Bundy style standoff might be enough to tell them to fuck off.

monty

19th December 2015, 07:04 PM

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/739-1112103100-10458668102034034078619867817684964586945618n.jpg

HAMMOND FAMILY - Facts & Events of Abuse

Written by Ammon Bundy
Date: 11-12-2015
Subject: Police Brutality and Militarization

I visited different areas on the ranch and was given explanation to the events and facts. The abuses to this family are much greater than I originally explained to you. They have quietly suffered much more than even the Bundys can fully understand. They are near broken people. When I first came to them they had no hope. They have tried to do what is right for several years and it has cost them their liberties. In an effort to give them hope I explained to them how YOU the American people came to our defense when we were in a similar situation. I assured them that we would do all we could to get the local governments to preform their duty and protect them. I further assured them that if the local governments fail (as it did with the Bundys) I am sure the people will stand in their defense.

I then went to the County Sheriff -Dave Ward to see if he was a man that understood that his duty was to protect the Hammonds from further abuse and punishment. He assured me that he loves this county and the people in it. As the new Sheriff he confirmed several times that he needed to meet the Hammonds and determine the truth. I promised him that I would do my best to assist in gathering the facts. Over the past week myself and others have exhaustively gathered all the facts we could and have verified them with two or more witnesses. I now share them with you and ask that you honestly review them and determine for yourself if the Hammonds are "Terrorists" and if they deserve the cruel and unusual punishment that has been forced upon them by Federal Employees. Please read all the documents in full including the Facts & Events, Letter to Sheriff Ward and the Conclusion. (See Links)

Thank you,

Ammon Bundy

Letter to Harney County Sheriff - David Ward: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/letter-to-sheriff-ward-harney-county.html

Facts & Events : http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/facts-events-in-hammond-case.html

Violations, Corruptions and Abuses: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/violations-corruptions-and-abuses-in.html

Conclusion: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/conclusion-in-hammonds-case.html

Letter to Government Official and Aware Citizens:
http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/hammond-family-declared-as-terrorist.html
========================================

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/186438-2015-11-12-hammond-family-facts-events-of-abuse.htm

mick silver

19th December 2015, 07:12 PM

ONE day a fire will start and they mother fvcker will not be able to stop it

monty

19th December 2015, 07:24 PM

One more point that should be added to this letter, but was not included in any of the defence proceedings, it cannot be raised in any appeals.

Supreme Court Case of Pollard's Lessee vs Hagan in 18
(this case was a out previously submerged land in Alabama)

Mr Justice McKinley delivering the opinion of the court wrote in very clear English:

"The counsel for the plaintiffs insisted in argument that the United States derived title to that part of Alabama in which the land in controversy lies from the King of Spain, and that they succeeded to all his rights, powers, and jurisdiction over the territory ceded, and therefore hold the land and soil, under navigable waters, according to the laws and usages of Spain; and by those laws and usages the rights of a subject to land derived from the crown could not extend beyond high water mark, on navigable waters, without an express grant; and that all alluvion belonged to the crown, and might be granted by this king, together with all land between high water and the channel of such navigable waters; and by the compact between the United States and Alabama, on

Page 44 U. S. 221

her admission into the union, it was agreed, that the people of Alabama forever disclaimed all right or title to the waste or unappropriated lands lying within the State, and that the same should remain at the sole disposal of the United States; and that all the navigable waters within the State should forever remain public highways, and free to the citizens of that State and the United States, without any tax, duty, or impost, or toll therefor, imposed by that State. That, by these articles of the compact, the land under the navigable waters, and the public domain above high water, were alike reserved to the United States, and alike subject to be sold by them; and to give any other construction to these compacts, would be to yield up to Alabama, and the other new States, all the public lands within their limits.

We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed, except for temporary purposes and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty with the French Republic of the 30th of April, 1803, ceding Louisiana."

Letter to Oregon Sheriff:
BUNDY FAMILY/RANCH
PO Box 7175
Bunkerville, NV 89007

Sheriff -David M. Ward November 12, 2015
County of Harney
485 N Court Avenue #6
Burns, Oregon 97720-1524 (tel:97720-1524)
Phone: 541-573-6156 (tel:541-573-6156)
RE: Facts and Events in the Hammond Case

Dear Sheriff Ward,
Thank you for the opportunity to present this information. We testify that two or more witnesses have verified the facts and events in this document. It is our hope that you will research each point of this document independently and determine for yourself if the Hammonds have been the subjects of extreme, vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies.

The Hammonds are good people that carve their living out of the land they live on, much like the Native Americans and early pioneers. Their experience, practical use and care for the land has brought them at odds with those that harbor the ideology, that it is a moral obligation to restrict man from the use of the land and resources.

We respect that no two people think the same and there are many opinions of how things should be accomplished. However, when one positions themself in government to force others to live the way they believe, a serious line has been crossed.

It is our solemn belief that multiple federal employees are using their position in government to remove the Hammonds from the land to set a precedent for the removal of other land users. We declare that the Hammonds are not "Terrorists". They have not and would not hurt those around them. They are kind and generous people that love their neighbors. They have committed no crime and must not be punished further for these absurd accusations.

As the County Sheriff, you have taken an oath of office to defend against foreign and domestic threats. You hold the responsibility to insure the Hammonds are protected from those that will continue to use government to force their personal beliefs upon others.

The following document is categorized in four parts. Facts & Events / Violations, Corruptions and Abuses / Bill of Rights Violations / Conclusion

Facts & Events

(a) In 1964 the Hammonds purchased their ranch in the Diamond Valley. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.

(b) 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.

(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with "disturbing and interfering with" federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.

(d) 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.

(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond's upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional "fence out state" Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds intended to still use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. "Those laws are for the people, not for them".

(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.

(g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sale their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later.

(h) The owner of the Hammond's original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.

(i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries.

(j) 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".

(k) A few days later an agent from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Burns) for coffee. Steven accepted. When he arrived he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff's Department. Sheriff Dave Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and charged by the US Attorney's Office for "Arsenal Terrorism", under the Federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death. Dwight & Steven's mug shots were all over the news the next week posing them as "Arsonists". Susan Hammond (Wife & Mother) said: "I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me". *

(l) 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.

(m) In September 2006, Dwight & Susan Hammond's home was raided. The agents informed the Hammonds that they were looking for evidence that would connect them to the fires. The Hammonds later found out that a boot print and a tire tracks were found near one of the many fires. No matching boots or tires were found in the Hammonds home or on their property. Susan Hammond (Wife) later said; " I have never felt so violated in my life. We are ranchers not criminals". Steven Hammond openly maintains his testimony that he started the backfire to save the winter grass from being destroyed and that the backfire ended up working so well it put out the fire entirely altogether.

(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail that would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for 6 days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Much of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury. For example, Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings that the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.

(o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty's memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty's testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.

(p) Judge Michael Hogan & Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how the land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton everyday. Some drove more than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home. On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict. Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision. Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual that has convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area, influenced by the prosecutors for 6 straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, made a verdict and went home.

(q) June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were convicted as National Arsenal Terrorists. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. They were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Hogan overruling the minimum sentence, commenting that if the full five years were required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The day of the sentencing Judge Hogan retired as a federal judge. In his honor the staff served chocolate cake in the courtroom.

(r) On January 4,, 2013, Dwight and Steven reported to prison. They fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months). Dwight was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014.

(s) Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM, and her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank Papagni exemplifying further vindictive behavior by filing an appeal with the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight's and Steven's return to federal prison for the entire 5 years.*

(t) In October 2015, the 9th District Court "resentenced" Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years. Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children. Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74) to be alone after 55 years of marriage. If he survives, he will be 79 when he is released.

(u) During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.

(v) Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their resentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them. To date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of this year (2015). If the Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution.

Notes:
S* Rhonda Karges – Resource Field Manager for the BLM is the wife of Chad Karges Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife refuge.

Rhonda specifically deals with all the BLM issues relating to the area in and around Hammonds property including "grazing denial". Her husband just happens to be the person in charge of all the issues surrounding the Hammonds ranch such as "water and access".

b* Soon after the water rights dispute the federal government influenced the State of Oregon to change their water law in favor of federal agencies. Wildlife is now considered in the State of Oregon as an accepted beneficial use for government agencies only.

k* Being convicted as Terrorist made the Hammonds felons. They have been striped of their right to have guns. The Hammond live 53 miles from the closets town and have no practical way of defending themselves or their cattle. Several times they have watched baby calves be eaten by predators and could do nothing to prevent it.

Violations, Corruptions and Abuses
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM), US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE (FWS), US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ACTING IN:

• VIOLATION of US Constitution 1.8.17 – Unlawfully controlling property inside States

• VIOLATION of the US Constitution 4.4.1 – Denying the people in the States a republic form of government. Forcing the people in the States to live under territorial law, not affording the people constituted protection under the U.S. Constitution.

• VIOLATION of the Separation of Powers Doctrine – Federal agencies, federal law enforcement, US attorneys, federal judges, all being paid by the Plaintive. No separation of powers, no checks and balances, no one to make sure they do not collaborate or abuse the people.

• ABUSE: Fencing off waters legally owned by individuals as documented with the State of Oregon.

• ABUSE: Barricading public roads to restrict individuals from accessing their private property.

• CORRUPTION: Using local law enforcement to protect federal officials and contractors in performing illegal actions.

• CORRUPTION: Using local law enforcement to arrest and incarcerate individuals for protecting private property as documented by the State of Oregon.

• ABUSE & CORRUPTION: Using the federal court system to force individuals and local governments into undue obedience.

• CORRUPTION: Revoking grazing permits without a court proceeding or a court ruling. Restricting the use of grazing right as established by "prior appropriation" and "beneficial use".

• ABUSE: Restricted the use of private property.

• ABUSE & CORRUPTION: Disregard of State laws for the benefit of federal agencies, adversely affecting the people and their real property.

• ABUSE: Using the authority of congress (acts) to falsely charge individuals as "terrorist" deeming them as an enemy to the State. Denying individuals their right of protection.

• ABUSE: Intimidating individuals to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of statutory fines to cover federal agencies expenses involving their own prosecution.

• ABUSE: Using government property, tax dollars and law enforcement to punish U.S. Citizens that maintain opposing political views.

• CORRUPTION: Deceitfully waiting only days before the statutes of limitation expired so individuals would not be able to properly defend themselves.

• CORRUPTION: Federal Judges granting one party unequaled opportunity to influence the Jury.

• CORRUPTION: Federal Judge assembling a jury that is not of peers.

• ABUSE & CORRUPTION: Unreasonable search, raiding home of US Citizens without founded evidence.

Bill of Rights Violations in the Hammonds Case
- Violation of the 8th amendment - Cruel and unusual punishment
- Violation of the 5th amendment - Double jeopardy – Punished twice for the same crime.
- Violation of the 5th amendment - Never was indicted by a grand jury
- Violation of the 5th amendment - Taking of private property without just compensation
- Violation of the 4th amendment - Unreasonable search and seizures
- Violation of the 6th amendment - Tried by jury of peers – impartial jury
- Violation of the 9th amendment - Federal government shall not act outside the authority listed in the US Constitution
- Violation of the 10th amendment - Power not given to the federal government is reserved to the States
- Violation of 2nd Amendment – Right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Conclusion
The abuses and corruptions affecting people like the Hammonds are symptoms of a more encompassing problem. Government employees (fulltime & elected) have changed their culture from one of service to, and respect for the people, to the roll of being a master. On the subject of the land, it is evident that government employees are no longer assisting the people in claiming, using and defending property. Instead, they have become the people's competitor to the benefits of the land, and are willing to use force on those who they erroneously compete against.

The federal government adversely controls over 582,000,000 acres of the western lands, 51% of the entire western land mass. They also have recently begun claiming over 72% of western resources such as the sub-surface minerals, forestry and waters. This is in comparison to 4.29% federally controlled land in the east.

The impact of the federal government controlling the land and resources inside the western states is hard to calculate. The negative impact on the people can be seen economically, politically, and socially. In order for any people to survive, let alone prosper, it takes the land and resources to do it. Everything we eat, the clothing we wear, the homes we live in, the cars we drive, and so on, come from the earth. All physical comfort and prosperity originates from the earth. Individuals composing the federal government, understanding the origination of wealth, are reserving these resources for themselves and are willing to use force to retain them. The ramifications of their action are slowly forcing the people of the west into poverty.

Due to the fact that people cannot survive without land and resource, the federal government's action in administering the lands for their own benefit will be the cause of public discontent and unrest until it is corrected.
The solution is very simple, the land and resources must be made available to its rightful owners, the people. This can be done peacefully if the states & counties would check and balance the federal government as designed. When this happens, the people will begin to prosper and much of the economical, political and social problem of the west will diminish. Prosperity, peace and tranquility will be the results.
Thank you,
Ammon Bundy
Bundy Family

CC: Harney County Commissioners
Oregon State Governor
Media
Aware Individuals

Letter to Harney County Sheriff - David Ward: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/letter-to-sheriff-ward-harney-county.html

Facts & Events : http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/facts-events-in-hammond-case.html

Violations, Corruptions and Abuses: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/violations-corruptions-and-abuses-in.html

Conclusion: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/conclusion-in-hammonds-case.html

Letter to Government Official and Aware Citizens: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/hammond-family-declared-as-terrorist.html

monty

19th December 2015, 08:19 PM

ONE day a fire will start and they mother fvcker will not be able to stop it

I think that day is very close. The people are angry

Cebu_4_2

19th December 2015, 09:50 PM

monty

19th December 2015, 10:24 PM

Is there any way to sum this up in something smaller than a novel? I know I would understand more if I read it all but time is not on my side as of late. I miss a lot now with the little thing occupying my time but like to know what's going on also.

Breifly, the Hammond family bought this ranch in the about 1964. Their problems started with the feds around 1994 when they were arrested for interfering with the US Fish and Wildlife Service for fencing off water to keep Hammond cattle out of the wildlife refuge. This originally was a felony arrest, but reduced to a misdemeanor.

In 2001 and 2006 the Hammonds did controlled burns on their private land. The fires crossed over to BLM controled land.

According to a report by a neighbor rancher the BLM controlled burn was out of control. Steven Hammond set a backfire to protect his feed and livestock.

Steven and his father Dwight were convicted in federal court of maliciously and intentionally setting fires. Steven was sentenced to a year and a day in prison. His father Dwight was sentenced to 90 days. They served their time.

The government decided that under the terrorism minimun sentencing laws the sentences were to light and appealed.mmThe Hammonds were resentenced as terrorist to 5 years. They report to begin serving the rest of their sentence in January.

in a nut shell, the BLM wants the land. They have almos broke the Hammonds. They also have the first right of refusal to purchase the ranch if it comes up for sale.

Also the Hammonds are paying off a huge debt to the BLM, without going back and researching it I think $200,000.00 and also facing another of similar size.

It is a real fuck story by our glorious government, who has no right or title to lands in any state created from the Louisiana Purchase per the US Supreme Court in Pollard's lessee v Hagan on 1845.

Also the Supreme Court ruled against the Us Fish and Wildlife Service and as of 2004 those cases had not been overturned. Hammonds troubles started with Fish and Wildlife.

There is another long read here with a lot of facts by a neighboring rancher.

http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/fall-15/range-hammond-sp13-enemies_of_the_state.pdf

Cebu_4_2

20th December 2015, 06:35 AM

Reminds me of a game where you should know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. Feel bad for them but if it was me I think I would have folded and moved on a while back.

Twisted Titan

20th December 2015, 06:37 AM

The gubbermint covets everything of the man who wants nothing more than live his life in peace.

The minnions of the gubbermint who are complicit in turning this man and his family life upside down is going to pay a heavy price on judgment day.

Woe unto them who persecute the innocent.

mick silver

20th December 2015, 08:45 AM

“Butcher”; “thug”; “dictator”; “murderer”; “savage”; “tyrant”; “oppressor”; “despot”. These are just some of the words that many in the Western

boogietillyapuke

20th December 2015, 08:58 AM

“Butcher”; “thug”; “dictator”; “murderer”; “savage”; “tyrant”; “oppressor”; “despot”. These are just some of the words that many in the Western

I think what you were attempting to say was something along the lines of: We use these terms to "label" everybody that we don't like or disagree with in other countries........but never to describe our own,.........

once again........always got to be a boogieman

monty

26th December 2015, 04:28 PM

Friday, December 11, 2015
ACTION NEEDED - NOTICE: Redress of Grievances

ACTION NEEDED – ACTION OF IMPORTANCE

To all People, Patriot groups, Militias, Coalitions, Churches, Families and other Supporting entities,
We hope all of you are having a joyful season in remembering the Lord and the great gift of his birth.
Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17).

If we felt we could wait until after Christmas to give you this information we would.

The Adversary never sleeps. We must stay aware, and act in these matters of defense. It is our duty to do so.
We ask that you read the Notice: Redress of Grievance, and go to the links below to add your name to the document.

Please understand that we must exhaust all prudent measures before taking a physical stand against the horrific actions that the People of Harney County are enduring (including the Hammond's).

If this Notice is ignored, then one more Notice of Demand will be sent, it will list the many petitions that have been ignored and demand that the Hammond's rights be restored. If that final Notice is rejected then People across the Union will have justification to assemble and once again restore individual rights.

It is certain that what has happened to the people of Harney County and the Hammond family is a type and a shadow of what will happen to all people across these United States if we do not put an end to it. Please go to the link and add your name to this important document.
Thank you,
The Bundy Family

Go to this link to view the NOTICE: Redress of Grievance:
http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/12/notice-redress-of-grievance-action.html (http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/12/notice-redress-of-grievance-action.htmlIf)

If you support this NOTICE: Redress of Grievance, then fill in the name card below. Click on the link to fill in the PERSONAL name card:
https://docs.google.com/a/valetfleet.com/forms/d/1qeaS0d7NogqwbbQi8BBV1Q9kPnVvfmXVj5DKemecryw/viewform (https://docs.google.com/a/valetfleet.com/forms/d/1qeaS0d7NogqwbbQi8BBV1Q9kPnVvfmXVj5DKemecryw/viewformIf)
If you represent a GROUP, click on the link to fill in the GROUP name card:
https://docs.google.com/a/valetfleet.com/forms/d/1_wQD3HOvQ9cqQD4a7gV2Wrd9B-TgCULV6dJ857fRnKM/viewform (https://docs.google.com/a/valetfleet.com/forms/d/1_wQD3HOvQ9cqQD4a7gV2Wrd9B-TgCULV6dJ857fRnKM/viewformPLEASE)

PLEASE FORWARD AND SHARE

http://bundyranch.blogspot.com.co/2015/12/action-needed-notice-redress-of.html

Dogman

26th December 2015, 04:38 PM

Some where down the basic family name tree, that family and I could be related, just the way the last name is ended, My family's German ending before they changed it ended with "mann: , others did a :mond" , amongst other variations.

But the root family name is German or Prussian.

We came from Prussian stock.

Root name was Hammann

hoarder

26th December 2015, 04:53 PM

I can't count on both hands the number of times I've been dispatched to support Florida firefighting helicopters that were sent to control escaped federal "controlled burns". Ocala, Apalachicola, Oceola National Forests, Eglin AFB all come back to memory.It's the same here in Western Montana. Where I live the land is 97% National Forest. USFS does their "prescribed burns" every year to remove excess fuels. The concept of removing excess fuels is sound, but is best done by logging companies, not gummit employees and their corrupt contractors. In spring and summer there almost always seems to be smoke in the air. USFS is the worst polluter in the area.
The old timers around here tell me of the seventies and eighties when the forests were being logged. The air was clear and whenever a fire started, the loggers in the area and other locals put it out right away. Back then the old logging roads were open.

The USFS has obliterated many logging roads for cosmetic reasons and allowed many other roads to become completely overgrown and unusable so that when there is a fire, they can't get in there to put it out.

When the USFS has major fires, they spend ten times an much time and 100 times as much money to put it out as the loggers and locals did in decades past. They use a lot of private firfighting contractors and the graft and corruption is unbelievable. They get them all out there and order them to "stand down" and let the fire spread to justify the costs. after the fire is put out, they spend another week out there doing nothing just to charge time.

Dogman

26th December 2015, 04:58 PM

hoarder

26th December 2015, 05:04 PM

Very good example of what ever the national gov bureaucracy touches they will screw it up in some shape form or fashion. Things like you stated needs to be done by people that live and work on the land in the area.

And not some politician driven endeavor.All this is possible only because of distant control. If the state or county was in charge of National Forests, it would be much more difficult for them to get by with it. Even the Democrats hate the USFS here.

Dogman

26th December 2015, 05:05 PM

All this is possible only because of distant control. If the state or county was in charge of National Forests, it would be much more difficult for them to get by with it. Even the Democrats hate the USFS here. I agree with you completely on this.

monty

26th December 2015, 05:15 PM

It's the same here in Western Montana. Where I live the land is 97% National Forest. USFS does their "prescribed burns" every year to remove excess fuels. The concept of removing excess fuels is sound, but is best done by logging companies, not gummit employees and their corrupt contractors. In spring and summer there almost always seems to be smoke in the air. USFS is the worst polluter in the area.
The old timers around here tell me of the seventies and eighties when the forests were being logged. The air was clear and whenever a fire started, the loggers in the area and other locals put it out right away. Back then the old logging roads were open.

The USFS has obliterated many logging roads for cosmetic reasons and allowed many other roads to become completely overgrown and unusable so that when there is a fire, they can't get in there to put it out.

When the USFS has major fires, they spend ten times an much time and 100 times as much money to put it out as the loggers and locals did in decades past. They use a lot of private firfighting contractors and the graft and corruption is unbelievable. They get them all out there and order them to "stand down" and let the fire spread to justify the costs. after the fire is put out, they spend another week out there doing nothing just to charge time.

The last year that I worked in the Kenworth truck shop in Reno, Nevada, 2002 we did a lot of maintenance work on BLM fire fighting equipment and also for the sub contractors who somehow or another had purchased previously owned BLM fire fighting rigs.

In a conversation with one of those contractor types he told me that fighting fires on government land was a 2 billion dollar a year industry in 2002. I had always speculated many were intentional, not prescribed burns. The two billion dollar number only served to strengthen my suspiscions

Also a fire needed to be over a certain number of acres before it qualified for federal funds. I think it was 10 acres, but in the 1990's lightning started a fire on the southwest of Reno. The gov't firefighters allowed it to get big enough to qualify for federal money. The fire got out of control, turning into a real disaster burning some private homes in a rather exclusive area of Reno. Government efficiancy at its best.

hoarder

26th December 2015, 05:26 PM

Also a fire needed to be over a certain number of acres before it qualified for federal funds. I think it was 10 acres, They will respond to fires smaller than that. I have seen them respond to an 8 acre fire nearby and it was less than that when they responded. They also respond to fires on private lands adjacent to National Forest. Sometimes they will send you a bill afterwards. Yes, all that money they get to fight fires and they want to harass private landowners who pay taxes for firefighting by billing them for fires on private land.

monty

26th December 2015, 05:31 PM

They will respond to fires smaller than that. I have seen them respond to an 8 acre fire nearby and it was less than that when they responded. They also respond to fires on private lands adjacent to National Forest. Sometimes they will send you a bill afterwards. Yes, all that money they get to fight fires and they want to harass private landowners who pay taxes for firefighting by billing them for fires on private land.

I should have clarified my statement. The did respond, but deliberately allowed the fire to spread beyond 10 acres before making any real attempt to extinguish it.

horseshoe3

26th December 2015, 05:39 PM

Reminds me of a game where you should know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. Feel bad for them but if it was me I think I would have folded and moved on a while back.

You obviously don't understand people who make their living with the land, especially those with ties going back several generations on the same property. Most of us would make them kill us before we would leave.

hoarder

26th December 2015, 05:47 PM

I should have clarified my statement. The did respond, but deliberately allowed the fire to spread beyond 10 acres before making any real attempt to extinguish it.In Montana landowners pay county tax for firefighting. It's actually listed on my tax bill. Like everything else, the funding system is probably too convoluted for most people to track down. They might have one policy for fires on remote USFS land, another policy for fires on private land and another for BLM land and so on.

Cebu_4_2

26th December 2015, 05:51 PM

You obviously don't understand people who make their living with the land, especially those with ties going back several generations on the same property. Most of us would make them kill us before we would leave.

I do understand however I had to make a choice and uproot myself and family or risk jail/prison and fines. What man would I be if I chose exorbitant fines and jail time while leaving my family to fend for themselves? I know when to fold 'em, not pretty but better than the options at the time.

hoarder

26th December 2015, 05:56 PM

America's Founding Fathers didn't know when to fold them.

Cebu_4_2

26th December 2015, 06:04 PM

America's Founding Fathers didn't know when to fold them.

They also didnt live in a police state where banksters and corporations make the laws and can kill indimiscriminately.

monty

26th December 2015, 09:03 PM

http://youtu.be/SvS-oYYle0Q

Cebu_4_2

26th December 2015, 10:21 PM

I would have folded.

monty

29th December 2015, 02:30 PM

Burns Oregon town hall meeting Dec. 15

1 hour

http://youtu.be/3qcr93G0InA

Video s 1 hr. +

http://youtu.be/JF2c6UYRdE0

monty

29th December 2015, 03:08 PM

http://youtu.be/fHRGO1dKOFQ

monty

30th December 2015, 07:50 PM

http://youtu.be/PEvbIbxrj3Y

Bigjon

30th December 2015, 11:32 PM

http://www.paulstramer.net/2015/12/deny-crooks-jurisdiction-over-you-and.html?spref=fb

Wednesday, December 30, 2015Deny the crooks jurisdiction over you, and destroy their power.

http://www.annavonreitz.com/anna210.jpg

by Anna Von Reitz

I get dozens and sometimes hundreds of letters, messages, emails, etc. from people wanting help with court problems-- all in foreign courts that have no natural jurisdiction and no right to be here applying their "law" to our people.

The Root Problem is that thanks to fraud and falsification of public records, our people have been registered as their people without anyone's knowledge or consent. This self-interested fraud on the part of governmental services corporations needs to be recognized for what it is and forthrightly rebutted.

Deny them jurisdiction over you and you deny them any ability to proceed -- regardless of the issue be it foreclosure or child custody or driving without a license.

You were born on the land of one of the American states. You are by birthright "one of the free sovereign and independent people of the United States" and NOT an "inhabitant" -- a British Crown Subject merely "residing" here. Both these political statuses are clearly defined in The Definitive Treaty of Peace known as the Treaty of Paris 1783 ending the Revolutionary War, Article 3.

But... Within hours of your birth you were defrauded of your birthright when your Mother was coerced into unknowingly registering your "birth" as a British Crown Subject instead of "one of the free sovereign and independent people of the United States".

This in turn creates the "presumption" that like all British Crown Subjects you are merely here to provide "essential governmental services" (Constitution of 1789, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2) and are obligated to obey their corporate statutory "law".

And that is how and why they presume against you and tax you and carry out all their crimes against you.

How do you rebutt this?

You identify yourself as the living man or woman appearing in the flesh, one of the free sovereign and independent people of the United States and not an inhabitant as defined by the Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783, one of those owed "essential governmental services" under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the 1789 Constitution, guaranteed your right of expatriation by the Expatriation Act of 1868, the retention of your native political status by the Geneva Convention Protocols of 1949, Laws of War, Volume II, Article 3, and the right of Self-Declaration guaranteed by the United Nations Universal Right of Self-Declaration.

Then further inform the court that the essential government services you are owed do not include defrauding you, mis-administering your estate, or mischaracterizing you as an inhabitant of the District of Columbia or any "federal Territory" whatsoever.

Then clearly state that you are the only one having any first hand knowledge of your nature, intentions, motivations, will or any other matter of fact concerning you and that every word dropping from you lips is to be understood by the court as a Matter of Fact and all else that anyone may say is only immaterial hearsay and presumption.

Then proceed to ream them brand new paper bung holes about whatever it is they are bothering you about--

Taxes?

You are exempt and any vessels in commerce operated in your name are tax pre-paid. You are a Priority Creditor of the court, the banks and the corporations they employ, having the absolute right to offset any thing you may owe them against all that they already owe you and properly demanding the benefit of your exemption.

Child custody?

Your biological children are your creation, accepted and supported by you, belonging only to you, and are not entrusted to anyone or any thing else by you; and that is a Matter of Fact not subject to any fictitious claim or interpretation by the court.

Foreclosure?

You received no "loan" and retain all security interest provided contingent on the receipt of a loan; you require the return of the Promissory Note and Incomplete Mortgage Agreement paperwork. If anyone asks, reply that the Promissory Note is more than nine months old, the transaction was never completed, no loan was received by you and the whole process is void for fraud, including any presumption of a valid security interest. Any check received from the bank was merely a transfer of your own credit and the bank cannot show any other source of funds for the transaction.

Driving without a license?

You were traveling for private purposes and who can say otherwise?

You are stating Matters of Fact known to you on a firsthand basis. All else is hearsay and presumption.

And to all the above and more you may add that the court's presumption of jurisdiction over you and your property are in violation of both the Public Law and The Constitution and will not be respected as anything but attempted personage and fraud against one of their Priority Creditors and Benefactors.

Get your backs up. Tell it like it is. Let the facts be plainly stated. Remember who you are and tell the "court" off. Be polite-- but ice cold and determined. What they are doing is a rude and unconscionable affront to you and a false claim being made against you and your property.?Be appropriately outraged and hold your head high. Peer down at your miscreant employee sitting on that bench and demand to know who he thinks he is and what he thinks he is doing?

-------------------------------------
See this article and over 100 others on Anna's website here:www.annavonreitz.com (http://www.annavonreitz.com/)

monty

31st December 2015, 07:47 AM

Judge Anna Von Reitz also has written two letters to Sheriff Dave Ward in Burns Oregon regarding the Hammond case.

Tumbleweed

1st January 2016, 08:44 AM

Judge Anna Von Reitz also has written two letters to Sheriff Dave Ward in Burns Oregon regarding the Hammond case.

Pete Santelli reads one of the letters Judge Anna sent to Sherrif Ward in this video. I think she lays it all out pretty well what the problem is and what he needs to do about it.

a transcript of the letter Santelli reads can also be found at this link. http://everydayconcerned.net/2015/11/24/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3JqIceKh6I

Tumbleweed

1st January 2016, 04:15 PM

http://youtu.be/fHRGO1dKOFQ

I just got around to watching this video and it's pretty good. If you go to the 4 minute mark and start Ammon Bundy explains that the Hammonds were sentenced for the fire they started not to long before this fire was started by the BLM. At 6 minutes in to the video they are lighting fires near a corral where a rancher has some of his cattle penned. He talks like other ranchers I've heard cussing the BLM or Forest Service.

A few years ago the forrest service started a fire on some national grasslands north of where I live. The ranchers didn't want them to do it and tried to stop them. If I recall correctly the Forrest Service blocked the roads to keep the ranchers away and threatened them with arrest if they interfered. The fire got away from them and burned a lot of privately owned land.

There's a story here that was in the local livestock paper but it doesn't mention the hostility between the ranchers and forrest service over starting this fire.
It was stupid for the forrest service to start that fire but they did it anyway.

http://www.tsln.com/home/6042374-111/fire-usfs-grazing-association

monty

1st January 2016, 04:26 PM

One rare occasion where an federal judge was honest. My brother was also a defendant in this case because he runs a few head of cattle on the Hage allotment. This case does not involve fire.

Judge sides with ranch family
COURT SHOCKED BY ACTIONS OF FOREST SERVICE, BLM AGENTS

(http://elkodaily.com/news/local/article_3920d17a-c8d5-11e2-b69c-001a4bcf887a.html)
(http://elkodaily.com/news/local/article_3920d17a-c8d5-11e2-b69c-001a4bcf887a.html)17 (http://elkodaily.com/news/local/judge-sides-with-ranch-family/article_3920d17a-c8d5-11e2-b69c-001a4bcf887a.html#)

Print (http://elkodaily.com/news/local/judge-sides-with-ranch-family/article_3920d17a-c8d5-11e2-b69c-001a4bcf887a.html?print=true&cid=print) Email

May 30, 2013 2:30 am • By DYLAN WOOLF HARRIS — dharris@elkodaily.com (http://elkodaily.com/search/?l=50&sd=desc&s=start_time&f=html&byline=By%20DYLAN%20WOOLF%20HARRIS%20%E2%80%94%20d harris%40elkodaily.com)

(2) Comments (http://elkodaily.com/news/local/judge-sides-with-ranch-family/article_3920d17a-c8d5-11e2-b69c-001a4bcf887a.html#comments)

Commentary: Media needs to tell unbiased story about cattle seizures (http://elkodaily.com/news/opinion/commentary-media-needs-to-tell-unbiased-story-about-cattle-seizures/article_34b703e6-d1a0-11e3-b2d4-0019bb2963f4.html)http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/elkodaily.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/03/403d7afe-8193-11e3-bffa-0019bb2963f4/52dcb36d64161.image.jpg?resize=100%2C65 (http://elkodaily.com/news/opinion/commentary-media-needs-to-tell-unbiased-story-about-cattle-seizures/article_34b703e6-d1a0-11e3-b2d4-0019bb2963f4.html)
I believe we deserve to have readily available, unbiased facts from our news sources to help us make important choices. I’d like to address a … Read more (http://elkodaily.com/news/opinion/commentary-media-needs-to-tell-unbiased-story-about-cattle-seizures/article_34b703e6-d1a0-11e3-b2d4-0019bb2963f4.html)

ELKO — A federal district judge has ruled that federal employees “entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy” in a decision related to a cattle trespassing lawsuit.

In 2007, the U.S. government filed a civil suit for trespass damages against the estate of the late Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage. The complaint claimed the Hage family allowed cattle to trespass on Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service land in the Battle Mountain District and Tonopah Ranger District, respectively.

The document reports between January 2003 and August 2007, cattle — at times more than 100 head — were observed 52 times on federally managed land.

The federal government argued its case last spring in a bench trial before U.S. District Judge Robert C. Jones in Reno, which included testimony from witnesses who documented unauthorized livestock on BLM or Forest Service land.

In Jones’ 104-page decision issued Friday, he noted that none of the witnesses testified to seeing cows eating grass on federal land, but he also said it was an “unavoidable inference that the cattle grazed in the area where they were observed.” However, unless the cattle wandered more than half a mile from a water source in which the defendant had a water right, it didn’t constitute trespassing.

Only two of the many claims met that criteria. Jones granted damages for trespassing on Jan. 5, 2004, for $40.04 and Jan. 13, 2004, for $125.84.

“Basically, the judge said, ‘Yes, there was some trespass. It was a small amount. Here’s your money, government,’” said Mark Pollot, attorney for the Hage estate.

No punitive damages were awarded because the instances of cattle trespass weren’t carried out “oppressively, fraudulently or maliciously,” the judge wrote.

Judge chastises government

The judge wasn’t as quick to dismiss animosity from federal employees, however. In the decision, Jones reprimanded those who perpetually battled with the Hages, and accused them of conspiring against the ranchers.

“The Government sent trespass notices to people who leased or sold cattle to the Hages, notwithstanding the Hages’ admitted and known control over that cattle, in order to pressure other parties not to do business with the Hages, and even to discourage or punish testimony in the present case,” the decision states.

Jones said the government invited other ranchers to apply for permits on land the Hage Estate had previously grazed, and tried to transfer water rights owned by the Hages.

“For this reason, the Court has held certain government officials in contempt and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

“... This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court,” it states.

The Hage family has a lengthy history of disputes with the federal government dating back to a 1991 lawsuit filed by the Hages against the federal government for canceling grazing permits.

The family has cited grievances against agencies related to taking claims of water rights and cattle impoundment.

Local rancher and Elko County Commissioner Demar Dahl has followed the Hage case, and said this decision should send a message to frustrated agency staff who might be tempted to use their federal clout for personal ends.

“I think this should send a strong message to the agencies and any rogue employees of the agencies that seem to want to take the law into their own hands and not comply with what their rules say,” he said.

“This has been a long, drawn out deal,” he added. “But I was pleased to hear (the result).”

Dahl also suggested public land disputes would best be resolved with a transfer of management from federal to state government.

Pollot said the Hages were simultaneously arguing that the government erroneously denied the family grazing renewals between 1993 to 2003.

“Their claim was, ‘You were trespassing and you won’t stop,’ so they issued an order telling (the Hages) to stop doing that,” Pollot said. “We, on the other hand, said ‘Look, you’ve engaged in a practice intended to violate our due process, violating our constitutional rights, interfering with our legitimate business. We want an injunction stopping the government from doing that.”

The judge wrote that going forward, he didn’t expect the two sides would discontinue the same actions that instigated the lawsuit.

“There is a great probability that the Government will continue to cite Defendants and potentially impound Defendants’ cattle in the future in derogation of their water rights and those statutory privileges of which the Government has arbitrarily and vindictively stripped them,” the decision states.

“There is also a probability that Defendants will continue to permit their cattle to graze in excess of the incidental grazing permitted during stock watering that cannot reasonably be prevented.”

Jones issued an order for the Hages to apply for grazing permits, which he also ordered the agencies to accept. The applications aren’t to deviate from any other grazing application.

Major changes to the grazing permit will require Jones’ approval.

Wayne N. Hage, son of E. Wayne Hage, called the judge’s ruling a landmark decision.

“I am pleased to announce for the ranchers of the Western states that it has been proven that a permit is not simply a revocable privilege, but rather there is a property interest in the permit for the purpose of the Due Process Clause, both procedural and substantive,” he said in a statement. “This is important because it will safeguard ranchers’ rights and historical grazing practices.”

A separate case involving the Hages and the federal government is slated for a mid-June conference in the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a release issued by the Hage family. At that time, the Supreme Court will decide if it wants to take the Hage case.

Representatives from the BLM and Forest Service referred all inquiries about the case to a Department of Justice spokesperson, who hadn’t returned a call by press time.

Copyright 2016 Elko Daily Free Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

monty

4th January 2016, 02:34 PM

Listen to this video. It should make your blood boil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyevYENMEDI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyevYENMEDI

Tumbleweed

7th January 2016, 02:31 PM

I think it helps the cause of the Hammonds and Bundys if it's pointed out that the BLM and Forrest Service behave the same way in other parts of the country.

I mentioned above in a post what the Forrest Service did setting a fire, threatening ranchers with arrest if they interfered, then the fire getting away from them.

The South Dakota Stockgrowers are pointing out the unfairness of the way ranchers are treated in these kinds of situations as compared to the the BLM or Forrest Service.

They point out the unfairness of what the BlM did in Oregon and what the Forrest service did in South Dakota and what a bunch of SOB's they are.

http://www.americanclarion.com/2016/01/05/stockgrowers-question-federal-fire-double-standard-41762/

The South Dakota Stockgrowers Association sent letters this week to congressional delegates, the U.S. Attorney General’s office and the South Dakota Attorney General’s office questioning what they call “egregiously unbalanced response of federal land management agencies” and supporting the claims South Dakota ranchers made for compensation after the 2013 Pautre Fire burned nearly 10,000 acres of federal and private land.“There is a big double standard being applied in these government land agencies,” said Stockgrowers President Bill Kluck. “We cannot support the use of terrorism laws against a family ranch while forest service staff are just allowed to go about their day. We’re not questioning who set these fires, but we’re very worried about how the law is being used.”The 2013 Pautre Fire in South Dakota burned over 10,000 acres, 3,000 of which was federally owned land and the rest was privately owned land. The U.S. Forest Service has refused to pay any damages and no employees have been charged with wrongdoing. Private landowners and ranchers affected by the blaze filed suit against the U.S. Forest Service last week after their claims for damage compensation were denied. The U.S. Forest Service ruled that the agency was not responsible for damages even though they intentionally set the fire, against recommendations from local ranchers and weather forecasters.

In the letter, President of the Association, Bill Kluck stated, “The kind of unchecked decision-making authority and lack of accountability from federal land management agencies as seen in the Pautre Fire, can and will be applied to other situations and likely at the expense of independent livestock producers and private property owners.”SD Stockgrowers drew comparison to current satiation in Oregon (http://www.americanclarion.com/2016/01/05/oregon-standoff-hill-for-patriots-die-on-41727/) where a father and son have been sentenced to 5 years in federal prison after a prescribed burn on their private property burned less than 140 acres of federal property. The family is required to pay $400,000 in damages and was prosecuted under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which carries a minimum 5-year sentence.“SD Stockgrowers Association supports full compensation to the ranchers who were harmed by the Pautre Fire, and believe that liability should be applied to the U.S. Forest Service the way the Hammond’s were held liable for setting that fire.”

“South Dakota Stockgrowers Association is very concerned about the lack of accountability and responsibility being applied to federal agencies in one case while private individuals are held to a much higher, and completely different level of responsibility in the other,” said Kluck.“We are asking that our congressional delegates, the South Dakota Attorney General and U.S. Attorney’s office take a look at these cases to see how we can correct this injustice to the Hammond family and use their case to make sure that our South Dakota ranchers are able to hold the Forest Service accountable and liable for their actions on the Pautre Fire.”For over 120 years the mission of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association (http://southdakotastockgrowers.org/) has remained unchanged, “to promote and protect the South Dakota livestock industry.” The South Dakota Stockgrowers Association is a grassroots organization representing independent livestock producers on local, state and national policies that impact the livestock industry.

mick silver

7th January 2016, 02:37 PM

Armed group in Oregon hints at possible end to standoff

https://s1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/achJyun1wrOMN0AyFz8g8A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9Mzc3O2lsPXBsYW 5lO3B4b2ZmPTUwO3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3PTY3MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/Part-WAS-Was8992484-1-1-0.jpg (https://news.yahoo.com/armed-group-oregon-hints-possible-end-standoff-235453807.html#)
. View gallery

https://s1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/_UcqOm66mZtqsoiO0LL2nQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9ODMuMjU7cHlvZm Y9MDtxPTc1O3c9MTQ4/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/Part-WAS-Was8992502-1-1-0.jpg (https://news.yahoo.com/armed-group-oregon-hints-possible-end-standoff-235453807.html#)
.

Burns (United States) (AFP) - The leader of a small group of armed activists who have occupied a remote wildlife refuge in Oregon hinted on Wednesday that the standoff may be nearing its end.
Related Stories

The Latest: Sheriff: Armed group needs to 'pick up and go' (https://news.yahoo.com/latest-tribe-says-armed-activists-desecrating-land-174513999.html) Associated Press
Oregon tribe: Armed group 'desecrating' their land (https://news.yahoo.com/armed-group-oregon-fears-raid-071902283.html) Associated Press
Key things to know about the militia standoff in Oregon (https://news.yahoo.com/key-things-know-militia-standoff-oregon-081247763.html) Associated Press
Native Americans ask Oregon occupiers to remember the original 'owners' (https://news.yahoo.com/native-americans-ask-oregon-occupiers-remember-original-owners-222126177.html) Christian Science Monitor
The Latest: Sheriff says ranchers have turned themselves in (https://news.yahoo.com/latest-ranchers-seek-clemency-president-194324267.html) Associated Press
Navy Seal Flashlight Should Be Banned From Public? (https://beap.gemini.yahoo.com/mbclk?bv=1.0.0&es=wRg.6BYGIS9rSWpnU1lAyW5xT8qzvYNpqkyWmQlyNrpLFRT FP23mawpjPWIRLmk5z33KCQRglvsaDeRY3JNc84KibwzrPI3hx xiJHtVTWxiBdEXFqZh4dvDAFHDnBxcrPEqUE_sDfz1hKEszxmF xFVs897U0qlwWFHatm1gMD1RDABU4WQ1tVsdV9caDhmWhTsW_G nKFFbtaRIeq9pPk7czjKuoarJO_MY8lIdrT9oSo8svixeZCOvI BJOPWfnSre73m9Y_6Z9xphRsDUwyeh6BAx31ewz3mWP8_4E0dU eam1.qHnrMRB0ZHzkACRGKn6ljPsgNJZ0trvNGuCxO8bZXGEai IgrIphh6lZ.ZYti9AXA.Afqs2ghwkvHKO.gyIqdffikMK_UpCp 2eeMKKQKC86W.HrT9CjNeo80CeJdVMiV34vpLgnSv73WNmAN2H pJi7lJcRHpg8YSegqa49GNuAb18e5HXwGvVly.TDbLXqk5cpgz GCVbQ--%26lp=) NPA G700 Flashlight (http://lifestylesresearchinfo.com/bffddb3a-4967-4f36-841e-183d769e0890?s4=mil15) Sponsored (https://help.yahoo.com/kb/SLN22774.html?impressions=true)  (https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/relevantads.html) Thank you for your feedbackWe'll review and make changes needed.Undo (https://news.yahoo.com/armed-group-oregon-hints-possible-end-standoff-235453807.html#)

Why don't you like this ad ?

It's offensive to me
I keep seeing this
It's not relevant to me
Something else

DoneUndo (https://news.yahoo.com/armed-group-oregon-hints-possible-end-standoff-235453807.html#)

I don't like this ad (https://news.yahoo.com/armed-group-oregon-hints-possible-end-standoff-235453807.html#)

Speaking to reporters outside the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Ammon Bundy said he was aware the occupation that was in its fifth day must end but he added it was too soon to call it quits, Fox news reported.
"There is a time to go home and we recognize that," Bundy was quoted as saying. "We don't feel like it's that time yet."
The group occupied the refuge on Saturday in protest at the jailing of two local ranchers convicted of arson, and is calling for the government to turn over federal land in the area to the people.
Bundy said on Tuesday that once the group's mission was accomplished, they would leave.
However it was unclear how he planned to go about stripping the federal government of ownership and much of the local population -- including the two ranchers whose case prompted the takeover -- has distanced itself from the group.
View gallery
https://s.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/W9YpTmc5jrse3xgM9_HbDA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9MjAwO3E9NzU7dz 0zMDA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/Part-WAS-Was8992502-1-1-0.jpg
(https://news.yahoo.com/photos/us-flag-covers-sign-entrance-malheur-national-wildlife-photo-235453034.html)A US flag covers a sign at the entrance of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters in Burn …

"It is frustrating when I hear the demand that we return the land to the people, because it is in the people's hand -- the people own it," Randy Eardley, a Bureau of Land Management spokesman, told CBS.
"Everybody in the United States owns that land," he added. "We manage it the best we can for its owners, the people, and whether it's for recreating, for grazing, for energy and mineral development."
The Audubon Society of Portland, a wildlife conservation group, has also denounced the occupation saying it puts one of the country's "most important wildlife refuges at risk."
"The occupiers have used the flimsiest of pretexts to justify their actions," said Audubon's conservation director Bob Sallinger in a statement.
On Wednesday, members of an Oregon Indian tribe also took issue with Bundy and his group saying they were occupying ancestral property and "desecrating one of our sacred sites."
"The protesters have no right to this land," said Charlotte Rodrique, a leader for the Burns Paiute tribe.
Meanwhile the local sheriff has organized a town meeting Wednesday afternoon to discuss the standoff with the local community.
Harney County Sheriff David Ward, who has urged Bundy and his followers to pack up and leave, said the standoff was having an economic impact on the region, where schools have been shut for safety concerns.
"If this goes any longer it will have an even greater impact to our tourism and economy," he said in a statement.
"They have promised to leave if our community wants them to," he added. "We want to see them go home to their families and consider how their actions affect this community."

monty

7th January 2016, 02:41 PM

Lou Dobbs from Fox news with reporter from the Oregonian. Dobbs calls out the Burns County Sheriff and the Oregon Congressional delegation

http://youtu.be/r9RTYOxrhgc

http://youtu.be/r9RTYOxrhgc

Hillbilly

7th January 2016, 04:01 PM

The Hamonds are creepy child abusers... look up whst they did to their nephew.

monty

7th January 2016, 05:10 PM

I saw that. That doesn't make them terrorists.

Tumbleweed

7th January 2016, 05:45 PM

The Hamonds are creepy child abusers... look up whst they did to their nephew.

Looks like the US Attorney Amanda Marshall that went after the Hammonds has her own personal problems too but that's not what this dispute between ranchers and the government is about.

http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-32952-us_attorney_amanda_marshall_allegedly_stalked_subo .html

Tumbleweed

7th January 2016, 08:05 PM

This is an interview with Ryan Bundy today. I haven't heard him interviewed before. He's articulate and well spoken. He covers a lot of things that have been covered before but he does it well and it's worth listening too. It helps to hear his thoughts and perspective to gain an understanding of the issues at hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yP6Zm2myw8

Cebu_4_2

7th January 2016, 08:10 PM

I am typical and don't have enough time to watch anything over 15 seconds, but I trust you.

Tumbleweed

7th January 2016, 09:13 PM

Here's an interview with Sheriff Richard Mack today and his perspective on what's been going on and how corrupt our government is. I think it's pretty good.

He's worried about what this corrupt government might do to the Bundys too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBgPgjYqe0g

mick silver

8th January 2016, 09:22 AM

Showdown in Oregon: How to - and How Not to Fight Tyranny

January 7, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - The showdown between armed ranchers and federal agents in the US state of Oregon has triggered passionate debates not only about the particulars of the standoff itself, but the precise manner in which people should stand up against an increasingly overbearing government and the corporate-financier special interests that have commandeered it.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-U04VoTeGa9A/Vo2KvDowVlI/AAAAAAAAMno/uhNB_xkmuzo/s640/1032686437.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-U04VoTeGa9A/Vo2KvDowVlI/AAAAAAAAMno/uhNB_xkmuzo/s1600/1032686437.jpg)

Wall Street and Washington have left the country itself in socioeconomic shambles. Abroad, these collective special interests are subverting nations politically and economically from Venezuela to Southeast Asia, waging war throughout North Africa and the Middle East, while propping up criminal client regimes in nations like Ukraine.

A handful of armed ranchers with a few boxes of supplies, who live within and are completely dependent on a system controlled by the very special interests they are standing up against, will do little to change the military, economic, political, and social factors that add up to the above described global equation.

The ranchers' supply cache looks like it was picked up from one of America's many mega-retailers, the literal consumerist feeding troughs that keep the American people perpetually in servile dependence, and the Fortune 500 deeply entrenched amid the unwarranted power and influence it has enjoyed for decades and is able to wield at home and abroad with virtual impunity.

It is not unlike a group of American G.I.'s trying to fight the Germans during WW2, while buying German rations, from the Germans, all while leaving German supply lines completely intact. They would not only be preserving their enemy's source of strength to fight, but paying into it. The harder they "fought" the more supplies they would need, and the stronger their enemy would become.

The ranchers' standoff, from a purely strategic point-of-view, is already a failure. No matter who is really behind it, and no matter how it plays out, the actions of the ranchers at best will cause the government to back down on this one particular issue, and only for this particular case At worse, it will only further justify the growing police state evolving within America's borders. Regardless, it will do absolutely nothing to change the balance of power enabling Wall Street and Washington at home or abroad.

How to Fight Tyranny

A growing tyranny is not entirely unlike an insurgency. The terms insurgency and counterinsurgency can quickly become confusing in a politically motivated context. However, generally speaking, an insurgency seeks to overthrow an established institution or political order, while a counterinsurgency seeks to maintain that order.

In the United States, and around much of the world where the nation-state still prevails, the established order is one of national sovereignty based on constitutions and charters produced by each respective nation, with an infrastructure built and improved upon over generations by each nation's respective cultures, economic activities, and innovations. From a nation's national courts and military, all the way down to the individual family, these are the established institutions of one's nation.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EdJDGfDNOwg/Vo2LAlPfUKI/AAAAAAAAMnw/HiNyqC4LYyA/s640/CorporateMap.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EdJDGfDNOwg/Vo2LAlPfUKI/AAAAAAAAMnw/HiNyqC4LYyA/s1600/CorporateMap.jpg)

Image: The problem goes beyond the various government agencies that torment us, be it land departments perceived to be harassing ranchers, or police perceived to be harassing African-Americans, and stems from the unwarranted power and influence the government wields due to the corporate-financier interests that have commandeered it to serve its own interests. A few guns and a box of supplies bought at Walmart will not solve a problem that, ironically, includes Walmart.

There is an insurgency to subvert all of this. A global corporate-financier (http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government.html) insurgency, or simply a "corporate-insurgency."

The corporate-insurgency seeks to subvert our institutions, starting with the family, extending to our schools, universities, churches, temples and mosques, our local sheriff, and even reaching into our national governments, rewriting or eradicating altogether our national constitutions and charters. It has, to a great extent, already subverted our independent local infrastructure, while implementing laws and regulations to prevent us from restoring it. We have the very tactics described in a vast library of government and military counterinsurgency documents being employed against us, where ever we are and to a profound effect.

"Insurgency is the organized use of subversion and violence to seize, nullify or challenge political control of a region. As such, it is primarily a political struggle, in which both sides use armed force to create space for their political, economic and influence activities to be effective. Insurgency is not always conducted by a single group with a centralized, military-style command structure, but may involve a complex matrix of different actors with various aims, loosely connected in dynamic and non-hierarchical networks. To be successful, insurgencies require charismatic leadership, supporters, recruits, supplies, safe havens and funding (often from illicit activities). They only need the active support of a few enabling individuals, but the passive acquiescence of a large proportion of the contested population will give a higher probability of success. This is best achieved when the political cause of the insurgency has strong appeal, manipulating religious, tribal or local identity to exploit common societal grievances or needs. Insurgents seek to gain control of populations through a combination of persuasion, subversion and coercion while using guerrilla tactics to offset the strengths of government security forces. Their intent is usually to protract the struggle, exhaust the government and win sufficient popular support to force capitulation or political accommodation. Consequently, insurgencies evolve through a series of stages, though the progression and outcome will be different in almost every case." - page 7 U.S. Government Counterinsurgency Guide, 2009 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/111163743/US-Government-Guide-to-Counterinsurgency) (emphasis added)
While this above quote is a most accurate description of an insurgency, as one reads the US Government Counterinsurgency Guide (2009) (http://www.scribd.com/doc/111163743/US-Government-Guide-to-Counterinsurgency), they will realize that the opposing methods of counterinsurgency itself involve all of these same factors, simply mirrored and reflecting the interests of the US versus the interests

mick silver

8th January 2016, 09:35 AM

The Twilight of the Libertarian Idols: Growing Public Hostility to the Lawless Adventurism of the Anarchist Bundy Gang Signal Beginning of the End of Organized Austrianism; Consternation Among Anarcho-Capitalist Ideologues; Uncanny Similarity of Today’s Militias to Pre-Fascist Freikorps in Post-World War I Germany
http://tarpley.net/images/ufaa.icoUnited Front Against Austerity (http://againstausterity.org/) | http://tarpley.net/images/twsp.icoTax Wall Street Party (http://twsp.us/)Morning Briefing | Thursday, January 7, 2016 (http://twsp.us/briefing/20160107)
http://twsp.us/sites/default/files/styles/newsletter___full_size/public/briefing/800px-MalheurNWRHeadquarters.jpg?itok=f5D1ixTK (http://twsp.us/sites/default/files/briefing/800px-MalheurNWRHeadquarters.jpg)
The federal building seized by armed survivalists of the Bundy gang at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in southeast Oregon. The Bundy Gang is truly the Malheur of America!
http://twsp.us/sites/default/files/styles/newsletter___full_size/public/briefing/Bundesarchiv_Bild_119-2815-20%2C_Wismar%2C_Kapp-Putsch%2C_Freikorps_Ro%C3%9Fbach.jpg?itok=EmUgCr8y (http://twsp.us/sites/default/files/briefing/Bundesarchiv_Bild_119-2815-20%2C_Wismar%2C_Kapp-Putsch%2C_Freikorps_Ro%C3%9Fbach.jpg)
Post World War I Germany: militia unit deployed in support of the failed Kapp Putsch by royalists and reactionaries in 1920.
http://twsp.us/sites/default/files/styles/newsletter___full_size/public/briefing/Pochod_Freikorpsu_v_Hazlove%CC%81_u_As%CC%8Ce_1938 .jpg?itok=2gLWzFGB (http://twsp.us/sites/default/files/briefing/Pochod_Freikorpsu_v_Hazlove%CC%81_u_As%CC%8Ce_1938 .jpg)
Pro-Nazi militias parade in the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia, 1938.
http://twsp.us/sites/default/files/styles/newsletter___full_size/public/briefing/Blaine_Cooper.png?itok=z4qIs-LC (http://twsp.us/sites/default/files/briefing/Blaine_Cooper.png)
Photo shows a certain Blaine Cooper, reportedly taking part in the Bundy operation in Burns, Oregon. Cooper is an experienced provocateur whose antics have included rubbing a copy of the Koran against a side of bacon.

Out in Harney County, Oregon, the armed occupation of a federal building at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has been proceeding in a climate that is turning from indifference to hostility. The public schools in the area have been forced to close because of the security threat. The posturing and slogan spouting militia men spent the night between fear and hope – fear that federal forces were coming to disarm them and round them up, and hope that such an action by the US would allow them to be launched as martyrs and victims. The editorial comment of the Portland Oregonian was the following wish: “In Harney County, may the anarchy die of its own cluelessness.” It was a good wish for Epiphany.
The paramilitary poseurs announced the formation of a study group, which would determine who the real owners of the Harney County lands really were, so that privatization and restoration to the original owners could be carried out. But then, the study group became a laughingstock when representatives of local Indian tribes came forward to argue that the lands ought to be restored to them.
Now thoroughly forced onto the defensive, the widely execrated and mocked Ammon Bundy flailed desperately to restore his own battered public image. But the best he could think of was the idea that he too had his hand in the federal till, that he too was feeding at the public trough:

‘…Bundy told CNN on Tuesday that he’s not opposed to government and said that taking a six-figure loan from the Small Business Administration doesn’t conflict with his political philosophy. Bundy borrowed $530,000 in 2010 for his company, Valet Fleet Service LLC, according to public records on usaspending.gov. Valet Fleet Service is a truck maintenance company in Arizona.’
More ominous for the militiamen, there is a growing awareness of the central role played by Mormon religious fanaticism in the ongoing agitation. As we highlighted in Tuesday morning’s briefing, the theory of land titles propounded by Ammon and Ryan Bundy is identical to that of Mormon dictator Brigham Young in the 1850s. It is also the theory of land titles developed by Mormon demagogues from Joseph Smith to Warren Jeffs. The Boston Globe has called attention to the Mormon essence of the Bundy gang:

‘Most mainstream news accounts of anti-government protesters’ occupation of a Fish and Wildlife Service facility in Oregon have ignored or downplayed the group’s religious beliefs. Ammon Bundy’s small band of armed followers turn out to be religious fanatics, and — inconveniently for the Salt Lake City-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — Mormon religious fanatics.’ 2A
The group most sympathetic to the Bundy gang turned out to be the overblown and overrated libertarian ideologues who have attached themselves first to the 9/11 truth movement, to which they contributed little, and then to the Paultard faction of Ron and Rand.
Paul Craig Roberts: Bundy Militia Wants “Rule of Law” [sic]One of these ideologues was Paul Craig Roberts, a former subcabinet official in the Treasury Department under Reagan. Roberts’ article was entitled the “The Rule Of Law No Longer Exists In Western Civilization.” The argument here is that the rule of law, collapsed across the Western world approximately 25 years ago. This time frame is interesting, because it suggests that the rule of law came tumbling down like so many other traditional institutions of the United States precisely in the aftermath of that monstrous exercise in class warfare, devastating austerity, and union busting, otherwise known as the Reagan administration.
Since Paul Craig Roberts was very much present at the creation for the Great U-Turn , which put real wages (average weekly earnings) in the United States on a sharp downward slope, perhaps he could enlighten us on the relations among austerity, declining standards of living, and social breakdown. We must also remind readers that Paul Craig Roberts is someone who has formally and officially on several occasions announced that he was dropping out of any political struggle, since all was lost and any action is useless. Somehow, the world has kept going.
Today his thesis is that the militias concentrated in the Southeast Oregon represent the last hope for the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law in general in this country. He writes that ‘the militiamen have said that they are prepared to die for principles, and the rule of law is one of them.’ But this is delirium.
The Sheriff of Harney County is nowhere near the celebrated libertarian ideologue that Paul Craig Roberts is, but he has figured out the basic issues with much greater accuracy, especially when he noted: “You said you were here to help the citizens of Harney County. That help ended when a peaceful protest became an armed occupation,” Sheriff Ward of Burns commented.
We would remind Doctor Roberts that the rule of law is based on ballot boxes, registration rolls, and voting machines – all symbolizing an electoral process which the Bundy gang holds in scorn as they pursue their direct actions in the spirit of extreme right-wing anarchism. The rule of law entails legal briefs, evidence, testimony, and the officers of the court.
With the Bundy gang, we see none of these. We see a group of disgruntled, middle-aged, white supremacist ignoramuses clad in ill-fitting camouflage fatigues and posturing with dime store assault rifles. Their language of violence and the threat of violence are the antithesis of the rule of law, as Dr. Roberts must well know. To argue that armed thugs represent a legal argument in any sense is a patent absurdity.
Bundy Gang Plans Colossal Land Grab for Private InterestsDr Roberts is also forgetting the demand raised by the Bundy gang that they be allowed to dictate the privatization of United States property belonging to the entire American people, distributing the loot among local ranchers, miners, loggers, and resort owners. The Bundy line is to “restore the rights to people so they can use the land and resources “for ranching, logging, mining and recreation.’ Who gave them this prerogative? We must not forget that the Bundy gang has proclaimed itself “ready to kill and be killed if necessary.”
Looking back to the Cliven Bundy standoff of spring 2014, we can recall that in that instance, heavily armed fanatics, who had crossed state lines for the express purpose of defining federal authority gun in hand, went so far as to create checkpoints at some distance from their armed camp, and went so far as to stop passing motorists to grill them about where they were headed and what their intentions were. In this case, it is Mormon fanatics Ammon and Ryan Bundy , who may have violated the Rap Brown law by crossing state lines with the intention of causing a riot – meaning the current armed occupation of federal premises.
This suggests certain freedoms which the libertarian ideologues have tended to ignore. These include the right to be free from being stopped on a federal highway, intimidated by a display of firearms, questioned about one’s own travel plans, and otherwise harassed. There is also the right to be able to go on strike and set up a picket line and have it remain intact, undisturbed by thugs, goons, and strikebreakers – the kind of roles we can sense in the immediate futures of the sorts of creatures who are now hunkering down in the Malheur building.
Is that a free country? It looks more like a Freikorps (protofascist militia) checkpoint in the chaotic Berlin of 1920, when disgruntled veterans and monarchist bureaucrats tried to end the Weimar Republic and restore the recently deposed emperor, that is to say Kaiser Wilhelm II.
Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com, another self-styled libertarian, is also fervently rooting for the armed right-wing anarchists. In the course of this, he perceptively notes that ‘this time the feds cannot afford to back down precisely because they did so the last time. And in any armed confrontation with the federal government, the ranchers are bound to wind up dead.’
Raimondo raises the important issue of why no serious legal actions were taken against the Bundy gang for their armed, rifle brandishing standoff with federal officials in southern Nevada in the spring of 2014. Was this an attempt by the FBI to incite more and better armed seizures of federal property, followed by better and bloodier armed standoffs? There are several officials of the Department of Justice and the FBI – including director Comey – who ought to get the sack over this issue. But in the meantime, the lesson learned must be applied in practice.
Several accounts of the development of European fascism between the two world wars include bitter warnings from trade union officials and center left politicians calling on posterity to realize that, as soon as a fascist movement appears, it must be disarmed, rounded up, and crushed as soon as possible. Some of these defeated leaders note that their own self-defense units would have been enough to disperse the fascist gangs once and for all. But instead, be it on advice from Comrade Stalin or be it on advice from the Socialist International, the softline kid glove treatment was chosen in many instances. This meant that, once it became horrendously clear how dangerous and powerful the fascists were rapidly becoming, it had become too late to break them up.
This principle is enshrined in the law. In Black’s Law dictionary, we find the following explanation of the relevant Latin term, which is principiis obsta – meaning approximately that dangerous phenomena have to be nipped in the bud. Here is the entry: ‘Lat. Withstand beginnings; resist the first approaches or encroachments. “It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be ‘Obsta principiis.’ ” Bradley, J.. Boyd v. U. S., 116 U. S. 035, 6 Sup. Ct. 535, 29 L. Ed. 746.’
But Raimondo is gaga in his uncritical support of the Bundy gang:

‘No wonder ranchers and their families and supporters are taking up arms against the federal government – this is no more surprising than the Iraqi resistance to the US army of occupation….To say that this is an adventuristic suicide mission would be an understatement…. However, that is neither here nor there: the ranchers are resisting, and they must be defended, no matter how shortsighted their tactics may be.’
Germany in particular was practically taken over by the infamous Freikorps, meaning free militias or non-governmental militias, or private militias in our terminology. These Freikorps were composed of bitter, disgruntled, defeated veterans from World War I who could be used for strike breaking, the intimidation of political opponents, and also the assassination of high profile working-class leaders like Rosa Luxemburg, Wilhelm Liebknecht, and Leon Jogiches. Many of these proto-fascist militias had been active against the Bolsheviks in the current territory of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Many Freikorps members eventually joined the Nazi party.
In 1920, a high-level government official by the name of Kapp attempted a coup d’état which has gone into history as the Kapp Putsch. This action was motivated by a desire to strangle the infant Weimar Republic in its cradle, and restore the monarchy in Prussia and in Germany in general. This attempted coup relied heavily on the Freikorps operating in the Berlin area. When the Kapp Putsch was put down, many of the militiamen fled back into private life. If the events in Burns, Oregon become the humiliating defeat for the militia movement which appears to be looming at this writing, responsible political forces must demand that there be serious legal consequences for those who have picked up the gun because they are too cowardly to face the rigors of the normal political process.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/two-photos-worth-million-words… (http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/two-photos-worth-million-words-explaining-oregon-militia-leader-blaine-cooper)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-armed-protest/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-armed-protest/)
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/01/05/the-rule-of-law-no-longer-exi… (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/01/05/the-rule-of-law-no-longer-exists-in-western-civilization-paul-craig-roberts/)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-armed-protest/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-armed-protest/)
http://thelawdictionary.org/obsta-principiis/ (http://thelawdictionary.org/obsta-principiis/)
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/01/03/the-war-against-the-cowboys/ (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/01/03/the-war-against-the-cowboys/)
[2a] https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/01/05/oregon-standoff-has-roots… (https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/01/05/oregon-standoff-has-roots-mormon-fanaticism/QLgIkrNZipFjtbn4AyUZFJ/story.html)

Subscribe to the UFAA/TWSP Morning Briefing (taxwallstreetparty@gmail.com?subject=subscribe)

mick silver

8th January 2016, 09:51 AM

Has a Peaceful Protest over Government Over-reach Been Corrupted by Outside Influence in Burns, Oregon?Katie Aguilera (http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/author/katie-aguilera/) | January 5, 2016 26 Comments (http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2016/01/05/has-a-peaceful-protest-over-government-over-reach-been-corrupted-by-outside-influence-in-burns-oregon/#comments)

Questions & Potentially Serious Ramificationshttp://www.boilingfrogspost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/010416_KAPost.pngOn Saturday, January 2, 2015, a peaceful protest took place in Burns, Oregon. This protest had been planned for some time as an effort to bring attention to an ongoing legal case involving a local ranching family, the Hammonds. Many people gathered, both from the Burns area, and from around the west, to march in support of Dwight and Steven Hammond, father and son, who have been ordered to return to prison for setting two fires on their own land. Fires that subsequently spread to neighboring Bureau of Land Management property, leading to Dwight and Steve Hammond being prosecuted under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. People came to protest because they believe the Hammonds have already paid the penalty for those fires, and that the Federal government is over-stepping its authority by re-sentencing the men and requiring them to return to prison. They came to protest the use of the Anti-terrorism law in the Hammond's case. They came to protest because they fear the federal government is putting far too many restrictions on access to BLM land for ranchers and others who make use of federally held lands for profit.
The protest rally went as planned, peacefully and respectfully. Afterwards, there was a meeting at the county fairgrounds, where the situation had clearly changed. It was announced that members of outside militia groups had driven to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters, and occupied the buildings. This outside group includes three sons of Cliven Bundy of Nevada, who made national news in April of 2014 for his own stand-off with the BLM over grazing rights in Nevada (1). They appear to have come to Burns, Oregon, in support of the protests for the Hammond family, but after taking over the Malheur Refuge headquarters and setting up for a prolonged, armed stand-off, they have stated much more extensive reasons for their presence. According to an Oregon Live article, they have said that they want ranchers “who have been kicked out of the area” to “come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control.” (2) Ammon and Ryan Bundy, Cliven Bundy's sons, have stated that “they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them.” (3) Ammon Bundy has also said, “we're planning on staying for years, absolutely. This is not a decision we've made at the last minute.” They are calling their group “Citizens For Constitutional Freedom” as of today. (4)
Right from the start, there was confusion and concern over this takeover. Early media reports reflected the wariness of the local population and their lack of support for the militia group. Questions have been raised as to why this group has taken control of this remote part of Oregon, and just who is actually behind the move.
Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward said on Sunday, “...these men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt to over throw the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States.” (5)
Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D) has stated that he believes outsiders are responsible for the situation. He said, "What I want to do is make sure that the next step, after that frustration, is not to be, in effect, led over the cliff by some people from outside Oregon who just seem willing to take the law into their own hands." (6) He has also stated that he doesn't think the group has the support of most locals.
Perhaps even more interesting, and even more telling, are the voices of fellow protesters and local militia-affiliated groups. BJ Soper, a member of Central Oregon Constitutional Guard, has stated that, “not only was the community's trust hijacked by what happened, but mine was.” (7) He is adamant that he was unaware of Bundy's plans. And he isn't alone in asserting this. Brandon Curtiss, a militia leader from Idaho, who assisted in organizing the protest rally held on Saturday, has also stated to the Oregonian that he didn't know of the occupation in advance. (8) Yet another protester has expressed her own concern at length over what has taken place. A woman who traveled to Burns to show support for the Hammond family by taking part in the protest has been willing to give her account of the events leading up to the takeover of the Malheur Refuge headquarters to Sibel Edmonds here at Boiling Frogs Post. She has done so under the condition that her name will not be mentioned. The following is her accounting, in her own words.

An Independent Perspective from the Rally in Burns
By An Anonymous Activist
“It was a blistering cold day as we arose at 6:30 to head to Burns, Oregon. We had never physically protested before, but this case was different. It was clear to any lay person reading the information that the Feds (and various agencies involved) were out to take Hammond's property, any way they had to.
As the drive went on, I realized I had never really cared about what it meant to see or understand what a healthy range of land looked like. I was raised a city girl, and while I had some limited exposure to horses, I never really had time, or took the time, to ponder it all.
When we arrived (about an hour early), I was so pleased to see many American (and other) flags in the corner of the parking lot at Safeway in Burns. I glanced up at our car temperature gage, brrr, 9 degrees. I thought, 'it's gonna be cold!' My eyes were drawn to the many people already gathered next to those flags. A sense of long-missed pride filled my heart.
We pulled into the parking lot and saw there was no place to park, already! My Husband dropped me off at the entrance so I could purchase some flowers and water for the walk.
He went off and checked into the motel, parked our car, and walked back to Safeway. He met me inside the store. We picked out our things and checked out. Everyone in the store was friendly and helpful. I stood in the entry way, taking off my coat to add my hoodie. The walk in was cold, and I had on a tank, a T shirt over that, and two pairs of pants. I added my hoodie, put on my hat and gloves and we headed outside.
Some background information on the rally...it was always clearly communicated to me, and the residents of Harney County, that this was to be a peaceful rally. We were all doing this to support the Hammond Family, and to protest not only the cruel and unusual sentence they received, but their special designation as terrorists for burning grass, especially where no structures were damaged, nor were any monies or resources expended for putting the fires out. (For background information, people are encouraged to read more at www.bundyranch.blogspot.com (http://www.bundyranch.blogspot.com/)) I was told no 'militia' insignia, no open carry of long guns (rifles) and that if you were going to carry a weapon, carry concealed, it was a matter of respect.
As I looked around the crowd, I did see some insignia, but most of it was on hats, a few jackets. I saw a couple of long guns (but they were not seen on the walk), some side arms (some that were clearly plain clothes Law Enforcement) and I was pretty impressed. I thought, really, getting approximately 300 people to all do the same thing was nearly impossible, and maybe some did not get the instructions I did.
Speakers started to rally the crowd. We prayed. Law enforcement kind of had a look like, 'I drew the easy assignment today.'
Ammon Bundy did speak at the podium, and a short time later passed me on the way up the hill...he seemed distracted, serious. I did not see Blaine Cooper or Jon Ritzheimer yesterday, though from their videos on YouTube they said they were here. I just figured there were so many people I just did not see them.
Dwight and Susie Hammond's house was on the route the protesters took (their ranch is about 50 miles away, their son Steven and his wife life there) and they came out to greet and thank them. The protesters left their flowers. The rally was over. It was great and it was successful because it was peaceful and respectful, from the main group. No disruption occurred en route.
The 'After Rally Meeting' was set up where the other community meetings were held, at the county Fairgrounds. We arrived, and we could feel things were not right, clear out in the parking lot. When we got inside, Pete Santilli (a 'YouTuber' with a radio show, who was also at the Bundy Ranch), had the microphone. I whispered to a friend, 'what's going on?' They replied, 'Ammon, Jon, Blaine, and some others captured the BLM building out at the Preserve.'
We listened to several speakers, each trying to explain to angry participants what happened. 'We don't know why.' 'No, we did not know they were going to do this.' 'We have no idea why they chose the Preserve as their location, please be patient while we try to find out.' My husband said, 'I'm uncomfortable.' We walked out.
It is a shame, really. Several people, inside Harney County and out, had concerns about a different agenda evolving. Some of the Patriots could see the possibility that there was an “undercurrent” of another agenda at play, but each time it was asked about, to various people, it was denied that it was happening. One man I give a lot of credit to is BJ Soper. I do not believe that it would have been as respectable as it was (most did not know about the other plan until well into the 1.2 mile planned route), had he not made a concerted effort to communicate with residents, militia, and participants alike. There are quite a few others, but I think he was exceptional here. The problem is, no matter your great, respectful, peaceful intentions, someone always has to be different...this time it is a doozy.
Many Patriots are feeling deceived and manipulated by what happened. Many question the motives or true agenda of those who chose to take the “hard stand” and what will be accomplished with this “hard stand.” Some believe this was a maneuver to force other Patriots to take a “hard stand” too. Others believe it is a PSYOP.
What this Patriot knows? Good question...
I know I am embarrassed for the Hammonds. Their name is being dragged through the National Press, not to bring their name and story to the public at large, but as a reason why “other terrorists” have latched onto this case...as if their case and name confirms they must be terrorists because they “attract other terrorists” to them. What hogwash!
I do believe this much for sure; this president thinks that it is acceptable to write Executive Orders limiting or taking away rights that are codified in our Constitution as Creator-given rights, that no government can take away. Congress is not doing its job to reign him in. The Supreme Court thinks it writes law/usurps states' individually enacted laws. A Formal Redress of Grievance was provided to local and state officials, asking them to investigate the Hammond's case. They are required by law to reply. No reply was given by any officials. We wrote letters, signed petitions. At what point, as a people, do we acknowledge that our government is irreversibly no longer functioning in a workable manner? Remember, any law or authority not given specifically in our Constitution is to be considered null and void. I would recommend people start reading our Founding Documents, to really understand what they say.
As we traveled home, I was again looking at the open range, noticing how there were very few trees. As we drove into Central Oregon, where our trees are allowed to grow, our land is “settled” with lawns and peppered with non-indigenous trees, I noticed something profound. Our settled, un-razed (a controlled burn is called razing) land did not look nearly as healthy as the land that clearly was “handled” (intentionally or not) by fire.”
This situation is, of course, still ongoing. Dwight and Steve Hammond are reportedly peacefully returning to prison today. An unknown number of men and women are still occupying the wildlife refuge headquarters. So far, the response of law enforcement has been limited, although increasing. Memories of Waco and Ruby Ridge echo, and fears remain that this standoff will end in similar fashion. And the question remains as to why this group has chosen this location. Who initiated the idea? Why are they remaining in place, here, in Oregon, apparently without local invitation or support, rather than in their own home states? In today's volatile political climate, the ramifications of this action are potentially very serious, and should be considered carefully by everyone involved. Those of us watching and reporting on this should be evaluating these questions critically.

# # # #Katie Aguilera is an independent researcher, author, and activist. She resides in Bend, Oregon. You can check out her blog here (http://seekingredress.com/)
Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/01/03/militia-members-occupy-us-building-in-oregon-after-protest/78226600/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatoday-newstopstories
http://www.ktvz.com/news/refuge-occupiers-settle-in-concerns-mount-in-burns/37249044

http://www.ktvz.com/news/fbi-seeks-peaceful-resolution-to-malheur-refuge-takeover/37245518
http://www.ktvz.com/news/Wyden-on-takeover-Most-locals-don-t-support-outsiders/37247064
http://www.bendbulletin.com/home/3875998-151/central-oregon-activists-in-burns-critical-of-occupation
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html

- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2016/01/05/has-a-peaceful-protest-over-government-over-reach-been-corrupted-by-outside-influence-in-burns-oregon/#sthash.xaKscAJI.dpuf

mick silver

8th January 2016, 10:23 AM

Feds, Militias, and Native Americans: A Deeper Look at the Oregon Standoff Home (http://theantimedia.org/)»Activism (http://theantimedia.org/category/solutions/activism/)»Feds, Militias, and Native Americans: A Deeper Look at the Oregon Standoff

The Paiute tribe, the Bundy militia, and the U.S. government are at the center of the Oregon Standoff. Anti-Media takes a deeper look at the controversy…Derrick Broze (http://theantimedia.org/team/derrick/)
January 6, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA (http://theantimedia.org/)) Since Saturday, January 2, a group of protesters calling themselves a militia have descended upon the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to occupy a federal building in a stand against federal tyranny. The incident stemmed from a dispute between rancher, Steven Hammond, 46, his father, Dwight Hammond, Jr., 73, and federal authorities. The two men were accused of setting fires in 2001 and 2006 to cover up evidence of poaching activities, however, the Hammond’s claim they were fighting off an invasive plant species.
The men were initially found guilty under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/104/s735), which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for arson on federal land. The Hammonds were sentenced to far less time, courtesy of U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, who felt five years would be “grossly disproportionate” to the crime. However, shortly after the men were released from prison, the Department of Justice appealed the ruling — and won. The Hammonds were ordered to serve out the remaining time in the five-year minimum sentence. Both men peacefully turned themselves in (http://abcnews.go.com/US/oregon-ranchers-expected-report-california-prison-amid-armed/story?id=36079385) on Monday. (For a great explanation of the problems with mandatory minimum sentences, see this piece (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/oregon-mandatory-minimums/422433/))

Although the Hammonds have submitted to federal authorities, the protesters are still holding the building to protest what they see as government overreach. One of the leading protesters is Ammon Bundy, son of Cliven Bundy, who made national headlines (http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/18/politics/nevada-bundy-ranch-land-rights/) in 2014 after a similar standoff with the Bureau of Land Management in Nevada. Ammon Bundy has appeared on mainstream television stating the group is still taking a stand against federal tyranny and theft of lands, even if the Hammonds have given up the fight. It is not yet clear exactly what the armed men want or how long they plan to occupy the empty building.
Regardless of how long this stand plays out, it seems obvious the American people are allowing themselves to be divided by another hot-button issue that is more complex than it appears at first glance. As expected, the pundits, politicians, social media commentators, and armchair philosophers have picked their sides. They are ready to tell you why you should trust your own biases and make fun of the “opposition.”
The corporate left-wing media (and even some of the alternative/independent media) were quick to remind everyone that if these men had been Muslims or black, they would have already been bombed or killed. The left-wing also says media coverage of the event would be much different if the protesters were people of color, with a likely increase in the use of words like “thug” and “criminal.” And you know what? They have a point.
America does have a race problem, and those issues need to be addressed; but supporters of this view are often quick to buy into the narrative that all white men with guns must automatically be racist and should therefore be ignored or maligned. We have even seen a dangerous trend on social media and from some journalists calling for the federal government to use force against these people and create another Waco — a troubling notion from those who traditionally advocate against government violence and suppression of dissent.
But what about the right-wing? What do they want you to think?
The corporate right-wing media (and again, even some of the alternative/independent media) has a knee-jerk reaction (and erection) for white men with guns who wave U.S. flags and decry the evils of Obama. The right-wing also says this a fight against government tyranny — that they are tired of the federal government encroaching on land these ranchers have held for generations. And you know what? They have a point.
The federal government owns the majority of the land (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/10/15/almost-half-the-west-is-federally-owned-now-some-states-want-their-land-back/) in the Western United States through national parks, refuges, and other protected areas. For years, ranchers complained that the Feds were slowly stealing land in the name of protecting the environment (research: Sagebrush Rebellion (http://www.foresthistory.org/Publications/Books/Origins_National_Forests/sec13.htm)). Still, supporters of the 2nd Amendment and those who question the morality and necessity of the federal government should not blindly support the Oregon standoff simply because these men have guns and talk about revolution. It does seem hypocritical for Ammon Bundy to talk about how much he hates the Feds while taking government handouts (http://usuncut.com/news/5-government-handouts-bundys-receive/). Further, the militia’s claims they are fighting to put the land back into the hands of the rightful owner, the Hammonds, beg the question:
[CENTER]

mick silver

8th January 2016, 10:25 AM

Who Owns the Land?
The area currently known as the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was once known as the Malheur Reservation. Established in 1872 (http://www.ibtimes.com/native-americans-react-oregon-armed-occupation-burns-paiute-tribe-says-we-were-here-2252872) by President Grant, the reservation was created (http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/vol1/html_files/ore0886.html) to house several indigenous tribes and bands of people, including the Northern Paiute in eastern Oregon. Many of the tribes the federal government encouraged to move refused because of a lack of connection to the alternative land, as well as sparse resources there.
Jacqueline Keeler, a writer and activist of Dineh and Yankton Dakota heritage, recently talked with Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/5/these_arent_the_first_armed_whites) about the Paiute tribe’s treaty rights to the land currently occupied by the militia:
“This is the 137th anniversary of when 500 Paiutes were loaded onto wagons (http://www.burnspaiute-nsn.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60:trail-of-tears&catid=37:history&Itemid=57) and walked, under heavy armed guard, from their — from the lands where the Bundys are right now holding it and to the Yakama Reservation in Washington state, some 300 miles, knee-deep in snow. And they were forced to march, shackled two by two,” she said.
Keeler also discussed how the lands were systematically taken away from native communities:
“But with incursions from white settlers, they basically pressured the federal government to open it up to settlement. And so, in 1876, President Grant did that. And then, after there was an uprising with the Bannock Indian War in 1878, due to issues of starvation and deprivation in the middle of winter again, the Bannock and the Paiute rose up, and then that’s when they were force-marched out of the area and lost most of the land. I mean, they actually were allowed to return five years later, but they didn’t really have a land base. So they were working for local ranchers and—until 1928, when the Egan Land Company gave the Burns Paiute 10 acres of land just outside the city. And the land was an old city dump, which the Indians cleaned and drilled a well to make ready for houses.”
Charlotte Rodrique, the chairwoman of the federally recognized Burns Paiute Tribe, said the Paiute never voluntarily gave up their land, but rather, were forced out. “There was never an agreement that we were giving up this land. We were dragged out of here,” Rodrique told Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon-militia-tribe-idUSKBN0UK1FS20160106).
Selena Sam, a member of the tribe’s council, was also critical of the government’s continuing encroachment into native lands. “The government has become increasingly bureaucratic about allowing the tribe to catch trout, bass and perch in the rivers lacing the mountains and hunt elk and deer in the woods,” Sam told Reuters.
It seems whether you are indigenous to this land or a rancher with land claims, the federal government will consistently flout your concerns.
Provocateurs?
One last point I feel the need to make is the possibility (and reality) of agent provocateurs within various “revolutionary” or militia movements. I rarely waste my time speculating on various reports that claim to have exposed prominent activists or radio show hosts, but the reality is that the federal government is known for operating programs (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/g-flint-taylor/the-fbi-cointelpro-progra_b_4375527.html) that seek to infiltrate, disinform, and destroy (https://news.vice.com/article/how-the-fbi-goes-after-activists) activist movements (Research: COINTELPRO). We would be doing ourselves a disservice not to look at events like the Oregon Standoff with a critical eye — while remaining equally skeptical toward suspicions of infiltration.
Regardless, I personally find it odd (and disrespectful) to fly your banner of revolution in the name of a family like the Hammonds when they have already conceded and are cooperating with the federal government. It’s just bad business to hijack one issue in order to grow your own campaign. Another curious point is that all major media are covering this story. I don’t need to remind you that the vast majority of media outlets are controlled by a handful of corporations (http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6). If media companies and the people who own them (and partner with the U.S. government) did not want you talking about this, it would not be on every major news outlet.
My last — and I feel biggest — area of concern is related to three men who are being championed in the media as “spokesman (http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2016/01/04/44017/fnc-hn-20160104-santilli)” or “leaders” of this militia: Blaine Cooper, Jon Ritzheimer, and Pete Santilli.
I will start with Santilli because his credibility is easily called into question upon closer inspection. Santilli is a radio show host who has been the subject of controversy several times, including over suspicion of theft of funds related to the failed Truckers Ride for the Constitution (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/11/truckers-ride-for-the-constitution_n_4086156.html) action in 2013. However, the biggest issue with Santilli is the accusation (and supporting evidence (http://ge.tt/6cmWMXw/v/0) leaked by Anonymous) that he was actually working as an FBI informant (https://occupycorporatism.com/exposed-internet-radio-host-pete-santilli-revealed-fbi-informant/) during the Truckers incident. Others dispute (http://bobpowell.blogspot.com/2013/12/pete-santilli-framed-criminal.html) the accusations, rendering Santilli’s reputation murky, at best. Examine the links and judge for yourself.
Blaine Cooper is well-known on social media for his efforts to expose drug cartels crossing the U.S. border, as well as for his bigotry and hatred towards Muslims. Cooper and Ritzheimer run a website called Rogue Infidel, which claims to lead the fight against Islam. The tagline reads (http://rogueinfidel.com/), “It’s time for the world to wake up and recognize that Islam is attempting to dominate us all.”
On Wednesday, the Washington Post ran a story titled, “The ‘unhinged’ Oregon protester that the FBI has been tracking for months”. The Post wrote (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/05/why-a-notorious-anti-islam-radical-turned-on-the-federal-government-in-oregon/):
“Last year, after two Phoenix residents carrying assault rifles were killed by police outside a Muhammed cartoon-drawing contest in suburban Dallas, Ritzheimer began making and selling T-shirts bearing a profanity-laced denunciation of Islam. In May, he organized a protest (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/05/30/hundreds-gather-in-arizona-for-armed-anti-muslim-protest/) that drew about 250 mostly armed anti-Muslim demonstrators to a Phoenix mosque.
“Ritzheimer — who carried a 9mm Glock 26 at the May protest — called it a patriotic sign of resistance against what he deemed the tyranny of Islam in the United States.”
These two men are not only promoting a false divide and conquer narrative — they are bigots. Three of the prominent figures of this particular militia movement are bigots and at least one is a possible FBI informant. Again, however, I suggest caution when assuming all white men who enjoy firearms and espouse revolutionary ideology are simply racists or bigots (or infiltrators, for that matter). It’s always a mistake to collectivize individuals.
We should remember that these type of views are the ones the corporate media loves to latch onto and promote, as if all anti-government activists are bigots and hypocrites. This narrative allows those on the left to feel comfortable knowing they are right to oppose the militia because “it’s just a bunch of racist white men with guns.” Again, this viewpoint ignores the nuance of the situation and only serves to divide the people and empower the ruling class. Whether the current situation in Oregon is manufactured or a genuine protest, it is undoubtedly pitting Americans against each other.
There are absolutely legitimate reasons to oppose the federal government. Mass surveillance, wars of aggression, the growing police state, loss of civil liberties, the abuse and genocide of native communities — the list goes on and on. Activists on the left and the right should stop allowing emotions to guide the conversation and take the time to research these complex situations as they unfold.
Through self-reflection and a rational examination of the facts, all those fighting for liberation and justice can work together to expose potential government agents who aim to slow our progress and create unnecessary animosity. If we allow the corporate media, politicians, and gatekeepers to shape and form our opinions, we are unwittingly becoming sock puppets for the very people who wish to dominate all those who value freedom.
This article (Feds, Militias, and Native Americans: A Deeper Look at the Oregon Standoff (http://theantimedia.org/feds-militias-and-native-americans-a-deeper-look-at-the-oregon-standoff/)) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) license with attribution to Derrick Broze (http://theantimedia.org/author/derrickb1/) and theAntiMedia.org (http://theantimedia.org/). Anti-Media Radio (http://theantimedia.org/radio/) airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org (edits@theantimedia.org).

mick silver

8th January 2016, 12:08 PM

January 8, 2016 Rancher Rebels: the Rise of the Wise-Use Movement (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/08/rancher-rebels-the-rise-of-the-wise-use-movement/)
by Jeffrey St. Clair - James Ridgeway (http://www.counterpunch.org/author/jeffrey-st-clair-james-ridgeway/) by

Email (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/08/rancher-rebels-the-rise-of-the-wise-use-movement/?share=email&nb=1)

http://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/07/print-sp.png (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/08/rancher-rebels-the-rise-of-the-wise-use-movement/print/)

http://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/dropzone/2016/01/ranchwar-510x352.jpgOut in the high desert of Nevada’s basin and range country, down roads with names like the Extraterrestrial Highway that run off into the sky, and where the hardscrabble rancher and the miner still call the shots, a full-scale insurrection was born.You drive through this sagebrush landscape for miles and never see another car. Then, suddenly, you come across a man sitting by the side of the road, staring off into the distance of a bombing test range, watching for the latest incarnation of the Stealth bomber or maybe a UFO. This is Edward Abbey country, home to loners and drifters, people on the lam, desert anarchists.
In the corner of a Tonopah coffee shop, called the Station, next door to the incessant cacophony of a casino, where old ladies play the slots and men gather in clouds of ambient smoke around the roulette wheels, sat Wayne Hage, a top icon of the Sagebrush Rebels. Three years after his death in 2006, Hage remains a heroic figure for Western traditionalists in their fight against the evil doers in Washington and the environmentalist menace.
Here at the Station House, Hage sat, day after day, drinking bottomless cups of bitter cowboy coffee and looking out the window at the rusting remnants of mining derricks strewn across the town. Trucks thundered past, and in the sky, the odd Japanese tourist teetered precariously with his camera from a hot air balloon that carried him past the wonders of the old mining world, being celebrated at the annual Jim Baker Days, a weeklong drunkfest in honor of the miner who, the story goes, discovered Tonopah’s silver load when his mule kicked at him and dislodged some rocks that glistened in the sun.
Wayne Hage was the man to see if you really wanted to know what motivated the Wise Use Movement’s battle against environmentalists and the federal government. Hage was reluctant to meet on this blistering day in early June. He said he’d been hammered by the press too often, especially by the liberal press with an ax to grind against the Wise Users.
The Wise Use Movement consists of more than a thousand local organizations across the country, representing roughly three million people—people who fear the infringement of their property rights, mostly by what they see as oppressive federal government regulations. These are Palin people– rural, gun-packing Christians.
Some of these groups are simply out for money: they want the federal government to pay them considerable sums in exchange for changing traditional uses of their property that have run afoul of federal laws or even in exchange for cutbacks in the commercial use of public lands or resources. Custom and culture, they call it.
Other Wise Use groups have congealed as a political force to demand unrestricted access to federal lands, whether it be to log, run cattle, or for less than environmentally friendly recreational pursuits, such as off-road motorcycling or snowmobiling.
Corporate America has also invested heavily in certain factions of the Wise Use movement, using them as a grassroots stalking horse in their efforts to the preserve the archaic system of laws and regulations that allow them heavily subsidized entry to the natural wealth of the public domain. With the active help of Republicans in congress and a weak, conflict-averse executive branch , the big transnationals are intensifying their efforts to exploit the land, notably through the revival of gold mining and wide-spread oil and gas drilling.
The federal lands are at the center of a growing political struggle over the concept of property rights. Making up one-third of the nation, the public domain is by federal agencies, such as the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, and encompasses what remains of the nation’s valuable minerals, old growth forests, native grasslands and the extremely valuable oil and gas reserves—from the Rocky Mountain Front to the outer continental shelf.
Although shown as a lush green on road maps, much of this territory has been grotesquely transformed over the last half century by big companies into kind of industrial wasteland, consisting of atomic and other bombing ranges, ammo dumps, military and energy facilities, strip mines, clearcuts, dammed, dredged and scoured rivers, and leaching mounds of cyanide. Still, though victim to decades of abuse and neglect, the public lands also hold the last remnants of wild America, its salmon and trout, elk, grizzlies, spotted owls and wolves, its ancient forests, deserts and mountains—the American wilderness.
The Wise Use movement has created a profile of its enemy. They see themselves as being engaged in a high-stakes chess game with the elite legions of the environmental movement, who are covertly carrying out a sinister master plan, a vast socialist experiment to depopulate the rural West. As evidence they point to the Wildlands Project and to quotes from various greens calling for a 50 percent reduction in North America’s population by the year 2100. The Wise Use movement often suggests that the real goal of the environmental movement is to clear rural Westerners off the land, so the West can be turned into an “eco-theme park” for the pleasures of vacationing suburbanites.
In order to advance their socialist agenda, the Wise Users argue, environmental infiltrated the federal government. Under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, the thinking goes, embedded key leaders into powerful positions inside the EPA, Interior and Agriculture Departments, and then, acting through their positions on government regulatory bodies, the environmentalists have set out to first reduce and then eliminate all grazing and logging on public lands and sharly curtail mining by driving up the cost of doing business.
Furthermore, Wayne Hage argued, through the Endangered Species Act, environmentalists have covertly turned fights over such seemingly innocent creatures as the coho salmon, northern spotted owl and gray wolf into national symbols of a broad land use planning instrument, a kind of bureaucratic club wielded against rural landowners.
Occupying a ranking position on the Wise Use movement’s enemies list is former Clinton Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, who initiated the National Biological Survey in 1993—known in the ominous parlance of the Wise Use movement as the NBS. “The NBS is fascist, man, it’s socialist,” proclaimed Chuck Cushman, head of the American Land Rights Association, based in Battle Ground, Washington. “These guys map your property with infrared satellite photos, looking for plants, you know, then they can actually come on your property without your permission. If they find one of those plants, you know you’re screwed worse than if they found dope.”
But, of course, in the minds of many of these Sagebrush populists, the real menace lies not with the environmentalists, but with the political and financial powers that prop them up. It is the big East Coast foundations who now provide the principle financing of the big green organizations that are pulling the strings. And who is behind these foundations? The Rockefellers, the Pews, the Mellons and other titanic American families made rich through the Standard Oil trust and the like. Through their securities portfolios, naturally, these foundations are interlocked with the multinational corporations that run the world, and who eye the public estate as a source of cheap wealth when times get hard. And thus it is, according to Hage and his followers, that the small rancher in the Interior West is driven off the land by Forest Service and BLM rangers who are nothing more or less than federal agents of the Rockefellers.
“It’s not some deep dark conspiracy,” Hage told us in 1994. “The information is out there for anyone to see. Most people don’t pay attention to economics. And when they do, they say, ‘My god, it’s one of those conspiracy theories.’ No, it isn’t. It’s just the record. So you have the environmental movement as a stalking-horse, used to carry out the transfer of property rights of individuals over to the hands of government and multinational corporations, which serve the interest of the old nobility under the monarchists. And look at who owns these damn gold mines out here in Nevada … foreign corporations.”
In 1991, Hage’s cattle were impounded and sold off by Forest Service agents after the rancher blatantly overgrazed his allotment on the Toiyabe National Forest in central Nevada. Hage promptly closed down his cattle operation and filed a $24 million suit against the Forest Service in federal claims court The suit, which became a cause celebre for the property rights movement, alleged that the seizure amounted to a “taking” of his property rights.
Hage wrote a manifesto titled Storm Over Rangelands, (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0939571153/counterpunchmaga) which presented his historical overview of the political economic of the western United States. Hage and his book have become part of a carefully crafted legend that occupies center stage in the Wise Use movement.
According to Hage’s interpretation of western history, the public lands were always meant to be sold off to private ownership—and even though they never were, the actual ownership at the end of the 20th century has become a mélange of various tangled interests, both public and private: the so-called split estate. In fact, Hage argued, there’s no such thing as “public” lands. Of course, that didn’t stope the government from expropriating them, nationalizing the lands over and over again.
As an example of this kind of thought lurking in the shadows of American history, Hage pointed to the career of Carl Schurz, Interior Secretary under President Rutherford B. Hayes. Hage wrote in Storm Over Rangelands that “Schurz’s efforts to prevent the establishment of private property rights on the public lands may have sprung from his socialist background. Schurz was a controversial German immigrant who had fought along with Karl Marx in the Revolution of 1848, came to America, was elected senator from Missouri and supported the radical Republican’s reconstruction plans.”
So, argued Hage, with the nation deeply in debt after the Civil War, the European banking houses, led by the Rothschilds, conspired with the federal government to use the western lands as collateral against repayment of the war debt. The government reneged on the Spanish land grants and sent the cavalry out to kill off the Indians, who had real and justifiable land claims, to clear away any obstacles to this loan repayment scheme. The European financial interests joined forces with the big East Coast families to build the railroads, control the new towns and farms and, through the American Cattle Trust, turn the livestock business into a huge monopoly.
It was, after all, that great hero of environmentalism, geologist Clarence King, explorer of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, the father of the Smithsonian Institution and Geological Survey, the very father of federal science, who secretly sent his geology students from Ivy League schools to rustle cattle for his own profit on the western plains during summer vacation, abetting his huge cattle operation.
As time went on, according to Hage’s history, western lands were set aside through the conservation movement, starting with Yellowstone National Park, then Yosemite. These shrines to conservation were, according to Hageian theory, part of a vast project of “nationalization,” the equivalent, Hage wrote, of the “crown lands” in England.
Hage also contemptuously cites how the Taylor Grazing Act, which organized and regulated public land grazing during the 1930s, “created the collateral base for funding of Roosevelt’s New Deal.” According to Hage similar expansions of federal authority over western lands coincided with the Vietnam War (Wilderness Act).
Hage was one of the leaders of a group called Stewards of the Range, headquartered in Boise, Idaho, and founded by Hage’s attorney Mark Pollot, a former assistant secretary of the Interior under James Watt during the early Reagan years. During his tenure at Interior, Pollot authored Executive Order 12630, which required the federal government to attest that all federal agencies compensated landowners if federal regulations or actions infringed on property rights. Pollot’s group, Stewards of the Range, became a legal battering ram in the ranchers’ running resistance against federal authority, backing, for example, Cliff Gardner’s willful trespass of his cattle on lands of the Humboldt National Forest in the Ruby Mountains of Nevada.

* * *A thousand miles north in the posh Seattle suburb of Bellevue, Washington, are the officesof the group that published Hage’s manifesto: the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. The group is run by Ron Arnold, the man who coined the term “eco-terrorism,” and his business partner Alan Gottlieb. Together they served as the field managers and media packagers for the property rights movement.
Arnold was a former draftsman for Boeing, a public relations man for different companies, a writer and film-maker, while Gottlieb made his money (lots of it, too) from direct mail operations for Republican candidates, and most significantly, from gun groups, including the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Bear Arms. Gottlieb also published a magazine called Women and Guns.
The Wise Use movement is a significant popular grouping. “There are 1200 to 1500 groups we can identify,” said Arnold. “Few of these groups ever got any real money from big corporations. Neither are they especially aligned with small business. In fact, probably a third of our members are housewives.” Altogether, Arnold and Gottlieb estimated that there are as many as three million people on their mailing list.
Much of the Wise Use movement has a strong, though peculiar, libertarian bent. “There’s a strain that runs through it that is upset with government interfering in their lives,” said Gottlieb. “Not just libertarian or conservative, but an awful lot of people who are to the left of center and they are very upset with the government telling them what to do.”
These people are the proto-tea-baggers, a strange mix of populists, anarchists and libertarians. “It’s a diverse collective,” Arnold said. “For example, I’m pro-abortion and Alan is not. I’m for legalization of marijuana. We never got into immigration. We did try to see if there was a bridge between the Wise Use groups and the gun movement. But, no. Wise Use people pretty much support gun right. But it doesn’t work the other way around. Gun rights people don’t do much for the property rights movement. And that’s the part that pisses me off.”
Even though the Wise Use movement may attract people form diverse political and ideological heritages, it was also lustily embraced (and some might say co-opted) by Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey’s anti-government revolution of the 1990s. Today the Wise Use movement nestles among the rightwing organizations and tendencies of the post-Bush Republican party on Capitol Hill and in statehouses across the south and the mountain West. But it can be an uneasy alliance.
It is a world that Ron Arnold knows very well. During the early 1980s, Arnold was brought in by Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation to write a glowing authorized biography of James Watt, then viewed by the media and most of America as a kind of neo-fascist, born again lunatic from Wyoming.
Watt, of course, was the messiah of the Sagebrush Rebellion, the precursor of the Wise Use movement, which helped put Ronald Reagan in the White House. Once installed Reagan began talking about privatization of public lands and Watt soon had people thinking he would sell them off to the highest bidder.
But, according to Arnold, shortly after Watt took over at Interior, he told the more radical factions of the Sagebrush Rebels (folks like Wayne Hage) to knock it off. Privatization was scrapped,” Arnold recalled, “because Watt and the others discovered that you can’t sell off what you don’t own. If you try to auction off pieces of ‘public’ property, you can’t do it because the ownership is split. There are so many stratifications you could never figure out who really owned what. So notions of ownership looked more and more like a commons than a capital asset.”
Among many in the Wise Use movement, however, there is a deeper feeling of betrayal associated with Watt’s abbreviated tenure, a belief that Watt came to be entranced by the corridors of power, that he was seduced by the sense of control he had over the public lands. As an example of this, hard core rebels like Hage pointed to the “good neighbor policy,” developed by Watt, which allowed the governors of the western states to work with the Interior Department in developing policy for federal lands, a gutless retreat from the core principles of private property rights.
The administration of George W. Bush also proved to be a disappointment to the aspirations of the Wise Use ultras. While giving lip service to the Wise Users, his Interior Department, headed by Watt protegé Gale Norton, rapidly began cutting one sweatheart deal after another with the big oil and gas companies and mining operations and the property rights agenda stalled once again on the doorstep of power.

* * *
Until the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, the Wise Use movement was building a great deal of political momentum. Then suddenly it had to backpedal furiously to get away from both the militia and county supremacy movements, which threatened to drag them onto the dangerous edges of the anarchist right.Political investigators, such as Tarso Ramos and David Helvarg, linked some elements of the Wise Use movement to both the racist Posse Commitatus and the militias. Ramos and Helvarg highlighted the role some of the Wise User leaders have played in the National Federal Lands Conference, headquartered in Bountiful, Utah. Ron Arnold, for example, once served on the board of advisors of the Conference and Wayne Hage served as its former president. The Conference was a leading force behind the county supremacy movement in the West.
More to the point, the Conference enthusiastically endorsed the creation of the militia movement in its October 1994 newsletter, urging interested individuals to get in touch with, among others, MOM, the Militia of Montana. The article argued that militias are needed to defend states from an overbearing federal government poised to enforce “seizure orders which can be enacted with the stroke of a bureaucratic pen,” plunging the nation into “an absolute, marital law mode of repression.”
Arnold bristled at questions about the Conference, saying he cut all association with it years ago. He had a right to be concerned. With this one article, investigators, journalists and opponents of the Wise Use movement have been able to tar them as little more than a collection of pistol-packing whackos, aligned with the most paranoid and dangerous elements of the far right.
A version of this article was published by the Village Voice.

Jeffrey St. Clair is editor of CounterPunch and author of Born Under a Bad Sky (http://store.counterpunch.org/product/born-under-a-bad-sky-by-jeffrey-st-clair/). James Ridgeway is a journalist living in Washington, DC.

More articles by:Jeffrey St. Clair – James Ridgeway (http://www.counterpunch.org/author/jeffrey-st-clair-james-ridgeway/)

mick silver

8th January 2016, 12:14 PM

January 7, 2016 The Point of the Spear: Nostalgia in Oregon’s Militia Movement (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/07/the-point-of-the-spear-nostalgia-in-oregons-militia-movement-2/)
by Binoy Kampmark (http://www.counterpunch.org/author/binoy-kampmark/) by

Email (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/07/the-point-of-the-spear-nostalgia-in-oregons-militia-movement-2/?share=email&nb=1)

http://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/07/print-sp.png (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/07/the-point-of-the-spear-nostalgia-in-oregons-militia-movement-2/print/)

http://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/dropzone/2016/01/Malheur-Oregon-standoff-4-510x258.jpg
President Abraham Lincoln rendered the Union marble from rather haphazardly made brick. It took the most vicious of civil wars on US soil to make a mystique of it. But the tensions between the central government and fractious peripheries within the US did not dissipate. The US remains a complex entity of disparate factions, held together tenuously by the ideals of the Republic.
Since the weekend, armed militants have held sway in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon, with an intention of staying on “for several years”. Some stem from Harney County, including Ammon Bundy, son of a Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy who won a 2014 standoff with officers over the use of federal land (The Guardian, Jan 4).
The refuge itself was seized by militia stemming from the Nevadan Bundy family (Ryan and Ammon); Montana electrician Ryan Payne; and Jon Ritzheimer and Blaine Cooper, both of whom hail from Arizona.
Ostensibly, the occupying militants seek the release of two local ranchers, father Dwight and son Steven Hammond. Both were convicted of arson on federal land. But much more seems to be at stake, with the whiff of the vigilante challenging authority coming to the fore. This was in evidence with the march on Harney County courthouse in the name of the Hammonds. Customary symbols of authority were rebuked, with the courthouse and the sheriff’s office pelted with coins.
What Harney County sheriff David Ward saw was far more than a protest specific to the release of two ranchers whom the protesters felt had been hard done by. At stake was something of an anti-Occupy Movement, a reactionary effort to destabilise the federal compact in the name of an anti-environment, and populist land rights agenda. “These men had alternative motives to attempt to overthrow the country and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States.”
Ammon Bundy is certainly doing nothing to dissuade detractors of the broader mission. “This will become a base place for patriots from all over the country. We’re the point of the spear that’s going to bring confidence and strength to the rest of the people.”
The refuge, deemed an ornithological paradise, is the purposeful point of Bundy’s spear. It is the area which President Theodore Roosevelt declared protected in 1908 – a federally intrusive move (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/06/the-malheur-wildlife-refuge-occupation-a-skirmish-among-colonizers/) that the militia can only see as negative. (It was, however, far more negative to the first nations who were effectively dispossessed by a conservationist ideal.) According to these protestors, occupying the refuge and returning it to that nebulous consciousness of the rancher, the logger and the miner “would restore a poor region to prosperity”.
At the core of this vision is nostalgia, one which has been violated and stolen by Washington. It is, in a sense, a joust between thieves and appropriators of territory, a dispute about who should control land that is deemed, miraculously, theirs. The federal government undoubtedly holds sway, being the largest landholder and effectively the greatest conquistador of all.
“The government has beaten us and oppressed us and took everything from us,” claimed Cooper. They, argue the militia members, own the land which needs to be leased, with loggers, ranchers, farmers and miners reliant on such arrangements.
The disintegrating family farm is the flashpoint of impersonal economic forces that have exerted their victimising pull on ranching. Agriculture has been heavily industrialised; environmental conditions such as drought have also taken their toll. Much American stuffing has been knocked out of the manufacturing and agricultural industries over the last three decades, victims of free trade ideology. Paired with a colonisation narrative, the interior parcelled out by banking and mining interests, and various grievances become potential flashpoints.
This Oregon militia fling may well be dismissed (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40914/oregon-bundy-militia/#_new) as some inane prattlers with a good degree of exhibitionism to boot. There is even an argument to be made that the actions are seditious, if not down right terroristic.
How Bundy and his men will be able to stay “for several years” on the refuge, developing its prosperity, is by no means clear. But the butt of their grievances in certain respects is harder to dismiss. However artificial the anti-federal rhetoric may seem, the insistence on open rights in terms of recreation and grazing could just as well be a manifestation of libertarian bliss or agrarian socialist utopia.
As for a suitable response, Federal authorities have shown themselves ill-prepared and brutal in attempting to combat militancy in the past. The Waco disaster of 1993 casts a very long shadow indeed, with the spirit of David Koresh lingering as a terrible reminder about the costs of aggressive, centralised power. It is also hard to get past the fact that such a militia seizure, had been framed along the lines of Islamic State rhetoric, or a Black Panther narrative, would have been treated with a similar degree of reservation.
The Bundy crew remain somewhat spoiled in their indignation (http://oregonmilitiaalliance.webs.com/), irritants who have so far have been kept at a distance, to be possibly prosecuted at a later date. Ryan insists that the situation is grave enough to warrant a willingness “to kill and be killed if necessary.” Certainly, when consulting such sites as that of the Oregon Militia Alliance, one is struck by prevalent tin can paramilitarism in the name of being a good American citizen.
Eventually, this militia account will be re-incorporated into the language of the Union. Ronald Reagan gave the impression he was on the side of the Sagebrush rebellion which seems to have been channelled into this latest Oregon “occupation”. Then, as now, the issue was who had entitlements to use land. Naturally, other landholders – primarily indigenous – were the great absentees from the debate. The language of theft tends to be jaundiced.
All that happened once Reagan took the White House was that land rights were privatised, with ranching rights limited. The source of grief shifted from the government official to the private land holder. Such revolts, as ever, end up dying in circular fashion.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:Binoy Kampmark (http://www.counterpunch.org/author/binoy-kampmark/)

mick silver

8th January 2016, 12:16 PM

January 7, 2016 The Rationality of the Malheur Gunmen: Fighting for the White Future of This Country (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/07/the-rationality-of-the-malheur-gunmen-fighting-for-the-white-future-of-this-country/)
by Arthur Scarritt (http://www.counterpunch.org/author/artscar5467/) by

Email (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/07/the-rationality-of-the-malheur-gunmen-fighting-for-the-white-future-of-this-country/?share=email&nb=1)

http://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/07/print-sp.png (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/07/the-rationality-of-the-malheur-gunmen-fighting-for-the-white-future-of-this-country/print/)

http://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/dropzone/2016/01/Screen-Shot-2016-01-06-at-1.50.46-PM-510x341.png
The Malheur gunmen are not crazy. They act logically out of a long-standing rationality in the United States. And the future of the country hangs in the balance.
The right wing has made increasing noise about the federal government owning lands, particularly in western states like Nevada and Oregon where the feds own 85% and 53% respectively. The complainers argue that government ownership infringes on American free enterprise based on private property. But federal ownership is radically different than private ownership. The feds own this land mostly because its private ownership would be tremendously unprofitable. In other words, federal ownership is a huge subsidy to private interests making profits from these lands. Federal ownership makes private profit possible. The ranchers at the heart of the Malheur conflict, for instance, lease federal grazing lands for pennies on the dollar.
A major aspect of the violent seizing of Malheur, then, centers on the distribution model of these federal subsidies. Should they prioritize the interests of the large resource extraction multinationals? Or should they primarily serve the needs of the manifest destiny frontiersmen? Seen in this way, this is an old conflict at the racist heart of the United States. Poor white men could enjoy their God given right to property through dragging their families into the backwoods and pushing the frontier of the country, therein conditioning the land for eventual corporate exploitation. Communism for white men eventually led to socialism for corporations.
This conflict therein seems to lie between two right wing factions. Why doesn’t the right wing splinter under the pressure? The answer is that the less powerful faction is a well-paid – if not always well-heeled – creature of its much more powerful counterpart. Since the seventeenth century, resource allocation has occurred through white supremacist patriarchal structures, rewarding and reinforcing these cultural practices as the most rational way to succeed. The colonial planter class avoided insurrection while insuring a labor supply through granting small, though historically new, privileges to poor former indentured servants of European origin. The Southern aristocracy upped the ante in a bid to preserve their status during the Civil War. The federal granting of homestead rights to the white trash of the day mobilized this dynamic westward, diffusing post-war tensions by allowing rapacious speculators the lion’s share of spoils. These practices became canonized in law, with some of the more vile rulings eventually repealed – though without compensation for damage done – such as the notorious Dred Scot finding that “Neither Dred Scott nor any other person of African descent had any citizenship rights which were binding on white American society.” Yet some rulings still stand as the law of the land such as John Marshall’s so called Indian Opinions that found, among other things, that white possession of land by whatever means confers ownership.
In all these instances, white male citizenship depended upon the subordination of all other sectors of society. And the upper classes acquired a dedicated, culturally based police force to fight for an elitist structured society. The paradigm holds that white men must boldly fight for their unique entitlements not just as a personal battle for proprietary privileges, but as a patriotic struggle for the benefit of society, preserving the core form of organization that has brought us this far. They therein counter other claims based on distinct rationalities such as equality before the law, equality of opportunity, or scientific inquiry. White women must directly serve this cause, while darker hued folk enjoy the options of bondage, incarceration, or genocide.
This brings us to the armed taking of Malheur. As many others have pointed out, the upsurge in right wing militarism is associated with the relative decline in the fortunes of white men from their more entitled past – lower income, poorer job prospects, even deteriorating health. Rather than a petulant lashing out, however, these actions, while extreme, emerge from well-established and well-structured practices in this country. In other words, these militants are not irrational crazies. Their actions are highly rational. But they are based on a rationality of white male privilege driving the fortunes of the country.
The wellbeing of all but a tiny sector of society has deteriorated over the past forty years, generating diverse forms of discontent. Appeasing armed white men would prove a timeworn solution: empowering shock troops to make all other groups inured to their plight – or at least more afraid of trying to bring change. Indeed, these extremists may have a better chance at success than other groups operating out of different rationalities, such as fairness, equality, or even preserving capitalism. But any appeasement will strengthen the white supremacist rationalities of society. The solution to the Malheur gunmen and their various copycats rests in disempowering them by employing non-white supremacist rationalities to undo the past forty years of inequality and corporate impunity. This is actually not such a huge challenge, with signs of it all around us. Widespread cynicism about change, however, helps empower the status quo. The Malheur gunmen are doing something, are you?

Arthur Scarritt is an Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at Boise State University. He is the author of Racial Spoils From Native Soils: How Neoliberalism Steals Indigenous (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0739191373/counterpunchmaga)Lands in Highland Peru (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0739191373/counterpunchmaga).

More articles by:Arthur Scarritt (http://www.counterpunch.org/author/artscar5467/)

JohnQPublic

8th January 2016, 12:40 PM

Oathkeepers Issue Evacuation Order For Women and Children at Oregon Standoff! (http://video.beforeitsnews.com/oathkeepers-issue-evacuation-order-for-women-and-children-at-oregon-standoff_c16776a6c.html)

https://youtu.be/3OtWhSdl2SM

mick silver

8th January 2016, 12:45 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OtWhSdl2SM

mick silver

8th January 2016, 12:45 PM

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?86338-BLM-Going-After-Hammond-Family!-Declared-Terrorists-Sentenced-to-5-Years-in-Federal-P/page2

mick silver

8th January 2016, 12:49 PM

Militia Leader Refuses Sheriff's Roadside Offer To End Standoff: "I Don't Need An Escort"
Published: January 8, 2016
Share (https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blacklistednews.com%2FM ilitia_Leader_Refuses_Sheriff%2527s_Roadside_Offer _To_End_Standoff%253A_%2522I_Don%2527t_Need_An_Esc ort%2522%2F48212%2F0%2F38%2F38%2FY%2FM.html&title=Militia%20Leader%20Refuses%20Sheriff%27s%20R oadside%20Offer%20To%20End%20Standoff%3A%20%22I%20 Don%27t%20Need%20An%20Escort%22&description=The%20Best%20in%20uncensored%20news%2C %20information%2C%20and%20analysis) | Print This (http://www.blacklistednews.com/Militia_Leader_Refuses_Sheriff%27s_Roadside_Offer_ To_End_Standoff%3A_%22I_Don%27t_Need_An_Escort%22/48212/0/38/38/Y/M.html#)

Share (https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blacklistednews.com%2FM ilitia_Leader_Refuses_Sheriff%2527s_Roadside_Offer _To_End_Standoff%253A_%2522I_Don%2527t_Need_An_Esc ort%2522%2F48212%2F0%2F38%2F38%2FY%2FM.html&title=Militia%20Leader%20Refuses%20Sheriff%27s%20R oadside%20Offer%20To%20End%20Standoff%3A%20%22I%20 Don%27t%20Need%20An%20Escort%22&description=The%20Best%20in%20uncensored%20news%2C %20information%2C%20and%20analysis) Twitter (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#twitter) Facebook (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#facebook) Google+ (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#google_plus) StumbleUpon (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#stumbleupon) Email (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#email) Pinterest (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#pinterest) Reddit (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#reddit)

Facebook (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#facebook)Twitter (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#twitter)Google+ (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#google_plus)Pinterest (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#pinterest)Email (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#email)LinkedIn (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#linkedin)Reddit (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#reddit)Tumblr (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#tumblr)WordPress (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#wordpress)StumbleUpon (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#stumbleupon)Google Gmail (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#google_gmail)WhatsApp (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#whatsapp)AIM (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#aim)Amazon Wish List (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#amazon_wish_list)AOL Mail (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#aol_mail)App.net (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#app_net)Baidu (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#baidu)Balatarin (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#balatarin)BibSonomy (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#bibsonomy)Bitty Browser (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#bitty_browser)Blinklist (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#blinklist)Blogger Post (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#blogger_post)BlogMarks (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#blogmarks)Bookmarks.fr (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#bookmarks_fr)Box.net (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#box_net)BuddyMarks (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#buddymarks)Buffer (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#buffer)Care2 News (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#care2_news)CiteULike (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#citeulike)Delicious (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#delicious)Design Float (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#design_float)Diary.Ru (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#diary_ru)Diaspora (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#diaspora)Digg (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#digg)diHITT (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#dihitt)Diigo (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#diigo)DZone (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#dzone)Evernote (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#evernote)Fark (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#fark)Flipboard (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#flipboard)Folkd (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#folkd)Google Bookmarks (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#google_bookmarks)Hacker News (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#hacker_news)Hatena (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#hatena)Instapaper (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#instapaper)Jamespot (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#jamespot)Kakao (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#kakao)Kindle It (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#kindle_it)Known (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#known)Line (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#line)LiveJournal (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#livejournal)Mail.Ru (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#mail_ru)Mendeley (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#mendeley)Meneame (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#meneame)Mixi (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#mixi)MySpace (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#myspace)Netlog (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#netlog)Netvouz (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#netvouz)NewsVine (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#newsvine)NUjij (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#nujij)Odnoklassniki (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#odnoklassniki)Oknotizie (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#oknotizie)Outlook.com (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#outlook_com)Pinboard (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#pinboard)Plurk (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#plurk)Pocket (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#pocket)Print (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#print)PrintFriendly (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#printfriendly)Protopage Bookmarks (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#protopage_bookmarks)Pusha (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#pusha)Qzone (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#qzone)Rediff MyPage (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#rediff)Renren (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#renren)Segnalo (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#segnalo)Sina Weibo (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#sina_weibo)SiteJot (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#sitejot)Slashdot (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#slashdot)Stumpedia (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#stumpedia)Svejo (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#svejo)Symbaloo Feeds (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#symbaloo_feeds)Tuenti (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#tuenti)Twiddla (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#twiddla)TypePad Post (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#typepad_post)Viadeo (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#viadeo)VK (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#vk)Wanelo (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#wanelo)Webnews (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#webnews)Wykop (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#wykop)XING (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#xing)Yahoo Bookmarks (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#yahoo_bookmarks)Yahoo Mail (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#yahoo_mail)Yahoo Messenger (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#yahoo_messenger)Yoolink (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#yoolink)YouMob (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#youmob)Yummly (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#yummly)
AddToAny (https://www.addtoany.com/)

Facebook (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#facebook)Twitter (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#twitter)Google+ (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#google_plus)Pinterest (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#pinterest)Email (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#email)LinkedIn (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#linkedin)Reddit (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#reddit)Tumblr (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#tumblr)

Google Gmail (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#google_gmail)AOL Mail (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#aol_mail)Outlook.com (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#outlook_com)Yahoo Mail (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#yahoo_mail)Any email (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#email_form)Email app (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#email_form)

More…

Source: Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-08/mystery-buyer-massive-1500-ton-gold-vault-london-chinas-largest-bank)

On Tuesday, Harney County Sheriff David Ward told reporters (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-05/its-time-you-leave-oregon-sheriff-demands-militiamen-peacefully-depart) it was time for Ammon Bundy and the group of militiamen occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to “leave the community, go home, and end this peacefully.”
Bundy, we noted, had no such plans.
The handful of armed men holed up in a remote bird sanctuary say they are standing up for state’s rights in a kind of ad hoc, haphazard rekindling of the Sagebrush Rebellion.
The proximate cause for the occupation was the (re)sentencing of Dwight Hammond and his son Steven, who a judge ruled should be sent back to jail in connection with fires the two lit in 2001 and 2006. Although the Hammonds aren’t protesting their sentence, Bundy wants to see them go free before the militiamen give Linda Beck (the biologist at whose desk Bundy now sits at Malheur) her office back.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user92183/imageroot/2016/01/Oregon_0.png
(from left to right: Bundy, his bodyguard Wes, Dwight Hammond, and Linda Beck)
On Thursday, Sheriff Ward attempted to reason with the men.
In a scene right out of a (bad) movie, Bundy and his bodyguards drove to a “neutral location” that Reuters says was located “along a remote Oregon roadside,” for a meeting with the Sheriff.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user92183/imageroot/2016/01/Sheriff2_0.png
In the meeting - which apparently lasted “about five minutes” - Ward offered the men safe passage out of the state if they agreed to cede control of the snowy federal outpost.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user92183/imageroot/2016/01/Sheriff3_0.png
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user92183/imageroot/2016/01/Sheriff1_0.png
In short, Bundy said no.
As you can see from the video, the Sheriff seems to be at a loss when it comes to figuring out exactly what it is Bundy wants, but he is convinced that it's not safe to open local schools until the standoff is resolved. "We pose no threat whatsoever to the people," Bundy insists. "It only takes one unstable person and we know that," Ward counters.
“Ward told Bundy that he was seeking a peaceful resolution to the nearly week-long standoff and offered to escort the occupiers out of Oregon,” Reuters writes. “But Bundy, saying that the sheriff had not addressed the occupiers' grievances, declined.” "We're being ignored sir," he can be heard saying.
Bundy also seems to have been offended by the notion that he needed a police escort to leave Oregon. "I'm not afraid to go out of state. I don't need an escort,” he later told reporters. Here's a bit more from the Oregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/sheriff_bundy_meet_face_to_fac.html):

The parley between Bundy and the sheriff lasted between five and 10 minutes and took place in the open, at the intersection of a state highway and the back route to the refuge. It was another in a series of twists and turns the past week that have drawn national and international attention to this sparsely populated high desert country.

Ward was accompanied to the remote location by Sheriffs Brian Wolfe of Malheur County and Andy Long of Tillamook County as well three rigs carrying heavily armed law enforcement officers.

Ward met Bundy on the side of Lava Bed Road, a handful of media surrounding the men. Bundy was accompanied by Ryan Payne, a self-styled militiaman from Montana.

Ward explained he was there to resolve the standoff. He said he didn't want anyone to get hurt.

"We need to find a peaceful resolution and get you guys out of here," he said.

Bundy, wearing his trademark cowboy hat, told Ward, "We mean no harm to anybody."

Bundy went into his oft-repeated comments about why the militants had arrived to take over the refuge.

"We're here for the people of Harney County," he said. "We're here because people were being ignored." He said citizens have complained over and over about federal land-use issues.

"Yet, sheriff, you would not address those concerns," Bundy said. "We're getting ignored again."

Ward replied, "I didn't come here to argue."

The men shook hands, Bundy and Payne returning to the small convoy that brought them to the scene on a gravel road roughly 20 miles east of the refuge. It was apparent Bundy brought a security detail with him.

Ward climbed into a sheriff's rig and headed off over back roads to a town hall meeting in the small community of Diamond. He met about 50 citizens there to talk about the refuge occupation and hear their concerns.
And so, there was no common ground to be found on Lava Bed Road near Highway 78. Only a cold (both figuratively and literally) handshake.
The Sheriff would later say that he believes Bundy doesn't feel like the standoff is being taken seriously. "I don't feel like they think they're getting enough attention yet," he remarked.
But while Bundy says he "doesn't need an escort" out of the state, he may get one anyway because as Ward cautiously warned the group on Thursday, "at some point, this is all going to have to be resolved."

Share This Article...

Shami-Amourae

8th January 2016, 01:05 PM

The recent Daily Shoah episode covered this very extensively.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbg2TiaiRGw

http://traffic.libsyn.com/therightstuffbiz/TRS066.mp3

mick silver

8th January 2016, 01:06 PM

http://stopimperialism.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/stop-imperialism-image.jpeg (http://stopimperialism.org/media-gallery-2/)

mick silver

8th January 2016, 01:11 PM

http://inthesetimes.com/comics/mattbors/18730/yallqaeda-and-americas-law-enforcement-prioritieshttp://inthesetimes.com/images/made/images/cartoons/uploads/bo160106_850_614_s.png

mick silver

8th January 2016, 01:36 PM

U.S. Criminal Justice System Racism Why the Feds Punk Out When Confronting White Rightwing Insurgents (http://blackagendareport.com/feds_punk_out_rightwing)

Submitted by Glen Ford on Wed, 01/06/2016 - 18:32

U.S. Criminal Justice System Racism (http://blackagendareport.com/category/african-america/us-criminal-justice-system-racism)

http://blackagendareport.com/sites/default/files/styles/image-400x300/public/GLEN_Oregon%20LandGrabbers.jpg?itok=WzXnxqgR (http://blackagendareport.com/feds_punk_out_rightwing)

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

When a criminal justice system born in Native American genocide and Black slave patrolling finds itself in conflict with conservative white Christian landowners, it short-circuits. “The Mass Black Incarceration State was designed to pre-empt any insurgency by Black people” – but is wholly unprepared to handle armed revolt from the white Right, from which it also draws much of its police manpower.

monty

14th January 2016, 09:49 PM

Common Law Grand Jury files in US District Court

http://nationallibertyalliance.org/files/oregon/15-12-31%20Hammond%20File%20On%20Demand.pdf

Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury1:

P.O. BOX 59; VALHALLA, NEW YORK 10595; FAX: 888-891-8977 (tel:888-891-8977)

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin andWyoming (States were unified by re-constituting all 3133 United States counties)

WRIT MANDAMUS CORAM NOBIS2

FILE ON DEMAND UNDER PENALTY OF LAW

Attention Clerk:

You are directed to file the attached document unimpeded as required by law and without charge under FederalCase No: 1776-1789-2015 (tel:1776-1789-2015); registered by the UUSCLGJ; and Statutory Case No. 6:10-CR-60066-AA.

18 USC §2076: Whoever, being a clerk, willfully refuses or neglects to make or forward any report, certificate,statement, or document, as required by law, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year,or both. 18 USC §1512(b). Whoever obstructs or impedes any official proceeding shall be fined under this titleor imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

American Jurisprudence Constitutional Law §326:
“Free Justice and Open Courts; Remedy for All Injuries:In most of the state Constitutions there are provisions, varying slightly in terms, which stipulate that justiceshall be administered to all without delay or denial, without sale or prejudice; and, that the courts shall alwaysbe open to all alike. These provisions are based largely upon the Magna C[h]arta, Chap. 40, which provides:

‘We will sell to no man. We will not deny to any man either justice or right.’ The chief purpose of the MagnaC[h]arta provision was to prohibit the King from selling justice by imposing fees on litigants through hiscourts; and, to deal a death blow to the attendant venal and disgraceful practices of a corrupt judiciary indemanding oppressive gratuities for giving or withholding decisions in pending causes. It has beenappropriately said that in a free government, the doors of litigation are already wide open; and, must constantlyremain so.

The extent of the constitutional provision has been regarded as broader than the original confines ofMagna C[h]arta; and, such constitutional provision has been held to prohibit the selling of justice, not merelyby magistrates, but by the State itself.”

“Plaintiff should not be charged fees or costs for the lawful and constitutional right to petition this court in thismatter in which he is entitled to relief, as it appears that the filing fee rule was originally implemented forfictions and subjects of the State; and, should not be applied to the plaintiff who is a natural individual andentitled to relief.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.

CRIME TO INTERCEPT

1 “The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts over whose functioning the courts do not preside... the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill ofRights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three (3) Articles.It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, servingas a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people... The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident, bothin the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing; and, in the manner in which that power is exercised. ‘Unlike [a] [c]ourt, whose jurisdiction ispredicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated; or, even because it wantsassurance that it is not.’” United States v. John H. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504; U.S. 36, 118, L.Ed.2d, 352, (1992).
2 CORAM NOBIS: Before us ourselves, (the King, i.e., in the King’s Bench) applied to Writs of Error directed to another branch of the same court, e.g.,from the full bench to the court at nisi prius. 1 Archb. Pr. K. B. 234.

http://nationallibertyalliance.org/files/oregon/15-12-31%20Hammond%20File%20On%20Demand.pdf

monty

14th January 2016, 10:00 PM

Common Law Grand Jury filings in US District Court, Oregon Division

Videos and more at link. http://nationallibertyalliance.org/rico

http://nationallibertyalliance.org/files/oregon/15-12-31%20Hammond%20HC%20file

http://nationallibertyalliance.org/files/oregon/16-01-08%20Habeas%20Corpus%20Default.pdf

http://nationallibertyalliance.org/files/oregon/16-01-13%20Oregon%20Show%20Cause.pdf

http://nationallibertyalliance.org/files/oregon/16-01-13%20Oregon%20file%20on%20demand.pdf

monty

20th January 2016, 12:39 PM

This reporter explains the current state of affairs in our country today. Everyone under 50 should take a course in civics, don't let this be the cowboys last stand.

This is not about Hammonds, Bundys, or Harney County. It is about salvaging our republic.

14 comments

Posted By Vicky Davis (http://tvoinews.com/author/vickyd/) on Jan 16, 2016 |

http://tvoinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/surrender_flag.jpg (http://tvoinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/surrender_flag.jpg)

I returned from Burns, Oregon last night discouraged and disappointed. Never let it be said that there was any premeditation or strategic planning for the events at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Watching the events unfold as they have, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the occupation of Malheur Headquarters – or the Harney County Resource Center may well be known in history as The Cowboy’s Last Stand. They have the media event down pat but the back half… the planning for the “now what do we do” is demonstrably lacking as the events are rolling along ad hoc. At yesterday’s press conference – which I found out about literally two seconds before I was ready to leave town, we hear that Stephen E. Grasty is preventing the occupiers from using any county facilities for holding a town hall meeting. Now that’s a surprise.

Grasty McNasty is Boss Hawg of Harney County. He is both a County Commissioner and the County Judge at the same time. He has been doing everything in his power to assist the FBI in creating a climate of fear in the town of Burns. He had the chutzpah to tell the now former Harney County Fire Chief, Chris Briels (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB6m7x3QDAg) that Briels was an old man who didn’t understand what was going on and that he was the one who was creating fear when he reported that it was FBI Agents in plain clothes who were skulking around the town armory and that they lied to him when he confronted them about it. It’s well known in urban areas that the FBI brings in agent provocateurs to cause trouble giving the killers with badges the justification for their actions when Americans have had enough and protest. Now the local police and the people of Harney County know it too.

http://tvoinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Harney_County_Officials.jpg (http://tvoinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Harney_County_Officials.jpg)

(My comment) Grasty is not a county commisioner. These three rascals have formed a "county court ", which I don't understand the purpose of nor the function. http://www.co.harney.or.us/countycourt.htm (http://www.co.harney.or.us/countycourt.html)l. It is an administrative body, perhaps authorized under Oregon Stautes. Monty

It’s not hard to figure out why Grasty McNasty would have his olfactory appendage so far up the federal rectum. Federal money flows to the counties and there is no doubt that McNasty will be rewarded for being a quisling. The only question is how much will he get for himself. The pattern globally seems to be that public officials are paid $100,000 in cash for selling out their constituents. That’s an embarrassingly cheap price for what they are selling. Why would I mention the global pattern for public officials that sell out? Because the structure of the global economy – using the United States as the example, is that our corporations invest in foreign countries and the corporations of foreign countries invest in this country. It’s a system of Creative Treason (http://www.channelingreality.com/Digital_Treason/creative_treason.htm) – building a deadly embrace of dependence for all countries and the lowly Boss Hawgs get paid for their cooperation in the sell out.

When I got home last night, I found that a friend had sent a link to me concerning Obama’s decision to allow the Communist Chinese to buy U.S. energy resources.

http://tvoinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Chinese_sell_out.jpg (http://tvoinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Chinese_sell_out.jpg)
http://tvoinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Paul_Ryan.jpg (http://tvoinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Paul_Ryan.jpg)
Paul Ryan

The story was written by Jerome Corsi. It’s a couple of years old now but perhaps the Tea Party (http://www.teaparty.org/obama-lets-chinese-own-u-s-energy-resources-19015/) just found out about it because this human [expletives deleted] to the left negotiated a budget deal that gave Obama everything he wanted and the one “concession” he negotiated was this – “Republicans’ major “get” in the omnibus (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/12/paul_ryan_s_first_deal_is_just_like_john_boehner_s _old_ones.html) is a lift on the longtime ban of crude oil exports.” I’m sure the COMMUNIST Chinese were ecstatic at how well their tool negotiated for them. They can now export their U.S. oil holdings to China.

The latest news is that the Republican National Committee (RNC) rejected a resolution calling for the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama. No need to ask who owns the RNC. We know …don’t we Paul?

The most important thing said yesterday by Lavoy Finicum following the morning press conference was during an informal Q & A with reporters. I took a clip of just that brief segment.

And now I’ll give it you straight even though like Chris Briels, I’m just an old woman who doesn’t know a hell of a lot. Lavoy, your property and the minerals on it have been sold out from under you. Dwight Hammond’s property was sold out from under him. And the rest of you ranchers in Harney County who are afraid you are going to lose your grazing and water rights if you stand up with Ammon Bundy, your property has been sold out from under you too. It was put up on the world market for countries and/or corporations to buy in exchange for alleged American debt. It’s called Debt-for-nature and Debt-for-Equity. It was treason for George Herbert Walker Bush to agree to it.
The BLM is acting in the capacity of the Repo Man. They are taking property from Americans to give to global buyers of American debt.

So, what the occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge better do in a hurry is to elevate the dialog. And what the ranchers of Harney County need to do is to stand up now because if you don’t, you’re going to lose a lot more than your grazing rights. You’re going to lose everything but there won’t be anybody left to stand with you when your turn comes. Don’t make this the Cowboy’s Last Stand. Make it the beginning of reclaiming our Republic and let the chips fall where they may.

http://tvoinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/COWBOY-HERDING.jpg (http://tvoinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/COWBOY-HERDING.jpg)

We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately
~ Benjamin Franklin

http://tvoinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/LAST-COWBOY1.png (http://tvoinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/LAST-COWBOY1.png)
Authentic old west life-long rancher/cowboys.

http://tvoinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ammon-center-left.jpg (http://tvoinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ammon-center-left.jpg)Ammon Bundy, center left, a good man in every sense. TVOI has the utmost respect for this gentleman. Anyone who care to read the facts of the matter will agree. The people who call him and his men terriorists have not bothered themselves with digging into the facts leading up and including this situation.

http://tvoinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/AMMON-BUNDYS-COWBOYS.jpg (http://tvoinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/AMMON-BUNDYS-COWBOYS.jpg)Cowboys and Patriots horseback at the Bundy Ranch.

Vicky Davis, was a Computer Systems Analyst/Programmer turned Internet Researcher and writer. She received her training in computer programming in Santa Clara, California in mid 1970s. She worked primarily – but not entirely on IBM mainframe systems for large corporations and government entities. As an Internet Researcher, she continues to apply her Systems Analyst skills focusing her research on the revolution in government from the systems perspective. She has two websites: www.thetechnocratictyranny.com (http://www.thetechnocratictyranny.com) (new website – newer technology) www.channelingreality.com (http://www.channelingreality.com) (frozen due to changing technology)

http://tvoinews.com/featured/the-cowboys-last-stand-2/

monty

20th January 2016, 03:09 PM

Fox News' Lou Dobbs interviews Susan Hammond

http://youtu.be/nwHxUvMbIIw

Youtube link http://youtu.be/nwHxUvMbIIw

monty

21st January 2016, 12:55 PM

This is a very informative video about the corruption in the Harney County politics. Unfortunately it has only receíved 67 views. 47 minutes

http://youtu.be/dSv0QnwTiwY

http://youtu.be/dSv0QnwTiwY

the reversal of the Reno judge by the 9th circuit is bad news for Americans

monty

6th February 2016, 07:42 PM

BLM Document Dump.

http://youtu.be/LaZ5LU3NI_c

http://youtu.be/LaZ5LU3NI_c

monty

11th February 2016, 04:41 PM

Fox News Burns, Oregon - Texas Warns BLM over land grab. Oregon governor should have taken lessons from Texas.
http://youtu.be/KQ-oq0fGhYE

monty

18th April 2016, 11:06 PM

The progressive communist state of Oregon will never elect this guy. . . . . .

http://youtu.be/vywt5ynQZm0

http://youtu.be/vywt5ynQZm0

monty

6th May 2016, 07:32 PM

A long "Letter to the Editor" by county commissioner candidate

Charmaign "Sis" Edwards for Harney County Commissioner (https://www.facebook.com/Edwards4Commissioner/posts/1765442443688196?fref=nf)Yesterday at 4:36pm (https://www.facebook.com/Edwards4Commissioner/posts/1765442443688196) ·

I've decided to share my "Letter to the Editor" that is scheduled to come out in next weeks Burns Times Herald Newspaper.

SO MUCH CONFUSION ABOUT SO-CALLED "PUBLIC LANDS"

In reality, Public Lands are not for everyone, but Grazing Allotments/Grazing Districts are, and I'm going to explain the difference between the two.

From what I understand, the legal definition of "Public Land" is land which is open to entry and settlement upon which there are no other rights or claims. The parcel of land that comes closest to falling under that definition in Harney County is the Steens Mountain Wilderness Area (SMWA). Although it is not open to entry and settlement, there are no more valid existing rights or claims attached to that land. The term "public lands" and "public domain" which are synonymous, do not include all the land owned by the United States or the states. Such terms are habitually used in the United States to designate such lands of the United States or the states as are subject to sale or other disposal under general laws, and do not include lands to which rights and/or claims have already attached and become vested through full compliance with applicable federal land laws. Dr Angus McIntosh has demonstrated in his research that The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated: "It is well settled that all land which any claim or rights of others has attached does not fall within the designation of public lands."

On March 1st I attended the Harney County Commissioners meeting at the courthouse. It was the meeting immediately following the county officials' trip to Washington D.C. . I went to that meeting because I had concerns about the Wilderness Study Area (WSA) in the South End of Harney County. I had the opportunity to ask Judge Steven Grasty if he was aware that when ranchers purchase their ranches that have grazing allotments that those allotments come with property rights which include grazing rights, water/livestock water rights, all Right-of Ways (ROW)(which include all livestock trails and all roads), etc., which he acknowledged. I also asked him if he knew that these property rights that the ranchers acquire as part of these allotments supersede any government designations of these grazing allotments as WSA and/or Wilderness Area (WA). He said yes he knew that these property rights supersede any of the government designations and that the only WA in Harney County without any grazing rights is the SMWA, and to quote him he said, "I will never do that again." Then he asked Joyce in the audience, who I'm assuming was Joyce Green, wife of the former BLM district director Mike Green, if that was correct. Once she made eye contact with me she verbally acknowledged that she knew all about our rights. That was acknowledgement enough for me that they both know these ranchers own valid existing property rights in their allotments and that in many cases they precede and supersede both The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (TGA) and FLP&MA of 1976.

If you read FLP&MA's Public Law 94-579- Oct. 21, 1976, Sec. 701. It says (a) "Nothing in this Act, or in any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, right-of-way, or other land use right or authorization existing on the date of approval of this Act." SEC. 701. (h) says "All Actions by the Secretary (of Interior) concerned under this Act shall be subject to valid existing rights."

These rights were established under the Act of July 26, 1866, called the Mining Act, which recognized and protected every land law passed by Congress since that time, up to and including FLP&MA. The Taylor Grazing Act & FLP&MA were specifically passed to protect and bring order to those pre-existing rights.

According to Trent Loos in his article Grass March moving ahead, when federal land ranchers talk about "Grazing Rights," they are talking about something commonly referred to as a Split Estate. They actually own the grass without owning the dirt it grows in.

Grazing allotments that ranchers own valid existing property rights in are true "multiple use" lands, which are open to a myriad of others uses, and other split estates, including logging, mining, hunting, recreation, etc. As long as ranchers have these property rights in these grazing allotments the government has to honor public rights to hunt, fish, hike, camp and just go out and enjoy solitude rights. The land itself may belong to the Federal government, and is open to public access, recreation, and other uses, but on grazing allotments the forage, water, ROW's and improvements belong to the rancher who owns the grazing allotment and associated grazing rights.

In summary, federal lands ranchers don't lease, rent, or steal grass from the government. They quite simply own the grass and are expected to develop and maintain water for not only their livestock, but also the wildlife and others (public) who wish to use it.

No one explains this better than Angus McIntosh, former U.S. Forest Service employee and currently an expert witness on this topic in legal proceedings. "Grazing permits" are not property rights. However, once water rights, ROW, forage rights & improvements were developed or appropriated, they became property rights. As real property, grazing allotments cannot be taken without due process and just compensation. 16 USC 1604-National Forest Service land and resource management plans subjects itself to these established rights as evidenced in subparagraph (i): "Any revision in present or future permits, contracts and other instruments made pursuant to this section shall be subject to valid existing rights."

Trent Loos has also stated that studies have documented that lands where animals graze are 14 times more likely to house migratory birds. Lands grazed by livestock are less likely to burn at dangerous levels because flammable fuel has been reduced. He also states that most estimates indicate the current stocking rates on federal land are about 15% of what they should be. That means two things for all owners of grazing allotments: 85 % of the grazing rights are not currently being honored by the government and the potential fire hazards are not being removed, thereby increasing the chances for massive wildfires. It should come as no surprise to learn that fires on these lands are at historic highs.

Has anyone figured out yet that "multiple use" isn't happening on true public lands but is happening on grazing allotments? I think I've demonstrated that public lands can be & usually are locked up to public, opened to only a few privileged government employees and a select few other people and can be sold to the highest bidder like corporate oil & mining companies, etc.

So in reality ranchers are not the public's enemy that environmentalists and the federal government make us out to be, and they are not the public's friend like they want to portray themselves. We the people need to keep in mind that the federal government doesn't have "rights". The federal government only has delegated power. There is a really big difference. Those delegated powers come from we the people. So if the government takes our established rights it's only because We the People are not claiming them nor are we defending them. If we all want to keep our rights whatever they might be then we better come together and start claiming them and help defend each other's rights because we are a Democratic Republic and we the people have the complete power over the government and its delegated powers.

Please, don't take my word for any of this information, it is available for anyone to access. Just because some people refuse to acknowledge these established existing rights doesn't mean they don't exist.

Sincerely,

Charmaign "Sis" Edwards
County Commissioner Candidate
Rural Lives Matter

monty

8th May 2016, 07:31 PM

Judge in Hammond Case . . Conflict of interest?

http://youtu.be/kY381RO7Hr0

http://youtu.be/kY381RO7Hr0

monty

9th May 2016, 03:33 PM

Who are the real terrorists?

http://youtu.be/CLLYBoqTWF8

https://youtu.be/CLLYBoqTWF8

monty

11th May 2016, 10:49 PM

An excellent Vimeo video "Under Color DOJ Extortion" produced by The Oregon Common Law Grand Jury.

Very strong evidence against the United States in favor of Hammonds.

https://vimeo.com/165663666

monty

12th May 2016, 06:57 AM

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?76866-Armed-Feds-Prepare-For-Showdown-With-Nevada-Cattle-Rancher&p=832382&viewfull=1#post832382

monty

13th June 2016, 04:48 PM

This could have its own thread. I am putting it here because what is taking place directly caused the Hammond Ranch Inc. and Hammond family their hardships, and prison sentences.

One hour video by Professor Doom as he ties the pieces together Part 1

http://youtu.be/yoc5JxZJI7c

https://youtu.be/yoc5JxZJI7c

monty

14th June 2016, 05:44 PM

Guest Editorial @ The Voice of Grant County

The Voice of Grant County, Oregon (https://www.facebook.com/The-Voice-of-Grant-County-Oregon-901946629902924/?fref=nf)

3 hrs (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=954883777942542&id=901946629902924) ·

GUEST EDITORIAL

The Loyalists that were sympathetic to the British crown before Americas founding are in many ways very similar to the Federal Government loyalists of today. So for the sake of being clear, I will now refer to those in the camp of big government and total control of our forests by the USFS as Torrie’s. Much like the Tory of yesteryear, today’s loyalist is comfortable in their servitude to the Federal machine. The rules, and regulations that governed life in the Colonies in the 1700’s were much like the rules and regulations that govern today. Natural resources were owned exclusively by the King. The British soldiers were tasked in making sure the rules were not broken, and keeping the peace. As long as you agreed with the Crown, you would be free to live your life within the boundaries that were approved by the king, and you would be welcome to reap the rewards that were allowed, as long as you properly gave what the King thought he was entitled to as his reward for your hard work.

In regards to the most current topic of Federal Lands, and resource management. The similarity to one of the catalysts in the American Revolution, “The Pine Tree Rebellion” cannot be ignored.

In 1722 the New Hampshire General Court (part of the British Legal System Governing the colonies) (Much like todays federally appointed Judges) made an edict making it illegal to cut down any tree larger than 12 inches in diameter. The reason for the size restriction was because the King saw the value in the White Pine tree’s larger than 12 inches because of their straightness, and lack of knots, as well as their strength. These trees were perfect materials for the building of the British Navy ships masts. So the Court sent the Sheriff of that area to go and arrest the local saw mill owner who was utilizing the timber. Much like Federal Lap Dog sheriffs of today, these so called peace officers felt it was their duty to uphold all laws made by the King. Today there are some sheriffs and some running for sheriff who feel it is not their job to interpret the constitution, but it is their job to blindly follow the edicts laid out by the King. Their oath of office says support and defend the constitution, it doesn’t say defend a document you know nothing about, and do what you’re told by those who know what’s best for all people in your county. “We’re with the Federal Government and we’re here to help.”

Today, the Federal Machine has restrictions placed on the harvesting of trees over 18 inches in diameter. The reason being environmental concerns, and rules and regulations instituted on the people by Judges of the (Crown) Federal government. The value of this resource has changed from a renewable, sustainable resource, to a purely aesthetic and ideological value. Now the finer points of the rules. Regulations, and statistics can and should be debated, but the idiocy of size restrictions needs to be addressed. Unlike the colonists in the 1700’s, today’s private forest manager has much more knowledge and common sense in how to keep a forest viable and sustainable. As larger trees are harvested, smaller trees are planted. As those planted trees reach maturity, they are harvested, and the process repeats. The Federal management consists of not cutting any larger trees, and only harvesting smaller more densely populated trees. Many times, the larger more valuable timber is left to rot, and die of old age, and disease or Burn several families out of their homes perhaps?. This practice goes completely against all logic. How long would a farmer, or for instance an orchard owner survive with this type of thinking? If an orchard owner went through his apple trees, and picked all of his green fruit before reaching maturity, and in turn let any ripe fruit fall to the ground and rot, soon he would be left with no ripe delicious fruit going to market, and his business would fail.

I believe history is repeating itself before our very eyes. The difference today is as Americans we have the constitution as our weapon. The colonists knew there were injustice’s imposed by the crown, but the law was not on their side. Much like the late 1700’s, the battle lines have been clearly drawn.

On one side you have a group of citizens who believe the public land and resources belong to all people. They believe that over burdensome restrictions placed on it by the Feds, would limit some from enjoying and sharing in what it has to offer. This group believes in the constitution, and the limits that document places on the Federal government with regards to public ownership of public land. This group sees the value in a Sheriff who understands and (Interprets) the Constitution for the good of everyone. The other group is the Tories, or for instance “Oregon Wild, The Sierra Club, Thousand Friends of Oregon, at least 85% of the people who work for the USFS, and the majority of the Democrat party. They believe that the Federal government knows best on how to care for the land, and they know best on who should be allowed to use it. They are in favor of restricting some from using it, in the name of preservation. They feel that some users are more important than others. They feel that there is no problem with the Feds operating outside of the Constitution and claiming title to public land. They would love to elect a sheriff who could be a lap dog for the USFS, maybe a sheriff who doesn’t think it’s his job to interpret the Constitution but to do what he is told by those who he thinks are smarter than him. We must decide now in this current “Pine Tree Rebellion” who we are. Are we going to be free men with a seat at the table, or are we going to be a Tory blindly following the edict of the King and his loyalists? Do we want a sheriff who will protect and serve all people according to the constitution, or do we want a sheriff loyal to the Crown, who will do what the crown says? Myself, I choose freedom every times.

DS Edwards

12 Likes3 Comments5 Shares (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=954883777942542&id=901946629902924&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22O%22%7D)

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=954883777942542&id=901946629902924

monty

16th June 2016, 05:11 PM

HARNEY FOUND IT’S VOICE, DON’T LOSE THE COURAGE TO USE IT! “HARNEY RESIDENTS HAVE THE REINS, NON RESIDENTS DROP YOURS”

THE COWBOY AND THE LADY (https://www.facebook.com/ThomRene2016/)·THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2016 (https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-cowboy-and-the-lady/harney-found-its-voice-dont-lose-the-courage-to-use-it-harney-residents-have-the/1077676718968713)

I am Thom Davis, a Harney County resident and The Cowboy to the team of the Cowboy and the Lady. This is from me, the man, and with the help of the Lady my words are being shared. Make no mistake, these are this cowboys words and i intend to be blunt.

In January I stood in support of the Bundy take over of the refuge, but my support for freedom did not start there. As a hard working American veteran, a man who has a past, present and future I am not perfect, but i am willing to speak out, and I have. The Hammond family are good friends of mine, Susie and Dwight are salt of the earth people, never having done anything but work hard and take a stand against the BLM and employees of the agencies who lie, steal and damage our county. Dwight and Susie are my friends and I have been supporting them first and foremost.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xla1/v/t1.0-9/13417465_1077697938966591_7866608574190639125_n.jp g?oh=079b96e36d30f685edb85a80d9a3b156&oe=57C66DDD&__gda__=1474484243_4c4aefd760857c16f183349f0aa4a58 1
A true American Ranching family, the Hammonds.DO YOU WANT TO SEND MONEY TO HELP A FAMILY IN NEED? WE SUGGEST SENDING TO THE HAMMOND FAMILY: Paypal: www.paypal.me/SusanEarlyna (http://www.paypal.me/SusanEarlyna) or funds may be sent directly to Susan or Earlyna Hammond c/o US Bank 493 N. Broadway. Burns, Oregon 97720

As a land owner myself, the local corruption stole from me personally. Steve Grasty stole 3 acres from me through unlawful and deceitful actions. Because Grasty had control of the Sheriffs he had the strong arm to steal my land. I did my best to fight it, but his corruption is so deep to fight would have possibly cost my and my sons life. We have seen too many just disappear in our town and since there was so much control over our ability to stand up for ourselves, my land was taken. I came home to fences torn down and Grasty snarling like a rabid dog with contempt for me in trying to stop him. Many ranchers have had their lands taken or burned out at the hands of this same corruption.

Harney county has so much corruption that one could spend a lifetime writing about it, myself and the Lady have only been writing about it for 5 months, but i have lived it for 30 years. In those 30 years many people have died under suspicious means, ranchers have lost their lands, public servants have come to only serve themselves, the jobs have gone to the federal side making it a them against us rancher mentality. Families have watched as injustice has become the disease seen and no cure given to it, until the Bundy take over of the refuge. Take over? No, it was not a take over it was a consorted effort that even included the Sheriffs as we now know, so take over? No. Now, the disease talked about is the Constitution, spoken about by the public servants as what they must stop spreading. I guess the Sheriffs and public servants forgot that they took the oath to uphold the Constitution, it is to limit government. It is the oath they took that makes them the Constitutionalist.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/13450761_1077709108965474_3967773273312355881_n.jp g?oh=3bb938f8a5ed7f190b93b129b094259a&oe=57C6D3E7&__gda__=1474181517_963e09a3a910747b7a029b137346fe2 2
When the Constitution is seen as the virus maybe we need a new diagnosis?

As the Bundy crew found notoriety sharing education on the Constitution and our rights, many began to step out of their homes to listen. Many went at first at night, under the cover of darkness for fear of Ward or Grasty harming them, but they went non the less. Then it was in the mornings and light of day, food was sent, videos were being shared of visits and even little Monte Kingen went out and shook hands with the men being portrayed by the media as “militants”, HOGWASH, they are anything but militants. What they were, good or bad, support them or not, they were the voice Harney County had lost. Now, we have that voice again, but we see out of towners taking advantage for their own intentions, and they do not seem honorable to me.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xat1/v/t1.0-9/13413569_1077732845629767_9133471927144231845_n.pn g?oh=c084294547e12cbba1d0f44c17e4c7ef&oe=57DC762C&__gda__=1474500900_85f38711f11aeaf1f96d17c339fa498 6They gave a voice back to

We watched as the Sheriff deputies puffed out their chests, pretty much darn near acting like apes in the zoo, destroying Lavoy Finicums memorial, stopping residents to harass them, taking a petition signed for a recall and turning it into a list to harrass. Why? Because Harney County has gone to the corrupt in a badge and to a man called Judge Nasty, aka: Steve Grasty. Are they all corrupt? They may be, but everyone can change and as a town maybe it is time we seek to do that, change the direction our public servants went and come back together, full circle.

As the people stand together, set differences aside, take time to see the common ground we will find that Harney County can be seen as the town that was once divided by evil and now stands for honor. From darkness to light, we can do it. What do we agree on? What do we want?

Many residents say they want less government control, more local jobs away from federal control, mining and timber businesses open again, to stop hiring anyone who is too aggressive or dangerous to wear a badge. Do you agree to any of this? Let’s get to common ground and stop using the ground to bury the truth.

This Cowboy is thankful to all who speak out, to all who see that there is too much wrong that has been hidden under the cloak of darkness for the few at the top in town to prosper. Let’s take the time to talk, not scream at each other but talk to each other. With the Lady the stories are shared with you all about the facts we find, the fact is all we need to know is enough criminal actions have been left unaccounted for, let’s start making the people of Harney count for something again.

As far as my support for the Bundy family. I have and always will support freedom and liberties, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, justice and the work that it takes to stop tyranny. The Bundy’s brought a voice to our town, now many voices have questioned motives. To say I do not support them is wrong, but to say the support has wained is true. It wained due to seeing that the powers that be behind them are too questionable of their intentions and it appears the naivety of their family, maybe due to LDS teachings who knows, has lead us all to follow a good man down a road that was not leading us in total transparency of directions.

It is too bad that all we now see are fundraisers and personal attacks instead of real justice we are seeing movie deals and book deals abound. Is that what was told to us when we went out to support them? No. So, what do we do now? Well folks, you best decide whether or not the fighting is what you want, if a local control by an iron fist is what you like and if you want your neighbor to be your friend or foe? What about agreeing to disagree but find common ground?

In closing this article it is my hope that you will all look in the mirror, think about the real issues at hand. Talk to your neighbor, let’s think about what Harney County really is and if we want to survive on the same side of Liberty and truth we will have to set our differences aside, tell those who are not residents to go home and fix their own towns as ours has a voice again. Let our voice matter, we are no longer ignorant of the truths about our town, just look at the articles in our archives to see what has been found. How about we realize the truth is not always pretty, the horse may be the hardest bucker, but if we just hang on for the 8 and wave our flag that unites us we win, regardless of our differences.

If you have friends that you have known for years in Harney who are no longer speaking because of the differences over the Refuge, maybe it is time we all say, “enough”. Come on folks, let’s do this and compromise to a place of as much peace as possible. It won’t be easy as we clear out the damage, the corruption, but we really can do it. If all are really honorable and caring we can be a town united again.

Thank you to all who have come to help our town get it’s voice back, all of you, now get along Harney Residents have the reins.

Thom

https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13423771_1077731335629918_31538681131026694_n.jpg? oh=29f0142de505a50e61325e04ac240e95&oe=57E24052
Let's stop the theft of our lands and stand united to be residents holding the reins and seeking peace again.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-cowboy-and-the-lady/harney-found-its-voice-dont-lose-the-courage-to-use-it-harney-residents-have-the/1077676718968713

monty

17th June 2016, 01:56 PM

Shadow Government, Secret Societies and the coming race. Part 2
DuPont, Union Carbide, Martin Marrieta (Lockheed Martin) Monsanto . . . . . .

http://youtu.be/vWwu2FeTHn4

https://youtu.be/vWwu2FeTHn4

monty

18th June 2016, 06:40 PM

The 3rd in a series, Shadow Government, Secret Societies, the coming race
Bechtel Corp.,Barrick Gold, Harry Reid, VK Durham Trust?

http://youtu.be/EGu9JEwZa8E

https://youtu.be/EGu9JEwZa8E

monty

21st June 2016, 12:37 PM

Shadow Government, Secret Societies and the coming race. Part 4 18 minutes
Stonehenge, giants underground connected tunnels . . .

http://youtu.be/1UfGb2HfDbY

https://youtu.be/1UfGb2HfDbY

mick silver

23rd June 2016, 09:03 AM

its about what you have and others want and have the power to take and get away with it

monty

24th June 2016, 01:20 PM

Shadow Government, Secret Societies , the coming race. Part 5, 1 hour 20 minutes
Hoover Dam Freemasonry, Mormonism, pantheism, mythology . . . . . . . . .

http://youtu.be/oP1Suc9Nb4s

https://youtu.be/oP1Suc9Nb4s

monty

25th June 2016, 08:44 AM

Shadow Government, Secret,Societies, the coming race
Part 6, who is the Puppet Master? Could it be the Edomites? The evidence in this video supports it. 2 1/2 hours.

http://youtu.be/bQH2jPRNIys

https://youtu.be/bQH2jPRNIys

During the 1960's I worked for Western Gravel Company, based in Campbell, California. The manager, and junior partner who was a Mormon had worked on the Hoover Dam project. He had close ties to the Kaiser Corporation. Edgar Kaiser often flew him around in his private plane. Permanente Cement (Kaiser Corporation) eventually bought Western Gravel Company. The company also had an old Allis Chalmers HD 20 bulldozer that originally belonged to Utah Constuction Company. I don't know if he had connections with Bechtel Corp..

He was an interesting old gentleman. One of his creditors in Los Angeles was way past due on paying. The old man called him on the phone and told him "if I don't get a check by return mail I'll have Ed Kaiser fly me to Los Angeles and I am going to sit on your desk with my six shooter while you write the check".

monty

26th June 2016, 05:25 PM

These people really have been abused and forgotten.

http://www.savethehammonds.com

https://www.facebook.com/standwiththehammonds

Tumbleweed

26th June 2016, 07:35 PM

Shadow Government, Secret,Societies, the coming race
Part 6, who is the Puppet Master? Could it be the Edomites? The evidence in this video supports it. 2 1/2 hours.

http://youtu.be/bQH2jPRNIys

https://youtu.be/bQH2jPRNIys

I've watched and listened to Professor Dooms videos and it looks to me like Satanism is what he's studying in them. The children of Satan hate the children of God and want to destroy them.

The Bible is the guide for the children of God and shows the pathway home. I think they could be lost or led astray by a lot of the stuff in these videos if they don't realize who they really are.

Roger Hathaway does a pretty good job of explaining who the children of God are and what they need to keep in mind when they come face to face with the works of Satan and his children. It's a long read but I think it's good and pertains to what Professor Doom speaks of.

The link to his article.
http://www.divinepageant.com/INTRO%20CHRISTIANITY.htm

monty

26th June 2016, 08:13 PM

I've watched and listened to Professor Dooms videos and it looks to me like Satanism is what he's studying in them. The children of Satan hate the children of God and want to destroy them.

The Bible is the guide for the children of God and shows the pathway home. I think they could be lost or led astray by a lot of the stuff in these videos if they don't realize who they really are.

Roger Hathaway does a pretty good job of explaining who the children of God are and what they need to keep in mind when they come face to face with the works of Satan and his children. It's a long read but I think it's good and pertains to what Professor Doom speaks of.

The link to his article.
http://www.divinepageant.com/INTRO%20CHRISTIANITY.htm

It was quite obvious in the video #6. The clip of the young Netanyahu with the rabis in the early 1990's and the other discussions of Edom and Cain made it fairly obvious even though Professor Doom didn't definitely point it out. He left it up to the viewer's discression.

Tumbleweed

19th July 2016, 10:49 AM

This is video 18 of 19 that Dennis Wise made exposing the New World order, free masonry and satanism. The clips are shown along with an interview of Bill Cooper. About the 4 minute mark he uses some clips from the Bundy ranch standoff as an example of god fearing patriotic people the satanists are going after.

This video ties in with the videos on free masonry by Professor Doom1 that monty posted above. It's what anyone who resists the government is up against.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osVIzSdxguA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osVIzSdxguA

The series of 19 videos by Dennis Wise can be viewed here.
http://communismbythebackdoor.tv

monty

1st December 2016, 06:54 PM

Previous owner of Hammond Ranch noticed feds meddling with land. .

https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15193486_10154582545389003_5035141268633320295_n.j pg?oh=c56c7e570667f37b42e81df3fcfd9c9e&oe=58C509C2

‎Bill Goode
‎toCliven Bundy's Army! (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717765141769695/?ref=nf_target&fref=nf)

Yesterday at 7:30am (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717765141769695/permalink/1834555740090634/) ·

From Cindy Lorenz (https://www.facebook.com/cindy.lorenz.98)'s page, an interesting pespective I hadn't known before:

THE PUBLIC LAND
ASSAULT

Here is an article by the prior owners of Hammond’s land. Thanks Doyel. Jan confirms the federal land confiscations were already in progress by the early 70’s.

So here’s the timeline.
1962 The Eisenhower Report was published to put an end to confusion about federal authority over our federation’s public lands. Accordingly to the report, nearly all public lands are under the exclusive legislative authority of the States! Not the federal government. Perhaps Eisenhower understood the looming threat and took pre-emptive action to lock in our rights. However, JFK (D) was president in 1962. It was administration that published the report.

1963 JFK was assassinated and replaced by LBJ (D), who remained in office until 1969.
1969 Richard Nixon became president, and remained in office until 1974.

by the early 1970’s Federal aggression began.

1976 The globalists responded with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The act reversed the constitutional requirement for the public lands to be disposed of—converted to private property—and declared federal “ownership" of these lands. However, the Constitution may not be amended by legislation. Unconstitutional legislation is automatically null and void. Gerald Ford (R) was President, Nelson Rockefeller (R) was Vice President and Senate President, and Carl Albert (D) was House Speaker. Once again, the Rockefeller thumbprint.

monty

1st December 2016, 07:11 PM

A picture is worth a thousand words

https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/15235851_10153947145235614_3109282331641624292_o.j pg

Tumbleweed

1st December 2016, 08:54 PM

A picture is worth a thousand words

Looks like the communist SOB's in our government have got most of the land collectivized there. When the communists control all the wealth and the people can't feed themselves they are slaves to the elite. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

monty

1st December 2016, 09:03 PM

Looks like the communist SOB's in our government have got most of the land collectivized there. When the communists control all the wealth and the people can't feed themselves they are slaves to the elite. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The communists have accelerated the land grabbing rapidly since the unconstitutional passage of FLPMA as noted by Bill Goode,
1976: The globalists responded with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The act reversed the constitutional requirement for the public lands to be disposed of—converted to private property—and declared federal “ownership" of these lands. However, the Constitution may not be amended by legislation. Unconstitutional legislation is automatically null and void. Gerald Ford (R) was President, Nelson Rockefeller (R) was Vice President and Senate President, and Carl Albert (D) was House Speaker. Once again, the Rockefeller thumbprint.

cheka.

1st December 2016, 09:26 PM

Bigjon

1st December 2016, 11:22 PM

Looks like the communist SOB's in our government have got most of the land collectivized there. When the communists control all the wealth and the people can't feed themselves they are slaves to the elite. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Patrick Devine says its up to us to restore the Republic. Instead of sitting on our duffs and complaining.

Interesting website: Takeaway points are the real basis for money is our labor.
Labor is our property and can't be taken away from us, unless we let them.
We have to stand up and demand our labor value returned to us.
this is done via claiming all the labor contracts that are owed to us.

Every time you enter into a contract there is a bid bond ucc trust opened up and also a performance bond ucc trust to get the monetary credits to accomplish xxx.

We have to claim these back as belonging to us and then surrender them to the US treasury.

This is how I perceive what I've listened to so far and may be subject to error.

http://econcurrent.com/devine/

Index

calls.zip
calls/
dict/
files.zip
files/
videos/

Patrick says this info needs to be spread far and wide to save the Republic.

Tumbleweed

2nd December 2016, 04:32 AM

Patrick Devine says its up to us to restore the Republic. Instead of sitting on our duffs and complaining.

Interesting website: Takeaway points are the real basis for money is our labor.
Labor is our property and can't be taken away from us, unless we let them.
We have to stand up and demand our labor value returned to us.
this is done via claiming all the labor contracts that are owed to us.

Every time you enter into a contract there is a bid bond ucc trust opened up and also a performance bond ucc trust to get the monetary credits to accomplish xxx.

We have to claim these back as belonging to us and then surrender them to the US treasury.

This is how I perceive what I've listened to so far and may be subject to error.

http://econcurrent.com/devine/

Index

calls.zip
calls/
dict/
files.zip
files/
videos/

Patrick says this info needs to be spread far and wide to save the Republic.

It would be nice if we could peacefully turn this country around but when communists take over a country and control the military it seems that the people that resist them end up dead. What happened to the Bundys in Nevada and Oregon is just a small taste of what will happen if a lot of people resist them. Trump may slow the communists down for awhile but I don't think they're going to quit or give up with out a fight.

What Patrick Devine says that I've bolded is right that it's up to us to put a stop to these communists and this video below has some thoughts on that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFFCaKtDzuA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFFCaKtDzuA

Bigjon

2nd December 2016, 10:53 AM

Well Patricks method does not involve getting out the pitchforks, instead it calls for claiming your rightful status as a member of your individual State Republic.

Bigjon

2nd December 2016, 02:35 PM

This is at the end.

So that we can once again place the STRAWMAN in the fictional world
and keep ourselves in the real world (with all our "shields" in place
against the fictional government) we must send a non-negotiable
(private) "Charge Back" and a non-negotiable "Bill of Exchange" to
the United States Secretary of the Treasury, along with a copy of our
birth certificate, the evidence, the Manufacturer's Certificate of
Origin of the STRAWMAN. By doing this we discharge our portion of the
public debt, releasing us, the real man or woman, from the debts,
liabilities and obligations of the STRAWMAN. Those debts, liabilities
and obligations exist in the fictional commercial world of "book
entries" on computers and/or in paper ledgers. It is a world
of "digits" and "notes", not of money and substance. Property of the
real man once again becomes tax exempt and free from levy.

Sending the non-negotiable Charge Back and Bill of Exchange accesses
our Treasury Direct Account (TDA). What is our TDA? Title 26 USC
section 163(h)(3)(B)(ii), $1,000,000 limitation: "The aggregate
amount treated as acquisition indebtedness for any period shall not
exceed $1,000,000 ($500,000 in the case of a married individual
filing a separate return)."

This $1,000,000 account is for the STRAWMAN, the fictional "person"
with the name in all caps and/or last name first. It is there for the
purpose of making book entries, to move figures, "digits" from one
side of ledgers to the other. Figures, digits, the entries in ledgers
must move from asset side to debit side and back again, or commerce
dies. No movement, no commerce.

The fictional persona of corporate government can only function in a
functional commercial world, one where there is no real money, only
fictional funds ... mere entries, figures, digits

[TruthShallPrevail]

Historical Development of Modern Feudalism:
The TRUTH about your status as a slave in America
(by unknowingly volunteering)

by Allen Aslan Heart

http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/bank_fraud/taking_back_your_power/1-introduction_to_taking_back_your_power.htm

Since 1933 you and all other Americans have been pledged for the debt
of the UNITED STATES owed to international bankers, most of whom are
foreign to our country. Your credit, labor, productivity and
property have been used and is now being used as collateral by the
incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA without your knowledge or
consent. This is legal until you take back your implied consent by a
special, lawful process.

In fact, you are unknowingly volunteering to be chattel for a
mortgage held by financiers from the founding of this nation.
Perhaps you infer that the name on the tax statement is yours and so
you respond as though it were. This is voluntary servitude. To make
this servitude legal it was necessary to "cut a hole in the fence."
No matter that the escape route is hidden, obscured by legal brambles
to make escape difficult. That it is not used presumes consent. It
is not impossible, just seemingly difficult and even implausible.

Your status as a subject is based upon a presumption that if you did
not wish to be so encumbered you would use the law to do something
about it. As long as you do not use the escape route provided by law
it is presumed that you are content to "remain in the pasture and be
milked and used as chattel." This word has the same root as the
word, "cattle." Do you get the picture?

Can such a premise be true? It seems totally out of step with
everything you and I have ever known about our world, our nation, our
government and our relationship to it! Our parents never behaved as
though they we were chattel. They dutifully paid their taxes, voted
in elections, waved an American flag on the 4th of July. Our
teachers taught us about our history, our Declaration of Independence
and Constitution, our Revolutionary War, how we fought the greatest
army and navy the world had ever seen at the time. Nowhere in our
history classes did we encounter any such premise of subjection to a
central government that rules our lives. Our civics teacher never
told us anything about this. Nothing in our world even hinted that
we were subjects to a highly centralized government. Surely this
could be true of other peoples, but not of us! For most people this
cannot be. The truth cannot be heard because it is too discordant
with our entire experience.

And yet we can document that George Washington did not chop down a
cherry tree, Lincoln did not free the slaves (they became subjects of
the Federal District, the District of Columbia), The War with Mexico
was begun by General Zachary Taylor's provocations along the Nueces
River, the battleship Maine blew up from the inside, Woodrow Wilson
knew that the Lusitania was carrying US munitions to the war in
Europe and would be sunk, Franklin D. Roosevelt had maneuvered the
Japanese into an attack on Pearl Harbor and had cut fuel shipments to
the Pacific fleet to ensure the presence of enough old ships to offer
a tempting target, Truman knew that there were other good
alternatives to an invasion of Japan and did not need to drop the
Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Roosevelt knew about the NAZI
concentration camps, LBJ knew that there was no attack on the Maddox
and Turner Joy in the Gulf of Tonkin when he asked for a
Congressional Resolution to attack North Vietnam, and the US
government had been warned by numerous documented sources that there
would be an attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. All
of this is from documented historical sources. Yet we continue to
believe the myths that are in our histories, our movies, our
mainstream media and our mass consciousness. John F Kennedy warned
us that,

The great enemy of the Truth is very often not the lie - deliberate,
contrived, and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive and
realistic.

You will probably find it hard to accept that you have been living in
an illusion for your whole life. Much of what you believe is an
illusion and you will only find your freedom when you can allow
yourself to look behind the veils of illusion to see Reality. WHO you
are is far greater than "what" you perceive yourself to be. When you
have the courage to stand face-to-face with the illusion and call it
what it is, you will have stepped through the most difficult task set
before you on your Earth Journey. There IS a way out! But the only
way out is through—through understanding how we came to this
predicament and following a precise formula to obtain your
sovereignty. We have been warned repeatedly throughout our history,
but we weren't listening very closely. Now we might have one more
chance to take back our power and our sovereignty.

The nature of the conspiracy to defraud can be best understood in
comments by one of the major conspirators in the triumph of
establishing the Federal Reserve, "Colonel" Edward Mandell House, who
is purported to have said this in a private meeting with President
Woodrow Wilson:

"[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their
biological property in a national system designed to keep track of
the people and that will operate under the ancient system of
pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our
agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat
paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer
being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and
we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of
the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions.

Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of
lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to
remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges.
They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value
designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not
one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident
one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible
deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund
government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form
of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge
profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a
contributor to this fraud which we will call `Social Insurance.'
Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we
may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our
servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and
without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high
office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot
against America."

We now know how to respond to this treasonous fraud. All my life I've
looked for the roots of war, injustice and oppression because if we
can find the basis of the rampant injustice in the world, we could
relieve enormous struggle and suffering. I've wondered at how little
the Constitution seemed to affect the courts and how often the truth
was buried in silence. Mostly I saw greed and heartlessness in a
power struggle played out in politics. But I didn't realize that the
game had been played in secret throughout American history. And
ultimately, it is a game of monetary policy and politics…. with a
spiritual component.

Like you, I've watched and participated in the American scene for
many years. I've written many letters to the editor, congressmen,
senators, presidents, distributed campaign literature to precincts,
represented my precinct at county conventions, served food at Loaves
and Fishes, planted flowers at the feet of police threatening to
arrest those who had taken over HUD homes designated for the
homeless, worked with Welfare Moms, served as chairman of church
social ministry, fasted, spoke to churches on social justice,
supported the protestors at Honeywell demonstrations against the
manufacture of cluster bombs, arrested for a war toy protest, booked,
finger-printed, arraigned, marched in protest of the Vietnam War, the
Gulf War, and the attacks on Serbia and Kosovo.

A Peak into the Mind of a Tory

In 1999 I watched in utter amazement as the Supreme Court of the
United States overturned the Florida State Supreme Court's decision
to proceed with a recount of the contested ballots and the Eleventh
District Court decision to uphold the decision of the Florida court.
In Orwellian doublespeak, Antonin Scalia wrote on Saturday, December
9, 1999:

"the counting of the votes that are of questionable legality does in
my view threaten irreparable harm to , and to the country, by
casting a cloud upon which he claims to be the legitimacy of his
election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a
recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance
democratic stability requires."

It was a brazen and Orwellian declaration. What American who believes
in democracy could claim that something was wrong with counting
votes "first"? What American who believes in democracy could declare
one candidate the winner and protect him from "irreparable harm" if a
vote count showed him not to be the winner, after all? Of course, it
doesn't make any sense, unless you realize the foundation upon which
Scalia based his transparently partisan remarks. He doesn't believe
in democracy, he doesn't even believe in republicanism, he is a
monarchist.

Scalia revealed his true motivations when he spoke on the subject of
capital punishment at the University of Chicago (February 2002).
During his remarks, he stated: "The reaction of people of faith to
this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind
government should not be resignation to it, but the resolution to
combat it as effectively as possible." ("God's Justice and Ours" at
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0205/articles/scalia.html )

Democracy obscuring divine authority behind government? Perhaps this
helps shed some light on why Scalia and the four other right-
wing "justices" could so easily subvert our election process and,
through an act of divine intervention, usher the son onto the throne
lost some eight years earlier by his father, George I. We are
assuming that we are still independent sovereigns and freemen as
declared by our Declaration of Independence and that the Constitution
is still in effect. Scalia has no such illusion. History supports
his position, sorry to say.

Scalia is an ideologue so accustomed to our willingness to continue
to be subjects that he does not even consider the ideal of a
government of, by, and for the people. That ideal has remained as
useful fiction to be taught in Civics classes and mouthed by the
politicians. HE KNOWS that we are mere chattel by presumption.
Since we have not even discovered that our status as freemen has been
lost through more than two hundred years of our history, much less
withdrawn our implied consent to be subjects, we are presumed to be
subjects before the courts and in the minds of people like Scalia.

Scalia speaks of civil disobedience with contempt and quotes the
Bible, "Ye must needs be subject." We must, as mere servants of the
ruling class, acquiesce to our divinely guided leaders. For who are
we, as mere subjects, to question those who make (or interpret) the
laws? After all, he says that "government carries the sword as 'the
minister of God,' to 'execute wrath' upon the evildoer." No, he has
not reverted to a justice of another time—WE have by our ignorance
and silence, acquiesced to a lower status reminiscent of another
time.

There you have it! In his eyes, we are subjects unworthy of honor,
peace and justice. Somehow Scalia's statements seem like a long way
from the Declaration of Independence in which Americans stood before
the world as sovereigns invested with certain inalienable rights,
including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
After the American Revolution, the monarchies of Europe saw Democracy
as an unnatural, ungodly, ideological threat, every bit as radical
and dangerous as Communism was regarded by Western nations upon its
inception. Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia spawned
other revolutions around the world, the American Revolution provided
an example and incentive for people all over the world to overthrow
their European monarchies. What has happened? When did we give up
our natural, God-given rights? Our forefathers fought and won that
war didn't they?

[B]Sovereignty, Revolution, Birth of a New Nation

Yes, our forefathers fought one of the bloodiest wars in history and
won their independence. They understood the historical roots of war,
injustice and oppression, and we've lost this knowledge. Our history
books did, indeed, leave out a lot of the truth and lied about much
of the rest. History teachers often teach history in such a way that
young students swear to never again study history! When I attempted
to teach American History from sources outside the history books I
was forced from my 26-year teaching career by my principal. We have
been led and lulled to forget WHO we are. All this has been
engineered by those who would keep us ignorant of the truth.

The primary reason for the War for Independence was not "taxation
without representation", but the forced payment of taxes to the King
in gold instead of paper money. America was flourishing by using her
own "fiat money" system based only on production, not a gold-based
system that could be manipulated by the King. The King could
not "control" the fiat money system and therefore passed a law
requiring that taxes be paid in gold only. The King had most of the
gold—the colonies had little; so unemployment ensued—and embittered
colonists cried for war. Benjamin Franklin put it this way, "The
colonies would have gladly born the little tax on tea, and other
matters, had it not been that England took away from the colonies
their money." Prior to the Revolutionary War, The Times of London
said this regarding fiat money in America:

"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origins in North
America, shall become endurrated down to a fixture, then that
government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off
debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to
carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in
the history of the world. The brains and the wealth of all the
countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed
or it will destroy every Monarchy on the
globe."

The truth is that the Revolution failed. You might say that we won a
military victory over the most powerful military force on the planet
at the time. However, reading the Treaty of Paris it is clear that we
were not exactly negotiating as equals.

We had won the recall of British troops but not the bankers. Even
though we are taught that we won our independence from England, we
actually were able to remain free from the international bankers for
only a few years at the close of the presidency of Andrew Jackson.
The most visible of the power structure was the East India Company
owned by the bankers and the Crown in London, England. This was an
entirely private enterprise whose flag was adopted by Queen Elizabeth
in 1600—thirteen red and white horizontal stripes with a blue
rectangle in its upper left-hand corner. All debts owed before the
war were to be collected by the foreign creditors.

When the creditors of the new nation found the Articles of
Confederation to be inadequate to exact payment from their young
debtor, the Constitution was written and supported by the bankers
through their associates, for increase their control over the United
States of America. Had the Articles of Confederation been completed
and adopted, instead of the Constitution, the bankers would have had
far less control.

Any constitution must have some prior reference to establish its
foundation. The authority for the American Constitution is based
upon the Bible; the Magna Carta, signed in 1215 by King John; the
Petition of Rights, granted by King Charles I in 1628; the English
Bill of Rights, granted by William and Mary in 1689; the right of
habeas corpus, granted by King Charles II, and the Articles of
Confederation. Any and every constitution thereafter must have an
enabling clause. From this point onward, no constitution may
diminish, in any manner, those rights already established in the
above six documents.

The Declaration of Independence established that all people are
sovereign under God's Natural Law. Sovereign people of the various
states, created the state governments for the protection of their
rights. They delegated certain authority from the people's powers by
and through the state constitutions in order that the three branches
of government could properly carry out the dictates outlined in the
State constitutions to protect our rights.

The States then created the United States.

The American Constitution created a new structure of government that
was established on a much higher plane than either the parliamentary
system or the confederation of states. It was a
people's "constitutional republic," where a certain amount of power
was delegated to the states and a certain amount was delegated to the
federal government. The United States, by way of the Congress of the
United States, has certain powers delegated by the Constitution. So
far as the several States party to the Constitution are concerned,
the United States may not exercise power not delegated by the
Constitution. All power not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution is reserved to the several States within their
respective territorial borders—or, to the people.

British Subversion, Banks, and Treason

Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783,
the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies where it
hurts most: financially. The United States stood as a heroic role
model for other nations, which inspired them to also struggle against
oppressive monarchies. The French Revolution (1789-1799) and the
Polish uprising (1794) were, in part, encouraged by the American
Revolution. Though we stood like a beacon of hope for most of the
world, the monarchies regarded the United States as a political
infection, the principle source of radical democracy that was
destroying monarchies around the world. The monarchies realized that
if the principle source of that infection could be destroyed, the
rest of the world might avoid the contagion and the monarchies would
be saved.

Knowing they couldn't destroy us militarily, they resorted to more
covert methods of political and financial subversion, employing spies
and secret agents skilled in bribery and legal deception; it was
perhaps the first "cold war." In the 1794 Jay Treaty, the United
States agreed to pay £600,000 sterling to King George III, as
reparations for the American Revolution. The US Senate ratified the
treaty in secret session and ordered that it not be published. When
Benjamin Franklin's grandson published it anyway (perhaps our first
whistleblower), the exposure and resulting public up-roar so angered
the Congress that it passed the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) so
federal judges could prosecute editors and publishers for reporting
the truth about the government.

Since we supposedly had won the Revolutionary War, why would our
Senators agree to pay reparations to the loser? And why would they
agree to pay £600,000 sterling, eleven years after the war ended? It
doesn't make sense, especially in light of the Senate's secrecy and
later fury over being exposed… unless we assume our Senators had been
bribed to serve the British monarchy and betray the American people!
That is treason!

From the beginning, the United States Bank had been opposed by the
Democratic-Republicans lead by Thomas Jefferson, but the Federalists
(the pro-monarchy party) won the vote. The initial capitalization
was $10,000,000 -- 80 % of which would be owned by foreign bankers.
Since the bank was authorized to lend up to $20,000,000 (double its
paid capital), it was a profitable deal for both government and the
bankers, since they could lend, and collect interest on $10,000,000
that didn't exist.

However, the European bankers outfoxed the U.S. government, and by
1796, the US government owed the bank $6,200,000 and was forced to
sell most of its shares. By 1802, our government owned no stock in
the United States Bank!

Thomas Jefferson had warned,

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue
of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the
banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children
wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.... The
issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the
people, to whom it properly belongs.

Several short-lived attempts to impose the central banking scheme on
the United States were defeated by the patriotic efforts of
Presidents Madison, Jefferson, Jackson, Van Buren and Lincoln.

Bank Fraud, Bribery, and Corruption

Chief among the international financiers was Amshel Bauer of Germany
who, in 1748 opened a goldsmith shop under the name of Red Shield.
(in German the name is spelled Rothschild and is pronounced Rote-
shilld). In 1787, Amshel (Bauer) Rothschild made the famous
statement: "Let me issue and control a Nation's money, and I care not
who writes the laws." He had five Sons Amshel Mayer, Solomon, Jacob,
Nathan, and Carl. In 1798, the five Rothschild brothers expanded by
opening banks in Germany, Vienna, Paris, London, and Naples.

The objective behind this bank was to receive special privilege to
use the unjust fractional reserve banking to print money and loan it
to the government and industry. No money could go into circulation
without interest being paid to the bankers.

Fractional reserve banking is very simple. It is simply a special
privilege given to a man or group of men to create credit out of thin
air; by extending this credit/debt to everyone else in society who
does not have the same privilege, and then collecting from society
the money plus interest, they become very rich without having to
produce anything of value.

The basic mathematics behind this system is very clear. If this
system is left in place long enough, the man or group who controls
this system of debt creation will own all the gold available in the
nation. Once the supply of real money (gold) is in his or their
hands, this man or group of men becomes the master of the entire
nation. Why? Because this man or group of men controls the only
source of operating medium (money) available through which the nation
functions. Only the man who has the privilege of printing the money
and loaning it at interest can determine who gets special funding—his
friends and allies. Everyone else is limited to how much money they
have access to; therefore, after two or three generations, the
friends and allies of this "banker" will own all of the nation—just
as America is now owned by a very small cadre of very wealthy men.

Bigjon

2nd December 2016, 02:39 PM

How long this process takes to work its way through the wealth of the
nation depends upon how successful the "banker" is in forcing,
through bribery and corruption, the restriction of the formal
government's issuance of real money backed by gold or silver. As the
supply of real money shrinks, the people of the nation are forced to
rely on the creation of a fictitious debt by the privileged few to a
greater and greater extent, until finally, the only thing left is a
massive amount of "unpayable debt," created from nothing and
consisting only of the interest charged upon the fictitious debt, and
collecting interest for every moment of its existence. All for the
benefit of the privileged, who become the de facto (illegally
usurped) government because of the "money power" they wield.

Through the Bank of England, the Rothschilds demanded a private bank
in the United States to hold the securities of the United States as
the pledged assets to the Crown of England in order to secure the
debt to which our government had defaulted. As one of his first acts,
President Washington declared a financial emergency. William Morris
with the help of Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of Treasury, heavily
promoted the creation a private bank to service the debt to the
international bankers. In 1791, Congress chartered the first national
bank for a term of 20 years, to hold the securities of the same
European bankers who had been holding the debts before the war. The
bankers loaned worthless, un-backed, non-secured printed money to
each other to charter this first bank. In December 12, 1791, the Bank
of the United States opened its doors in Philadelphia.

The holder of the securities was the private bank. So under public
international law, the creditor nation forced the United States to
establish a private bank to hold the securities as the collateral for
the national debt. James Madison had warned, "History records that
the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit,
and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments
by controlling money and its issuance."

British Subversion, Titles of Nobility and Treason

For the early decades of US history, relations between the United
States and Great Britain remained strained. Their relationship
deteriorated sharply with the outbreak of war in Europe in 1803.
Britain imposed a blockade on neutral countries such as the United
States. In addition, the British took American sailors from their
ships and forced them to serve in the British Navy. Concerned about
the many English spies and troublemakers, Congress passed an
amendment to prevent those who had English titles and connections
from obtaining any seat in government. Called the Titles of Nobility
Act (TONA), it reads as follows:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or
retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent
of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or
emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or
foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United
States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or
profit under them, or either of them."

All "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the
Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Section 9 of the
Constitution of the United States (1778), but there was no penalty.
Although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title
of nobility" amendment was deemed necessary and was proposed in 1789,
again in 1810, and finally ratified in 1819. But the notice of
ratification delivered to the Secretary of State, an attorney with
the title, "Esquire," disappeared. As a result, there still is no
penalty for accepting titles or emoluments from foreign rulers today,
just the prohibition.

Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of
nobility" and "honours," that anyone receiving them would be required
to forfeit their citizenship. Obviously the Amendment carried much
more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent
today. They knew that our freedom could be subverted from inside our
government and had sought to prevent such a bitter betrayal. Today
most Senators and Congressmen, all Federal judges, and some of our
Presidents are attorneys who carry the title "Esquire" often
abbreviated as "Esq." The Constitution still forbids this,
nevertheless.

In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys, but most held
no "title of nobility" or "honor." There was no requirement that one
be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney
general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted
to a lawyer and there was no state or national bar associations. The
only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar
Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in
London. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "Esquire" -
a "title of British nobility."

"Esquire" was the principle title of nobility which the 13th
Amendment ought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because
the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect! Lawyers with
an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members
of an organization whose principle purposes were political and
regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for
members of the KGB or the CIA.

The archaic definition of "honor" (as used when the 13th Amendment
was ratified) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or
privilege over another." A contemporary example of an "honor"
granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge:
Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and
powers, non-lawyers generally cannot. We address the judge as, "your
Honor."

By prohibiting "honors," the missing, but now found, original 13th
amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant some
citizens an equal opportunity to achieve or exercise political
power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the original 13th
Amendment was to insure political equality among all American
citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government officials, from
claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an "honor") over
other citizens.

Both "esquire" and "honor" would be key targets of the 13th Amendment
even today, because, while "titles of nobility" no longer apply now
precisely as they did back in the early 1800's, it is clear that
an "esquire" or bar attorney receives far better treatment in and by
the courts as well as by the public at large in general, whereas if
you represent yourself (pro se) or speak as a freeman (pro per), you
are treated as though you were rabble. Your opinions are of little
importance in court and you are often treated similarly by government
officials. Because you are not "esquires" or bar attorneys, you are
considered to be a useless eater, a subject "out of control." The
concept of "honor" remains relevant, possibly more so today than at
any previous time in U.S. history, for they, the "honors," are
greatly feared and even revered, even by the esquires who are
considered to be below them. Since the Original 13th Amendment has
never been repealed, all acts of government since 1819 are
technically null and void since most lawmakers, prohibited from
participation in government by the Constitution and who should even
be stripped of their right to be a US Citizen under TONA, have
continued to interject themselves into the political process.

When the people discovered that European banking interests owned most
of the United States Bank they saw the sheer power of the banks and
their ability to influence representative government by economic
manipulation and outright bribery. On February 20, 1811, Congress
therefore refused to renew the Bank's charter on the grounds that the
Bank was unconstitutional. This led to the withdrawal of $7,000,000
in specie (money in coin) by European investors, which in turn,
precipitated an economic recession, and the War of 1812. This "war"
was punishment for America refusing to do business on the terms of
the International Banking families of the House of Rothschild,
through the first Bank of the United States. Congress refused to let
the National Bank renew its Charter.

Except for Gen. Andrew Jackson's victory in the Battle of New
Orleans, the War of 1812 produced a string of American military
disasters. The most shocking of these was the British Army's burning
of the Capitol, the President's house, and other public buildings in
Washington on August 24 and 25, 1814. (Americans had previously
burned public buildings in Canada.) During the War of 1812 our
national archives and many libraries and document repositories were
burned and some of the evidence of the TONA disappeared.
Nevertheless, the legislature of Virginia ratified the amendment and
it was subsequently printed in many official publications as the 13th
Amendment, even in states which had NOT ratified, such as
Connecticut. But beginning in 1832 it began to disappear from texts,
although official state publications continued to publish it as late
as 1876.

There are undoubtedly other examples of the monarchy's efforts to
subvert or destroy the United States; some are common knowledge,
others remain to be disclosed to the public. For example, national
archivist David Dodge discovered a book called 2 VA LAW in the
Library of Congress Law Library. According to Dodge, "This is an un-
catalogued book in the rare book section that reveals a plan to
overthrow the Constitutional government by secret agreements
engineered by the lawyers of the time." That is one of the reasons
why the TONA was ratified by the state of Virginia in the particular
manner in which they did, although the alleged "notification" thereof
was a long time thereafter claimed to have been "lost in the mail."
You see, there is no public record that this aforementioned book
exists either!

That may sound surprising, but according to the Gazette
(5/10/91), "the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare
books and 13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts." There may be
secrets buried in that mass of documents even more astonishing than a
missing Constitutional Amendment. Yet this image of documentary
disarray appropriately describes our situation today: we are
inundated with information that we have not had the time or interest
to sort through. As a result we have lost a precious treasure in the
chaos and turmoil of daily life: our sovereignty.

One amazing aspect of the War of 1812 was the existence of a
depression during wartime. War always brings a short-term prosperity,
except in the case of this war. To understand this, it is vital for
you to know that all depressions and recessions are artificially
created through the restriction of a medium of exchange—money. This
restriction keeps money OUT of circulation. Fewer dollars available
to facilitate production and distribution means poverty and
starvation.

The precariousness of government finance during the war and the post
war recession convinced the Republican government under James
Madison, to re-establish a national bank. Thus was created the Second
Bank of the United States in 1816.

In January 9, 1832 The Second National Bank applied for a charter
renewal 4 years early. This time President Andrew Jackson vetoed the
Bank's recharter on the grounds that the Bank was unconstitutional
and he successfully paid off the national debt leaving the U.S. with
a surplus of $5,000. He said, "If congress has the right under the
Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use
themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations."

On January 30, 1835, President Andrew Jackson attended a
congressional funeral in the Capitol building. As he exited, Richard
Lawrence, an unemployed house painter, pointed a pistol at Jackson
and fired. The percussion cap exploded, but the bullet did not
discharge. The enraged Jackson raised his cane to strike his
attacker, who fired again. The second weapon also misfired and the
sixty-seven-year-old president escaped assassination at close range.
Jackson was convinced that Lawrence was hired by his political
enemies, the Whigs, to stop his plan to destroy the Bank of the
United States.

Andrew Jackson violated public international law because he denied
the creditor his just lien rights on the debtor. However, the
bankers did not lend value (substance), so in actuality they had an
unperfected lien. Therefore the law actually did not apply.

The End of the American Republic: the Shadow Government is Born

In 1860-61, the Southern states walked out of Congress. This created
sine die, a situation in which not enough representatives were
present to carry on legislative business. This was a constitutional
crisis that the newly elected president, Abraham Lincoln, had to
resolve.

The Introduction to Senate Report 93-549 (93rd Congress, 1st Session,
1973) summarizes the situation as best as possible:

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of
their lives under emergency rule. . . And, in the United States,
actions taken by the Government in times of great crises have –from,
at least, the Civil War—in important ways, shaped the present
phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency."

From the research information available, it can be reasonably proven
that when the Southern states walked out of Congress on March 27,
1861, the quorum to conduct business under the Constitution for the
united States of America was lost. Thus, the only votes that Congress
could lawfully take, under parliamentary law, were those to set the
time to reconvene, take a vote to get a quorum, vote to adjourn and
set a date, time, and place to reconvene at a later time, but
instead, Congress apparently abandoned the House and Senate without
setting a date to reconvene. Under the parliamentary law of Congress,
when this happened, Congress became sine die (pronounced see-na dee-
a; literally "without day") and thus when Congress adjourned sine
die, it ceased to exist as a lawful deliberative body, and thus the
only lawful, constitutional power that could declare war was no
longer lawful, or in session.

It can also be reasonably proven that the Southern states, by virtue
of their secession from the Union, also ceased to exist sine die, and
that some state legislatures in the Northern bloc also adjourned sine
die, and thus, all the states which were parties to creating the
Constitution for the united States of America apparently ceased to
exist. On April 15, 1861, President Lincoln executed an executive
order, Lincoln Executive Proclamation 1, and it can also be
reasonably proven that the united States of America have been ruled
ever since by the President under executive powers.

It can also be reasonably proven that when Congress eventually did
reconvene, it was reconvened under the military authority of the
Commander-in-Chief and not by Rules of Order for Parliamentary bodies
or by Constitutional Law, thus placing the American people under
martial rule ever since the "national emergency" declared by
President Lincoln. Thus, the Constitution for the united States of
America has subsequently temporarily ceased being the acknowledged
law of the land in many courts, and the President, Congress, and the
courts have unlawfully presumed that they were free to remake the
Union in a new image, whereas, lawfully, no constitutional provisions
were in place which afforded power to any of the actions which were
taken which presumed to place the Union under the new form of
control.

President Lincoln apparently knew that his executive orders no longer
had any force under Constitutional Law. So he commissioned General
Orders No. 100 (April 24, 1863) apparently as a special code to
govern his actions under martial law and to justify the seizure of
power, which further extended the laws of the District of Columbia
and which also fictionally implemented the provisions of Article I,
Section 8, Clauses 17-18 of the Constitution beyond the boundaries of
Washington, D.C. and into the several states. General Orders No. 100,
also called the Lieber Instructions and the Lieber Code, have
apparently extended the laws of war and private international law
into the American states, and the United States government has become
the presumed military conqueror of the people and the land of the
several American nations.

Martial rule has apparently been kept secret and has never really
ended. Lincoln was assassinated before he could complete the
implementation of his plan to constitutionally and not militarily
reform the Southern national governments and restore Congress. Ever
since the united States of America has been ruled under military law
under the Commander of Chief—the President—and his assumed executive
powers according to the policies of Executive Orders: a military
dictator type function.

Constitutional law under the original Constitution for the American
states is apparently enforced only as a matter of keeping the public
peace under the provisions of General Orders No. 100 under martial
rule. This "peace" is further evidenced in the Preamble of the so-
called Expatriation Act of 1868. Under martial law, title is a mere
fiction, since all property belongs to the military except for that
property which the Commander-in-Chief may, in his benevolence, exempt
from taxation and seizure and upon which he allows the "enemy" to
reside.

In proclaiming the first Trading with the Enemy Act by Executive
Order, President Lincoln set in place the means by which the federal
government could interact with Americans who were not 14th Amendment
citizens. They could technically be designated as enemies. Are you
beginning to understand how We the People could be at odds with
our "government?"

In a message to Congress December 3, 1861, Abraham Lincoln answered
the banker's argument that the people could not be trusted with their
constitutional power, the political and monetary system of free
enterprise conceived by our Founding Fathers, by saying:

"No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up
from poverty -- none less inclined to take or touch aught which they
have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political
power which they already possess, and which if surrendered, will
surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they,
and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of
liberty shall be lost."

In 1865, just before the close of the Civil War, President Lincoln
declared his new monetary policy:

"The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency
and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government
and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these
principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest.
Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity….
The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme
prerogative of government, but it is the governments' greatest
opportunity."

Had it been implemented, it would have ushered in a worldwide
economic renewal. Unfortunately, a few weeks after its introduction,
Lincoln was assassinated because he defied the bankers in proposing
to print interest free money to pay the war debt. Thus, the
government continued to operate fully under the authority of private
law dictated by the creditor.

Since President Lincoln was assassinated before he could complete
plans for reforming constitutional government in the Southern States
and end the martial rule by executive order, the 14th Amendment to
the Constitution has further created a "new citizenship" or "status"
for the expanded jurisdiction. Laws for the District of Columbia were
proposed and passed by Congress in 1871, the District of Columbia
being incorporated as a private, foreign corporation by The District
of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, and all states in the Union were
apparently reformed as franchisees or political subdivisions of the
corporation known as the UNITED STATES, hence creating a new union of
American states. What remained of the government was the private side
under the rule of the bankers.

The first attempt by Congress to define citizenship was in 1866 in
the passage of the Civil Rights Act (Revised Statutes section 1992, 8
United States Code Annotated section 1). The act provided that:

"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign
power are declared to be citizens of the United States."

And this in turn was followed in 1868 by the adoption of the
Fourteenth Amendment, United States Code Annotated Amendment 14,
declaring:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside."

Bigjon

2nd December 2016, 02:41 PM

At this period of time, the only people in the United States who were
under the jurisdiction of the private bifurcated government of the
ten miles square of Washington, D.C., were the government employees,
those within the territories owned by the United States and now the
former slaves. The former citizens of the South, now "captured"
became 14th Amendment citizens. The remainder of the people could
still invoke the power over government through original jurisdiction
of the Republic side of the Constitution.

A new 13th Amendment was enacted December 18, 1865 and the 14th
Amendment was enacted July 28, 1868. It was ratified in Southern
states under martial law. A state could only obtain its freedom from
federal military rule by ratifying this amendment. Any contract
entered under duress is null and void. But then the Constitution was
not even in effect following sine die and the proclamation of martial
law.

The 14th Amendment brought the freed slaves, whose previous owners
were private plantations and transferred those slaves under
subjection of the government, the ten miles square jurisdiction of
Washington, D.C. And it offered its protection to those who would
choose to become its subjects…in exchange for their sovereignty.

The 14th Amendment is a good example of the "give-a-little, take a
lot" strategy that is often used, a sugar coating to a bitter pill.
Sovereign Citizens had created a government to guarantee them their
rights. In contrast, the federal government created fourteenth
amendment citizenship to guarantee its power over its citizens. It
seems to be taking citizens under its protection but at the price of
servitude. Sovereigns may choose to become subjects; free men and
women to become vassals. This amendment has always been
controversial. Many people over the years have questioned the amount
of power it vests in the federal government. Some have even
questioned its validity. On one occasion Judge Ellett of the Utah
Supreme Court remarked:

"I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its
faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment was properly
approved and adopted. State v. Phillips, Pacific Reporter, 2nd
Series, Vol. 540, Page 941, 942 (1975)

However, the most important fact about this amendment is that,
although it created a new class of citizen, it did not have any
effect on Sovereign Citizens. Both classes still exist: When the
Constitution was adopted the people of the United States were the
citizens of the several States for whom and for whose posterity the
government was established. Each of them was a citizen of the United
States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free persons
thereafter born within one of the several States became by birth
citizens of the State and of the United States.

Both classes of citizen still exist. It's your right to be a
Sovereign Citizen, while it's a privilege to be a fourteenth
amendment citizen, and most importantly, it's up to you to determine
which one you are, and which one you want to be. Just remember that
you "pay" for a privilege, whereas a right carries no obligation.
This is at the heart of your personal Declaration of Independence.

Two Governments, Two Flags: the Corporate State

Once the smoke settled after the Civil War, European international
bankers arrived in town. In 1871 the default again loomed and
bankruptcy was imminent. So in 1872, the ten miles square District
of Columbia was incorporated in England. A loophole was discovered
in the Constitution by cunning lawyers in league with the
international bankers. They realized that a separate nation by the
same name existed that Congress had created in Article I, Section 8,
Clause 17.

The Congress shall have power:

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such
district (not exceeding ten square miles) as may, by cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of
government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over
all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state
in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines,
arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings; - And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by
this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any
department or officer thereof.

This "United States" is a Legislative "Democracy" within the
Constitutional Republic, and is known as the Federal United States.
It has exclusive, unlimited rule over its Citizenry, the residents of
the District of Colombia, the territories and enclaves (Guam, Midway
Islands, Wake Island, Puerto Rico, etc.), and anyone who is a Citizen
by way of the 14th Amendment (naturalized Citizens).

Both United States have the same Congress that rules in both nations.
One "United States," the Republic of fifty States, has the "stars and
stripes" as its flag, but without any fringe on it. The Federal
United States' flag is the stars and stripes with a yellow fringe,
seen in all the courts. The abbreviations of the States of the
Continental United States are, with or without the zip codes, Ala.,
Alas., Ariz., Ark., Cal., etc. The abbreviations of the States under
the jurisdiction of the Federal United States, the Legislative
Democracy, are AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, etc. (without any periods).

The international bankers and the Congress conjured up this bit of
mischief and passed it into law. But whose law? Congress broke faith
with We the People in 1871 and sold us out when they formed a private
corporation and made it the government of the District of Columbia.
They used the Constitution through the 14th Amendment, as their by-
laws, therefore taking their authority not under the Constitution but
taking their authority over the constitution. They copyrighted not
only the constitution but also many related names such as, THE UNITED
STATES, U.S. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, USA as their own. This is
the final blow to the original constitution. Hence forth, the UNITED
STATES has been governed entirely by private corporate law, dictated
by the banks as creditors.

The "Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia,"
Section 34 of the Forty-First Congress of the United States, Session
III, Chapter 61 and 62, enacted February 21, 1871, states that the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a corporation, whose jurisdiction is
applicable only in the ten-mile-square parcel of land known as the
District of Columbia and to whatever properties are legally titled to
the UNITED STATES, by its registration in the corporate County,
State, and Federal governments that are under military power of the
UNITED STATES and its creditors. Under this provision, the military
Congress of the UNITED STATES had obtained the power to pass private
international law for application within the federal District of
Columbia. All States of the Union adopted new legislatively
created 'conditions' and 'codified' their laws under federal
mandate. State 'codes' were unlawfully adopted despite their origin
as instruments of sovereign people. However, We the People remained
sovereign.

UNITED STATES CODE, Title 28, 3002(15)(A), basically reiterates that
the UNITED STATES is a corporation. What was not said in 1871, but
was implicit, was what is plainly stated at Title 28, 3002(15)(3):
That all departments of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION are part of the
corporation. Title 28, UNITED STATES CODE, is Copyrighted Private
International Law. Indeed, the UNITED STATES CODE, in its entirety,
is Copyrighted Private International Law, and applicable only in the
District of Columbia.

This incorporation was first reported by Gary W. Phillips, whose
career with the Immigration and Naturalization Service began in 1956.
He was the INS director at Sea Tac Airport for 20 years and began
challenging the income tax in 1985 (The Idaho Observer, March, 2000).
After nearly 40 years of government service, Phillips was forced to
flee his country to protect his life after exposing the facts of the
illegality of the federal government's criminal income tax collection
scam -- facts that are becoming well know among informed people
throughout the country.

Where did the Congress find the authority in the Constitution to
reconstitute any part of the united States as a corporation? Quite
simply, the 1791 Constitution was set aside to make room for the
corporation. Would this Act benefit the Republic? No, the private,
corporate bottom line is profit. The municipal, public bottom line is
service. To replace our service-oriented form of government with a
profit-oriented form of government without our knowledge or consent
can only be described as treason.

A few superficial changes were made to the original Constitution and
it was no longer the real thing. Congress did not change the name of
the document so they could claim to be reading from the Constitution.
They merely changed it from the Constitution for the united States of
America to the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. They
changed the "for" to "of'" and capitalized all the letters. All of
the sudden we had two Constitutions, the original for show and the
revision for actual use.

The Act of 1871 provided a government for the District of Columbia
and created a corporation entitled the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA whose
jurisdiction extends only over corporate entities created by the
municipal corporation and operative only in the District of Columbia.
Washington, District of Columbia is the capitol of the District of
Columbia, not the United States of America, and all laws passed
within the District of Columbia are applicable and enforceable only
in the District of Columbia and it's possessions.

The States of the Republic are not possessions of the District of
Columbia. Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Guam are possessions of
the District of Columbia as well as property legally titled to the
UNITED STATES by states and counties.

The UNITED STATES CODE, in totality, was put together in the District
of Columbia as Copyrighted Private International Law and is
applicable only in the District of Columbia. By their own rules of
jurisdiction, the UNITED STATES attorneys have no business
prosecuting anyone outside of the District of Columbia or Federal
territories. The federal court has no venue outside of the District
of Columbia and, therefore, has no jurisdiction outside of the
District of Columbia and its possessions. The Congress cannot pass a
law that is applicable in the several States of the Republic.

If all the laws passed in the District of Columbia are Private
International Law, including all of the UNITED STATES CODE and the
statutes at large passed after 1871, and are applicable and
enforceable only in the District of Columbia, then how could they
have become the law of the land? Because, not knowing better, We the
People allowed it. We have allowed agents of foreign countries to
build an illegal corporation that has systematically corrupted every
state, county and city in this nation and corrupted the status and
standing of most people of the united States of America. The only way
that a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT can have jurisdiction over a
Sovereign is if the latter volunteers to the jurisdiction or fails to
declare his independence as a Sovereign.

This corporation has created dozens of agencies, the IRS, FBI, DEA,
and the BATF, to name a few, which employ thousands of agents who
receive excellent salaries and benefits for betraying their friends
and families while enforcing the private edicts of the so-called
Congress. The men and women of Congress smile, speak softly, and then
direct their illegal agencies to destroy those who do not fully
conform to their wishes, and strike fear into hearts of those who do.
Kidnapping and conspiracy are involved in every arrest and conviction
by federal authorities outside of the District of Columbia.

The question now leads to whether our duly elected public officials
swear an oath to uphold the Constitution for the united States of
America, the Republic within which our rights are protected by a
service-oriented government, or swear an oath to the CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the profit-oriented corporation?

It appears by their actions that most government employees, knowingly
or unknowingly, have sworn an oath to the corporate UNITED STATES. It
is our duty as the People who elected them into office, to demand
accountability from our "public" officials and confront them as to
where their loyalties lie. Is it with the corrupt, treasonous
corporation that is controlled by foreign agents from within and
without, or is it with our constitutional Republic, the united States
of America and her citizens?

An articulate defender of a conservative monetary policy, President
James A. Garfield urged the resumption of specie payments and the
payment of government debts. He said, "Whoever controls the volume
of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and
commerce." In his Inaugural Address in 1881, Garfield said:

The chief duty of the National Government in connection with the
currency of the country is to coin money and declare its value. Grave
doubts have been entertained whether Congress is authorized by the
Constitution to make any form of paper money legal tender. The
present issue of United States notes has been sustained by the
necessities of war; but such paper should depend for its value and
currency upon its convenience in use and its prompt redemption in
coin at the will of the holder, and not upon its compulsory
circulation. These notes are not money, but promises to pay money. If
the holders demand it, the promise should be kept.

Garfield was assassinated after only two hundred days in office, 80
days after being shot by a lawyer, ostensibly because he was upset
about not receiving an ambassadorial posting to France.

In 1909, default loomed once again. The US government asked the
Crown of England for an extension of time. This extension was
granted for another 20 years on several conditions. One of the
conditions was that the United States permit the creditors to
establish a new national bank. The bankers moved deeper into our
nation by the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913, the
IRS to collect the interest on their loans made to the UNITED STATES,
and the 17th Amendment enacted May 31, 1913, was the condition for
the extension of time. The 16th and 17th Amendment further reduced
the states power. The UNITED STATES adopted the mercantile system of
ancient Babylonian.

With the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the UNITED
STATES was firmly lashed to the yoke, so that a small number of very
rich men have been able to lay upon the people a yoke little better
than slavery itself. That yoke inevitably grows heavier with ever-
compounding interest, and totals over $20 trillion of debt owed by
the American people today ($80,000 per American). This vast
accumulation of wealth concentrates immense power and despotic
economic domination in the hands of the few central bankers "who are
able to govern credit and its allotment, for this reason supplying,
so to speak, the life-blood to the entire economic body, and
grasping, as it were, in their hands the very soul of the economy so
that no one dare breathe against their will." A worldwide tyranny is
gradually being imposed, hidden to most, by the money masters.

First World War

In 1917 we were drafted into the First World War. President Woodrow
Wilson had to find a way to persuade the American public to go along
with an intervention in another of Europe's wars. Although
restrained to be neutral in the deadly conflict by the Neutrality
Act, he sent our navy to shepherd British convoys across the
Atlantic. German U-boat commanders did not take the bait and avoided
contact with the US destroyers. To force the issue, a US naval ship
sailed into the midst of a battle between British and German naval
fleets and was sunk. But when the truth was learned, Wilson had to
find another way.

The Lusitania was a speedy warship refitted by the British as a
passenger liner. Unknown to its passengers the Lusitania was
carrying a huge cargo of military equipment and munitions in
violation of the US Neutrality Act. The Germans knew that and tried
to warn the passengers by placing advertisements in prominent US
newspapers. The US State Department ordered all of the newspapers to
refuse the ad. Only one newspaper in Des Moines, Iowa, bravely
published the information. To ensure a successful provocation, the
Lusitania was ordered to sail at 75% speed using only three of its
four powerful engines. Then the naval escort was ordered away
leaving the Lusitania vulnerable as it entered the war zone. The
first torpedo hit the explosive cargo and blew the bottom out of the
Lusitania. It sank in only 18 minutes. 126 innocent civilians died.
Wilson now had his provocation to rally Americans behind the "War to
End All Wars."

The US participation in WWI exacerbated the national debt so that it
became impossible for us to pay it off in 1929. It also enhanced the
War Powers Act that President Lincoln, by Executive Order put in
place during his Presidency. This War Powers Act was re-enforced and
the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 was passed to define,
regulate, and punish those who were trading with enemies, who were
then required by that act to be licensed by the government to do
business. This will become more important later on.

The Great Depression: From Sovereignty to Servitude

We all know what happened in 1929. This was the year of the stock
market crash and the beginning of The Great Depression. The stock
market crash moved billions of dollars from the people to the banks.
This also removed cash from circulation for the people's use. Those
who still possessed any cash, invested in high interest yielding
Treasury Bonds driven higher by increased demand. As a result, even
more cash was removed from circulation in the general public to the
point where there was not enough cash left in circulation to buy the
goods being produced. Production came to a halt as excess inventory
overwhelmed the market. There were more products on the market than
there was cash to buy them. Prices plummeted and industries plunged
into bankruptcy, throwing millions of people out of work.
Foreclosures on homes, factories, businesses and farms rose to the
highest level in the history of America. A mere dime was literally
salvation to many families now living on the street. Millions of
people lost everything they had, keeping only the clothes on their
backs.

In Europe, the International Bankers in 1930 declared several nations
bankrupt, including the United States. In 1933, immediately after
Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office, his first act as President was
to publicly declare the United States bank holiday. He further went
on to issue his Presidential Executive Order on March 5th, 1933 that
all United States Citizens must turn in all their gold in return for
Federal Reserve Notes. This was passed into law by Congress on June
5, 1933.

We the People turned in all our gold at that time. Why? Were we
United States Citizens? No. We were still a sovereign people until
that time. We just thought that we were required to turn in all our
gold. Only those people living in Washington, D.C., and the 14th
Amendment Citizens were so required. As sovereigns, we were not
under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, which
incorporated in 1872.

When we turned in our gold, we just volunteered to be citizens of the
jurisdiction of the ten miles square of Washington D.C. and their
laws. We became 14th Amendment Citizens. Our birth certificates, the
title to our bodies, were registered at the Department of Commercial.
This title to our bodies, all of our property and all of our future
labor, was pledged to the International Bankers as security for the
money owed in bankruptcy. This was done under the authority of
commercial law (Babylonian law) by and through Title. The American
People were not in bankruptcy. Only the Corporate UNITED STATES was
in bankruptcy. But with the US Corporation holding the title to your
body and life, you could be used for collateral to secure the
national debt through the birth certificate given by parents
voluntarily to be entered into the Commercial Registry. This act, in
commerce, gave Title to your body by way of a "constructive"
contract.

Next, the government created an artificial 'person' in your name, a
corporation, a fictitious entity to take its place in a virtual
reality of contract law and corporations. By and through an adhesion
contract, the government then made you, the real man or woman,
responsible for that fictional entity, a fiduciary and surety for an
artificial entity. Your artificial entity secured the National debt
and through it, you became a 14th Amendment Citizen of the UNITED
STATES. In other words, they got you to think and act as though you
really were that fictional entity. You agreed by your action or
failure to act. YOU adhered to a contract offer because you thought
or acted as though you were the receiver of the offer. In doing so,
YOU were presumed to have ACCEPTED THE CONTRACT.

All licenses and all existing contracts are made between the UNITED
STATES or THE STATE OF (whatever state you live in) and your
artificial entity. That fictitious entity binds you to the UNITED
STATES and its sub-corporations because they have, through adhesion
contract, made you, the real man or woman, fiduciary and responsible
for that artificial entity. Of course, you voluntarily sign, and
even request, all those contracts, don't you? It seems to be your
name, although you probably never spell it all in capital letters as
they do. They wish for you to think nothing of the aberration,
perhaps just something they do to be clear and error-free.

All of these contracts you sign carry with it your agreement to obey
and uphold all the laws, rules and regulations passed by the Congress
of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION and THE STATE OF. . . . and will be
enforced against you.

From that day forward, We the People, once upon a time sovereigns who
created government for our convenience and welfare, could never own
property in allodium because the state now had possession of it all.
In 1964, the state obtained title to all private property. You can
only "rent" homes that you believe you own by paying taxes. You only
have a certificate of title to the car you think you own, and you
continue to drive it because of your yearly fee. The state owns the
true title to our homes, our cars, to everything we thought or think
we own. You married the state through your marriage license and your
children became wards of the state. All of this was pledged,
including all the fruits of your future labor, to the bankers as
security against the national debt and was placed in the possession
of the Secretary of State of each state as an agent for the Trustee
of the Bankruptcy, the U.S. Secretary of Treasury. Not knowing the
rules of the game you went directly to jail, you could not pass GO
and you could not collect $200.

Cows in the Pasture or Freedom: the Hidden Choice

The way out of this is dilemma can be very complex. In fact, its
complexity was intentional. Roosevelt had violated the law by
placing us into servitude without our consent. Congressman Louis T.
McFadden brought formal charges against the Federal Reserve and the
Secretary of the Treasury and was coming dangerously close to calling
for impeachment of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Two months AFTER the
Executive Order, on June 5, 1933, the Senate and House of
Representatives, 73d Congress, 1st Session, at 4:30 pm approved House
Joint Resolution (HJR) 192: Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold
Standard And Abrogate The Gold Clause, Joint Resolution to assure
uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States, which
formally declared the bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES.

F.D.R. by Executive Order declared the people outside federal
territories to be the enemy by illegally altering the Trading with
the Enemy Act of 1861, revised 1918.

The creation of Federal Zone citizenship further tightened up when
you applied for your Social Security number after 1935. The benefits
offered by this contract were hurriedly and voluntarily entered into
when the Social Security Act was signed into law. Further contracts
were to be entered into and license to be applied for–all voluntary
actions. We unknowingly were entering into lifelong servitude to
receive the benefits of the Lord of the Manor. We had descended into
feudal vassalage without recognizing it.

President Roosevelt then called all the Governors into Washington D.
C. for a conference. This was the beginning of the states losing the
remainder of their sovereignty. It was not until 1944 that the
corporate states lost all their power over the corporate United
States with the Buck Act. With this Act, the states became,
essentially, 14th Amendment Citizens as well. This completed the
destruction of the corporate states having any power to protect
against usurpation by the U.S. Government. The corporate states went
under the jurisdiction of Washington, D.C.

Strangely enough, on October 28, 1977, HJR-192 was quietly repealed
by public law 95-147. The joint resolution entitled "Joint resolution
to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United
States" approved June 5, 1933 (31 U.S.C. 463), shall not apply to
obligations issued on or after the date of enactment of this section.

The reason for the repeal of HJR-192 is somewhat obscure. After 44
years of unchallenged implementation, this public policy is clearly
established by custom, usage and participation in the credit system
by the American public. Those of us operating on the privilege of
limited liability, via the public credit, are still bound.

The adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code by all States in 1964 and
a number of other like laws and Acts were incorporated into this
nation. This made the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the Supreme Law
of the Land.

Bigjon

2nd December 2016, 02:44 PM

Courts Shift from Common Law to Equity and Admiralty Courts

Under the Constitution, based on Common Law, the Republic of the
Continental United States provides for legal cases: at Law, in
Equity, and in Admiralty.

(1) Law is the collective organization of the individual right to
lawful defense. It is the will of the majority, the organization of
the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a
common force for individual forces, to do only what the individual
forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons,
liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to
cause justice to reign over us all. Since an individual cannot
lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of
another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot
lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of
individuals or groups. Law allows you to do anything you want to, as
long as you don't infringe upon the life, liberty or property of
anyone else. Law does not compel performance.

Today's so-called laws (ordinances, statutes, acts, regulations,
orders, precepts, etc.) are often erroneously perceived as law, but
just because something is called a "law" does not necessarily make it
a law. [There is a difference between "legal" and "lawful." Anything
the government does is legal, but it may not be lawful.]

(2) Equity is the jurisdiction of compelled performance (for any
contract you are a party to) and is based on what is fair in a
particular situation. The term "equity" denotes the spirit and habit
of fairness, justness, and right dealing which would regulate the
intercourse of men with men. You have no rights other than what is
specified in your contract. Equity has no criminal aspects to it.

(3) Admiralty is compelled performance plus a criminal penalty, a
civil contract with a criminal penalty.

By 1938 the gradual merger procedurally between law and equity
actions (i.e., the same court has jurisdiction over legal, equitable,
and admiralty matters) was recognized. The nation was bankrupt and
was owned by its creditors (the international bankers) who now owned
everything—the Congress, the Executive, the courts, all the States
and their legislatures and executives, all the land, and all the
people. Everything was mortgaged in the national debt. We had gone
from being sovereigns over government to subjects under government,
through the use of negotiable instruments to discharge our debts with
limited liability, instead of paying our debts at common law with
gold or silver coin.

The change in our system of law from public law to private commercial
law was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in the
Erie Railroad vs. Thompkins case of 1938, after which case, in the
same year, the procedures of Law were officially blended with the
procedures of Equity. Prior to 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions
were based upon public law—or that system of law that was controlled
by Constitutional limitation. Since 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court
decisions are based upon what is termed public policy.

Public policy concerns commercial transactions made under the
Negotiable Instrument's Law, which is a branch of the international
Law Merchant. This has been codified into what is now known as the
Uniform Commercial Code, which system of law was made uniform
throughout the fifty States through the cunning of the Congress of
the UNITED STATES.

In offering grants of negotiable paper (Federal Reserve Notes) which
the Congress gave to the fifty States of the Union for education,
highways, health, and other purposes, Congress bound all the States
of the Union into a commercial agreement with the Federal United
States (as distinguished from the Continental United States). The
fifty States accepted the "benefits" offered by the Federal United
States as the consideration of a commercial agreement between the
Federal United States and each of the corporate States. The corporate
States were then obligated to obey the Congress of the Federal United
States and also to assume their portion of the equitable debts of the
Federal United States to the international banking houses, for the
credit loaned. The credit which each State received, in the form of
federal grants, was predicated upon equitable paper.

This system of negotiable paper binds all corporate entities of
government together in a vast system of commercial agreements and is
what has altered our court system from one under the Common Law to a
Legislative Article I Court, or Tribunal, system of commercial law.
Those persons brought before this court are held to the letter of
every statute of government on the federal, state, county, or
municipal levels unless they have exercised the REMEDY provided for
them within that system of Commercial Law whereby, when forced to use
a so-called "benefit" offered, or available, to them, from
government, they may reserve their former right, under the Common Law
guarantee of same, not to be bound by any contract, or commercial
agreement, that they did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and
intentionally. See Howard Freeman here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman4.htm

In 1976, Congress took away any semblance of law or justice left
within our court system. All law today is now construed, constructed
and made up by the judge as it happens before your very eyes. Common
law has almost disappeared from the courts. They took away any
control or authority we might have had over the court system. This
has been very well hidden from all of us.

Many of us going into court often wonder why and how the courts can
simply override the laws we put into our paperwork. It's very simple
now that we know how they do it. They operate on the words `construe
and construct.'

A simple word such as `in' changed to `at' as in `at law' or `in law'
has a totally separate meaning. For example: If you're in the
river, you are wet, you can swim, etc., but if you're at the river,
you might enjoy a refreshing picnic, play baseball or run races. See
the difference a simple word can make? And, the attorneys often
change this word when they answer your motions – in addition to many
others.

It will pay you in dividends to read the answers of attorneys to your
paperwork. Compare what they say the case law says to the actual
case law itself. You'll discover that they have actually changed the
words therein. This is illegal, you might say. No, not, according to
the US Code.

You see, they can now construe and construct any law or statute to
mean whatever they decide it means, for their benefit. You don't
know any of this. You think they are railroading you in a kangaroo
court. No, they are `legal' in what they do. They usually follow
the law to the letter; Their law, private law, the law of contract,
that you know nothing about. This law is called contract law.

Uniform Commercial Code: Contract Acceptance and Honor

If you don't understand contract law or realize what law you are
dealing with when you go into court, you will lose. Even if you have
filed your UCC-1 and have captured your Title and your artificial
entity, this makes no difference in the above courts. Why? They
operate in total fiction, in the land of Oz. They can only recognize
contracts. And you are a real sentient being. (Still with numerous
adhesion contracts attached to you). Whatever you file in that court,
whether it is your UCC-1 or Law from the Judicial and Original
Jurisdiction side, that is real, Lawful, truth. They do not
recognize truth of any sort. They only recognize fiction and contract
law. So, when you go into any court, be aware that it is their law,
that the judge or the prosecutor can `construe' and `construct' that
law in any fashion they choose. It will always mean what they choose
it to mean.

So, are the courts bound by the Constitution? Law? Statutes? No,
contracts only and the statutes used to enforce the contracts.

When used in conjunction with one's signature, a stamp
stating "Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207" is sufficient to indicate to
the magistrate of any of our present Legislative Tribunals
(called "courts") that the signer of the document has reserved his
Common Law right. He is not to be bound to the statute, or commercial
obligation, of any commercial agreement that he did not enter
knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally, as would be the case in
any Common Law contract.

Furthermore, pursuant to U.C.C. 1-103, the statute being enforced as
a commercial obligation of a commercial agreement, must now be
construed in harmony with the old Common Law of America, where the
tribunal/court must rule that the statute does not apply to the
individual who is wise enough and informed enough to exercise the
remedy provided in this new system of law. He retains his former
status in the Republic and fully enjoys his unalienable rights,
guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the Republic, while those
about him "curse the darkness" of Commercial Law government, lacking
the truth needed to free themselves from a slave status under the
Federal United States, even while inhabiting territory foreign to its
territorial venue. Howard Freeman

Summary of Historical Development of Modern Feudalism

THE UNITED STATES as a corporation, created in England, came under
the jurisdiction of England. This entitled England to create laws as
England saw fit to do, establish those laws in THE UNITED STATES and
everyone who at that time was a 14th Amendment Citizen were subject
to obey those laws. This also placed the Congress of THE UNITED
STATES above that portion of what we think is the constitution, not
under the authority of the constitution. Copyrighted, remember? The
only Bill of Rights left at this point in time is four Amendments --
13th, 14th 15th, and 16th. That is all the Courts are required to
take cognizance of when you appear in their courts.

The 1929 stock market crash and the Great Depression that followed
placed the American people in desperation, homelessness, poverty and
even starvation. The minds of the people were focused on survival.
They were then in a condition to accept any handout given by the
government, no matter what the cost to their
freedoms.

We were drawn in as 14th Amendment Citizens through the registration
of our birth certificates. We were further enticed deeper into that
system by volunteering for many other licenses and privileges given
by the government. We were also made enemies of THE UNITED STATES.
This act gave the UNITED STATES authority, under the laws of war and
as a captured people, to force anything on us they choose to create.

Then, in 1976, Congress removed any semblance of justice in our court
system with Senate bill 94-201 and 94-381. From this point forward,
the 'officers of the court' can construe and construct the laws to
mean anything they chose them to mean.

As 14th Amendment Citizens, we are not citizens of the America we
have always thought. We are actually citizens of England, through
the corporation of THE UNITED STATES.

There is no law today except as fiction of copyrighted statutes, to
be interpreted by 'judges' who construe and construct whatever they
choose to have those statutes mean.

We, as sovereigns irresponsibly recognized the Crown of England (IMF)
as PRINCIPLE of America. In reality, the IMF was the Creditor of the
UNITED STATES, a corporation, but NEVER you. The Creditor of the
UNITED STATES designed invisible contracts to ensnare the sovereign
people of America as subjects. The Creditor of the UNITED STATES
implemented the invisible contracts through apparent 'color of law'
and the sovereigns irresponsibly agreed. We, as Sovereigns, through
the invisible contracts, and our irresponsibility to reject the
Creditors (IMF) ideas, have voluntarily given our substance to the
mythical creator of our situation.

You'll find that there is a common thread woven throughout our entire
history and that thread is commerce, the merchant, the money-changer
(banks), the law merchant, i.e., the law of commerce, civil law and
maritime law. This is not to say that commerce is bad. It does,
however, say that commerce brings with it the laws of commerce.
Wherever commerce goes it brings laws that can bind people into
slavery. This can happen only if the people agree with it.

Banks create "money" today out of thin air; then, they charge, we,
the people, interest on their creation. This can happen only if the
people agree with it. Thereafter, the merchants and the bankers
create laws, through lawmakers whom they control, that protect
commerce and bind the people to obey. This can happen only if the
people agree with it.

The only reason this occurs is that we do not handle our own
affairs.

Bigjon

2nd December 2016, 02:45 PM

Me and My Shadow: the Fictional STRAWMAN

The elected and appointed administrators of government United States
government have been filing certified copies of all our birth
certificates in the United States Department of Commerce as
registered securities. These securities, each of which carries an
estimated $1,000,000 value, have been (and still are) circulated
around the world as collateral for loans, entries on the asset side
of ledgers, etc., just like any other security. There's just one
problem—we didn't consciously authorize it. Now that you know, you
can choose to let them use you for collateral and pay interest on the
debt or you can take back your power and sovereignty.

The United States is a District of Columbia corporation. In Volume
20: Corpus Juris Sec. 1785 we find "The United States government is a
foreign corporation with respect to a State" (NY re: Merriam 36 N.E.
505 1441 S. 0.1973, 14 L. Ed. 287). Since a corporation is a
fictitious "person" (it cannot speak, see, touch, smell, etc.), it
cannot, by itself, function in the real world. It needs a conduit, a
transmitting utility, a liaison of some sort, to "connect" the
fictitious person, and the fictional world in which it exists, to the
real world. Why is this important?

LIVING people exist in a real world, not a fictional, virtual world.
But government exists in a fictional world, and can only deal
directly with other fictional or virtual persons, agencies, states,
etc. In order for a fictional person to deal with real people there
must be a connection, a liaison, a go-between. This can be something
as simple as a contract. When both "persons", the real and fictional,
agree to the terms of a contract, there is a connection, intercourse,
dealings, there is communication, an exchange. There is business.

But there is another way for fictional government to deal with the
real man and woman—through the use of a representative, a liaison, a
go-between. Who is this go-between that connects fictional government
to real men and women? It's a government-created shadow, a fictional
man or woman, a corporation with the same name as yours.

This PERSON was created by using your birth certificate as the
Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin (MCO) and the state in which you
were born as the "port of entry." This gave fictional UNITED STATES
government a fictional PERSON with whom to deal directly. This PERSON
is a STRAWMAN.

STRAMINEUS HOMO: Latin - A man of straw, one of no substance, put
forward as bail or surety. This definition comes from Black's Law
Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1421. Following the definition of
STRAMINEUS HOMO in Black's we find the next word, STRAWMAN.

STRAWMAN: A front, a third party who is put up in name only to take
part in a transaction. Nominal party to a transaction, one who acts
as an agent for another for the purpose of taking title to real
property and executing whatever documents and instruments the
principal may direct. Person who purchases property for another to
conceal identity of real purchaser or to accomplish some purpose
otherwise allowed.

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the
term "STRAWMAN" as "A weak or imaginary opposition set up only to be
easily confuted; or a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually
questionable transaction".

The STRAWMAN can be summed up as an imaginary, passive stand-in for
the real participant; a front; a blind; a person regarded as a
nonentity. The STRAWMAN is a "shadow", a go-between.

For quite some time a rather large number of people in this country
have known that a man or woman's name, written in ALL CAPS, or last
name first, does not identify real, living people. Taking this one
step further, the rules of grammar for the English language have no
provisions for the abbreviation of people's names, i.e. initials are
not to be used. As an example, John Adam Smith is correct. ANYTHING
else is not correct. Not Smith, John Adam or Smith, John A. or J.
Smith or J.A. Smith or JOHN ADAM SMITH or SMITH, JOHN or any other
variation. NOTHING, other than John Adam Smith identifies the real,
living man. All other appellations identify either a deceased man or
a fictitious man such as a corporation or a STRAWMAN.

Over the years, government, through its "public" school system, has
managed to pull the wool over our eyes and keep us all ignorant of
some very important facts. Because all facets of the media have an
ever increasing influence in our lives, and because media is
controlled (with the issuance of licenses, etc.) by government and
its agencies, we have slowly and systematically been led to believe
that any form/appellation of our name is, in fact, still us as long
as the spelling is correct. This is not true.

We were never told, with full and open disclosure, what our
government officials were planning to do ... and why. We were never
told that government (the United States) was a corporation, a
fictitious "person". We were never told that government had quietly,
almost secretly, created a shadow corporation, a STRAWMAN for each
and every American ... so that government could not only control the
people, but also raise an almost unlimited amount of revenue; so it
could continue, not just to exist, but to GROW.

We were never told that when government deals with the STRAWMAN it is
not dealing with real, living men and women. We were never told,
openly and clearly with full disclosure of all the facts, that since
June 5, 1933, we have been unable to pay our debts. We were never
told that we had been pledged (and our children, and their children,
and their children) as collateral, mere chattel, for the debt created
by government officials who created treason in doing so.

We were never told that they quietly and cleverly changed the rules,
even the game itself, and that the world we perceive as real is in
fact fictional - and its all for their benefit. We were never told
that the STRAWMAN—a fictional person, a creature of THE STATE—is
subject to all the codes, statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances,
etc. decreed by government, but that WE, the real man and woman, are
not. We were never told that we were being treated as property, as
slaves, albeit comfortably for some, while living in the land of the
free—and that we could, easily, walk away from the fraud. We never
realized that we were being abused. By knowing the difference between
our real self and our STRAWMAN and behaving accordingly, we regain
our proper sovereignty over "legal fictions" and the ability to
experience true freedom which is our birthright, for the enjoyment of
the Divine in us all.

There's something else you should know: Everything, since June 1933,
operates in COMMERCE. Why is this important? Commerce is based on
agreement, on contract. Government has an implied agreement with the
STRAWMAN which they created and the STRAWMAN is subject to government
rule, as we illustrated above. But when we, the real flesh and blood
man and woman, infer that they are trying to communicate with us and
therefore step into their commercial "process" we become the "surety"
for the fictional STRAWMAN. Reality and fiction are reversed. We
then become liable for the debts, liabilities and obligations of the
STRAWMAN, relinquishing our real (protected by the Constitution)
character as we stand in for the fictional STRAWMAN.

So that we can once again place the STRAWMAN in the fictional world
and keep ourselves in the real world (with all our "shields" in place
against the fictional government) we must send a non-negotiable
(private) "Charge Back" and a non-negotiable "Bill of Exchange" to
the United States Secretary of the Treasury, along with a copy of our
birth certificate, the evidence, the Manufacturer's Certificate of
Origin of the STRAWMAN. By doing this we discharge our portion of the
public debt, releasing us, the real man or woman, from the debts,
liabilities and obligations of the STRAWMAN. Those debts, liabilities
and obligations exist in the fictional commercial world of "book
entries" on computers and/or in paper ledgers. It is a world
of "digits" and "notes", not of money and substance. Property of the
real man once again becomes tax exempt and free from levy.

Sending the non-negotiable Charge Back and Bill of Exchange accesses
our Treasury Direct Account (TDA). What is our TDA? Title 26 USC
section 163(h)(3)(B)(ii), $1,000,000 limitation: "The aggregate
amount treated as acquisition indebtedness for any period shall not
exceed $1,000,000 ($500,000 in the case of a married individual
filing a separate return)."

This $1,000,000 account is for the STRAWMAN, the fictional "person"
with the name in all caps and/or last name first. It is there for the
purpose of making book entries, to move figures, "digits" from one
side of ledgers to the other. Figures, digits, the entries in ledgers
must move from asset side to debit side and back again, or commerce
dies. No movement, no commerce.

The fictional persona of corporate government can only function in a
functional commercial world, one where there is no real money, only
fictional funds ... mere entries, figures, digits.

Corporate, STATE courts only have jurisdiction over the STRAWMAN. A
presentment from fictional government—whether traffic citation or
criminal charges—is a negative, commercial "claim" against the
STRAWMAN. This "claim" takes place in the commercial, fictional world
of government. "Digits" move from one side of your STRAWMAN account
to the other, or to a different account. This is today's commerce. In
the past we have addressed these "claims" by fighting them in court,
with one "legal process" or another, and failed. We have played the
futile, legalistic, charade—a very clever distraction—while the
commerce game played on. We were playing checkers whereas the rules
were MONOPOLY.

But what if we refused to continue playing the charade, and played
the commerce game instead? What if we learned how to control the flow
and movement of entries, figures and digits, for our own benefit? Is
that possible? And if so, how? How can the real man in the real
world, function in the fictional world in which the commerce game
exists?

When in commerce do as commerce does - use the Uniform Commercial
Code (UCC). The UCC-1 Financing Statement is the one contract in the
world that CANNOT be broken and it's the foundation of the Accepted
for Value process. The power of this document is awesome.

Since the TDA exists for the STRAWMAN - who, until now, has been
controlled by the government - WE can gain control and ownership of
the STRAWMAN by first activating the TDA and then filing a UCC-1
Financing Statement. This does two things for us.

First, by activating the TDA we gain limited control over the funds
in the account. This allows us to also move entries, figures and
digits ... for OUR benefit.

Secondly, by properly filing a UCC-1 Financing Statement we become
the "holder in due course" of the STRAWMAN. A filed UCC-1 is public
notice of a registered lien by a real human being who is the secured
party, upon the STRAWMAN, the government-created, foreign non-
registered corporation. With the STRAWMAN under our control,
government has no access to the TDA and they also lose their go-
between, their liaison, their connection to the real, living man and
woman. No longer a subject, you become a free sovereign once again.
You declare your independence!

From now on, when presented with any "claim" or presentment from
government, you will agree with it. This removes the "controversy."
And you "accept it for value." By doing this you remove the negative
claim against your account and become the "holder in due course" of
the presentment. As holder in due course you can require the sworn
testimony of the presenter of the "claim" under penalty of perjury
and request the account be properly adjusted.

You don't have liability for your STRAWMAN. If you do commercial
assignments, you have an asset called a Bill of Exchange which you
can spend out. The birth certificate represents the body. The SSN
represents the commercial account. Behind every birth certificate is
a $1,000,000 bond which is pre-paid financing on any activity of the
STRAWMAN. Some people have used their TDA to pay off their home or
commercial mortgage, bank or student loans, tax liens, or credit card
debt..

When you own your STRAWMAN and anyone else charges against HIM, then
that is commercial trespassing. If anyone goes after your STRAWMAN
and wins any monetary award against the fiction of your STRAWMAN,
then you (the real person/ secured party) get the first $1,000,000 of
that because you have the first lien.

It's all business, a commercial undertaking, and the basic procedure
is not complicated. In fact, it's fairly simple. We just have to
remember a few things, like: this is not a "legal" procedure - we're
not playing People's Court. This is commerce, and we play by the
rules of commerce. We accept the "claim", become the holder in due
course, and challenge whether or not the presenter of the "claim"
had/has the proper authority, the Order, to make the claim (debit our
account) in the first place. When they cannot produce the Order (they
never can, it was never issued) we request the account be properly
adjusted (the charge or claim goes away). Always Accept for Value,
become the holder-in-due-course, and decide not to prosecute
yourself! Are you getting used to this power yet?

If they don't adjust the account a request is made for the
bookkeeping records showing where the funds in question were
assigned. This is done by requesting the Fiduciary Tax Estimate and
the Fiduciary Tax Return for this claim. Since the claim has been
accepted for value and is pre-paid, and our TDA is exempt from levy,
the request for the Fiduciary Tax Estimate and the Fiduciary Tax
Return is valid because the information is necessary in determining
who is delinquent and/or making claims on the account. If there is no
record of the Fiduciary Tax Estimate and the Fiduciary Tax Return, we
then request the individual tax estimates and individual tax returns
to determine if there is delinquency.

If we receive no favorable response to the above requests, we will
then file a currency report on the amount claimed/ assessed against
our account and begin the commercial process that will force them
either to do what is required or lose everything they own!

This is the power of contracts in commerce. A contract overrides the
Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and any other document other than
another contract. No process of law—"color" of law under present
codes, statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, etc.—can operate
upon you; no agent and/or agency of government, including courts, can
gain jurisdiction over you, without your consent! You do not exist
within their fictional commercial venue.

The Accepted for Value process gives you the ability to deal
with "them," through the use of your transmitting utility/go-between,
the STRAWMAN, and to hold them accountable in their own commercial
world for any action(s) they attempt to take against us. Without a
proper Order (and we know they're not in possession of such a
document) they must leave us alone, or pay the consequences.

In addition to your own freedom reclaimed, you will remove your
collateral and participation from the frauds, manipulations, and
extortion that have been perpetrated in your name. When enough people
have reclaimed their birthright, we can also reclaim our
constitutional republic that was intended to serve us in protecting
our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

IF YOU ARE RECEIVING TOO MANY EMAILS from TruthShallPrevail,
I suggest that you set your yahoo group setting to Digest Mode or Special Notices.

Digest Mode places all the groups postings into 1 large email per day.

Special Notices setting allows you to receive email from the moderator only.

To change settings go here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TruthShallPrevail/join

If you have a file or photo you want to share with the group,
you may upload them by clicking here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TruthShallPrevail/files (Files)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TruthShallPrevail/lst (Photos)

You can access links to great websites here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TruthShallPrevail/links

Links to free conspiracy/patriot/truth here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TruthShallPrevail/links/Audio_001105943802/Audio_Websites_001105944454/

If you have any comments/suggestions/questions/links email: cheesemind@yahoo.com

monty

2nd December 2016, 04:38 PM

http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/20160627/president-obamas-federal-land-grab-continues

The Obama administration does so diligently: It has already set aside over 265 million acres of land, more territory than any other president in history. During his two terms, the president has added 22 sites to the National Park System under the Antiquities Act.

But federal oversight of America’s lands leaves plenty to be desired. A recent analysis from the Property and Environment Research Center found that the federal government loses billions of dollars a year caring for land under its control — now nearly 30 percent of the entire country. For every dollar spent on land management, the federal government only recoups 73 cents in revenue. Recent estimates show the National Park Service (NPS) has more than $11 billion in deferred maintenance, while the U.S. Forest Service has more than $300 million in backlogged trail repairs.

Newsletter, Issue No. 8
Friday, Dec. 2, 2016

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/adf159afec7e5d9a4efd6c1eb/images/3ea70e34-4079-4809-8968-a4b6c41e9686.jpg

We lauchned this campaign in February to oppose the proposal from the Oregon Natural Desert Association and KEEN Footwear to create a national monument in Eastern Oregon without a vote of Congress.

Your voice and your dollars have made the Our Land, Our Voice campaign possible. You've helped us carry this message from Malheur County to Salem and all the way to Washington, D.C.

As of today, we have just 50 days left. But these are the most important 50 days of the campaign.

History tells us that the period between Election Day and Inauguration Day is a busy time for monument declarations in the White House. So we need your help today. Here's how you can help in 5 minutes or less:

Send a message: Visit our website to send a message to Oregon's elected leaders (http://ourlandourvoice.com/take-action/). The power of the message is in you the people.

Donate: If you've already given, thank you. If you have the capacity to give just $5 more (http://ourlandourvoice.com/donate/), it would help us finish this campaign strong.

Thank you for standing up for rural Oregon.

Sincerely,

Steve Russell
Chairman
Owyhee Basin Stewardship Coalition

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/adf159afec7e5d9a4efd6c1eb/images/453f81d5-7be5-42c1-b806-52666ff83af6.jpg

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/adf159afec7e5d9a4efd6c1eb/images/1a760910-7139-4125-810c-c029d23c31de.jpg (http://ourlandourvoice.com/take-action/)

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/adf159afec7e5d9a4efd6c1eb/images/a02f85d8-58a8-4bf4-9850-698c2faad80c.jpg (http://ourlandourvoice.com/supporters/)

Joyce Capital was one of our first supporters and they made a significant investment in our effort to stop a monument. Thank you to Joyce Capital, our 23 coalition sponsors (http://ourlandourvoice.com/supporters/) and more than 10,000 individual members that include legislators, mayors and county commissioners from across the state.

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/adf159afec7e5d9a4efd6c1eb/images/0a200683-034d-4711-9e08-01cd2f8029fa.jpg (https://vimeo.com/179259488)

In the news

Expanded Cascade-Siskiyou Monument could help tourism, hurt loggers (http://www.opb.org/news/article/cascade-siskiyou-monument-expansion-economics/)
The other monumental mistake (http://www.capitalpress.com/Opinion/Editorials/20161110/the-other-monumental-mistake)

FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK (https://www.facebook.com/ourlandourvoice/)

About the Owyhee Basin Stewardship Coalition: We are Malheur County families who oppose a national monument in the Owyhee Canyonlands without a vote of Congress. Since February, our campaign has attracted more than 10,000 members, more than a dozen industry group endorsements and more than three dozen endorsements from elected leaders from across Oregon.

Sign our petition or make a donation at OurLandOurVoice.com (http://www.ourlandourvoice.com/).

Copyright © 2016 Owyhee Basin Stewardship Coalition, All rights reserved.

monty

14th December 2016, 03:11 PM

Hammonds Conviction is null and void according to Chief Justice John Marshall

Justice John Marshal writing in 1828 on the difference between the true Article III Judicial Courts and the Article IV Legislative Courts created by Congress (Title 28 United States Code):

These [territorial] courts then, are not Constitutional courts, in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general rights of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations, respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested, is not a part of that judicial power which is defined in the 3d article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress, in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States. Although admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised in the States in those courts only which are established in pursuance of the 3d article of the Constitution, the same limitation does not extend to the territories. In legislating for them, Congress exercises the combined powers of the general and of the State government.

[American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton]
[26 U.S. 511 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=26&page=511&linkurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.law.umich.edu%252F&graphurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.findlaw.com%252Fim ages%252Fmichigan.gif), 1 Pet. 511 (1828), emphasis added]

monty

17th December 2016, 01:56 PM

Lazarro Ecenaro Mr. Trump, free the Hammonds

http://youtu.be/u24hH0yjUAY

https://youtu.be/u24hH0yjUAY

monty

30th December 2016, 09:44 AM

Maxine Bernstein wrote a long article about tne Hammond family, Malheur Protest one year later

[url]http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/12/oregon_occupation_a_year_later.html[/url[

Oregon occupation a year later: Ranch family at center of debate was 'scared to death'

BURNS -- A knock on the front door awakened Susie Hammond at the break of dawn.

She struggled out of bed, hobbled by an aching right hip, and limped to the front of her small house in downtown Burns. Whoever it was, she thought, must be someone she knew because of the early hour.
As she neared the door, all she could see was a large shadowy figure blocking the light that usually streamed through its glass panes. She unlocked the bolt and opened the door to find two men standing on the stoop.

"Susan?'' one of them said. "My name is Ammon Bundy.''

So began Hammond's passage from 75-year-old matriarch of an eastern Oregon ranching clan to reluctant symbol of the rural West's revolt against federal ownership of vast resource-rich rangeland.

The Hammond name became a mantra for Bundy as he moved into Oregon and seized the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge last winter in a 41-day takeover that captivated the nation with its cowboy ringleaders, armed followers and impassioned protest message.

Bundy often invoked the story of Hammond's husband, Dwight Jr., and their youngest son Steven, convicted of setting fires on public lands and ordered back to prison to serve out five-year sentences. He saw their prosecution as the perfect example of federal authority run amok.

Susie Hammond wasn't equally enamored of Ammon Bundy.

Her family didn't invite his attention and didn't want it, she said in her first extensive interview since Bundy launched the surprise occupation on Jan. 2 -- about two months after he first appeared at the Hammonds' front door.

She worked to keep her distance, shunning Bundy's requests that her family publicly stand with him as throngs of militants descended on Harney County and set neighbor against neighbor in a fierce debate over control of public land -- all under the eye of FBI agents who set up a command center at the tiny Burns Municipal Airport.

The Hammonds had their own troubles to handle without picking a fight with the very people who controlled their future, she said.

Yet over the past year, Susie Hammond has changed. She's come to appreciate Bundy's stand and populist politicking, if not his push to draw her family into his cause. She recognizes that his family's fight over cattle grazing rights in Nevada has parallels to her own family's conflict. She's tracked Bundy's arrest, trial and acquittal from afar.

Ammon Bundy has a way of "worming his way into your psyche'' as she put it.

"If he's trying to make a point with you, he's got all day. He'll explain it to you until the cows come home,'' she said. "When you see what the government does to people when they get them cornered out in the desert, then you can have a little bit of sympathy for their way of thinking and you can understand them better. We've been there. I could see some similarities, and I developed a different attitude.''

Hammond lives alone, forced to leave the ranch she called home for half a century to be closer to doctors and the hospital as she recovers from hip surgery.

A tall, thin woman with short-cropped white hair, she had expected at this age to retire with her husband, turn management of the ranch over to the next generation and spend the rest of her years on the family's far-flung property. Now, she wonders if their legacy and livelihood will survive.

While her ailments and the absence of her husband and son have dimmed her spirit, they haven't dulled her feistiness. Her distaste for the federal government remains as sharp as ever and she's not shy about sharing her thoughts, often throwing in some choice words to make her point.

Fed up with the criminal justice system, the Hammonds look to the executive branch to grant them mercy. Late last month, Dwight Hammond Jr.'s lawyer filed a clemency petition to reduce his federal sentence. His son's petition is expected to follow soon.

***

"What are you doing here?'' Susie Hammond asked as she let Ammon Bundy into her home on the cold, dark morning of Nov. 5, 2015.

Dwight and Steven Hammond were gone, moving cattle from the ranch to a feedlot in Idaho to prepare for their scheduled return to prison in two months.

Susie Hammond knew about Bundy only from what she had read in newspapers about him and his father, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and their showdown with federal rangers in Bunkerville, Nevada.

As Ammon Bundy took a seat in her living room, he handed her a letter and a business card with his name on it. He told her he'd driven the night before from his home in Emmett, Idaho, had "prayed about this all night'' and wanted to hand-deliver his proposal.

Hammond sat on a brown leather recliner, her back to the living room window. Bundy grabbed a chair to her right. His friend, Ryan Payne, sat to her left, a pistol on his waistband.

Hammond quietly read the letter: "From: The Bundy Family. To: Aware Citizens and Government Officials.''
"Our hearts and prayers go out to the Hammond family with deep empathy,'' it started, and went on to describe the "magnitude of the injustice dealt" to the Hammonds by their lengthy sentences. It called on government officials to drop all charges against the Harney County ranchers and warned that putting them back behind bars "will spawn serious civil unrest.''

http://media.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/photo/2016/12/29/21785110-small.jpg (http://media.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/photo/2016/12/29/foto3jpg-00ae0e93ff58295f.jpg)

Ammon Bundy was a surprise visitor to the Hammonds' house in Burns in November 2015.Mark Graves/Staff

Ammon Bundy wanted the father and son to refuse to return to federal prison in January.

"I told him I'm not the person you should be talking to,'' Hammond recalled. But she knew her husband and son weren't interested in the idea. "They already decided which road they were going down.''

In stark contrast to Bundy who has chased the spotlight, Dwight Hammond is a quiet, private man.
He had already served three months in prison and Steven Hammond had served a year. But a judge had resentenced them after prosecutors successfully appealed the lighter terms in favor of the mandatory minimum of five years for arson.

The two had resolved to report to prison without fanfare and shield their family from further controversy, Susie Hammond said.

"That's been our mode of operation forever. Don't draw the light. And Ammon's mode of operation is shine the light on it,'' she said. "We didn't want to be mixed up in another big fight with the government. We'd been fighting the government for a long time.''

***
After he dropped in on Susie Hammond, Bundy went to work pleading the family's case. He flooded the Harney County Sheriff's Office with emails and met with the sheriff, urging him to step in to keep her husband and son out of prison.

He planned a large march through Burns and urged supporters to take a "hard stand'' against the government.

Bundy created enough of a stir that the lawyer for Hammond Ranches Inc. sent a letter to Sheriff Dave Ward, assuring him that the Hammonds would turn themselves in as promised on Jan. 4.

"I have received information that Ammon Bundy has communicated with you or your office about the Hammond Family, and specifically about Dwight Hammond and Steven Hammond,'' attorney W. Alan Schroeder wrote in an email Dec. 11, 2015. "I write to clarify that neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within this group/organization speak for the Hammond Family, Dwight Hammond or Steven Hammond."

Susie and Dwight Hammond were aware of the march planned for them on Jan. 2.

But Susie Hammond said the prospect terrified them. They weren't sure who to trust.

"I mean we were scared to death,'' she said. "It was very overwhelming. There was militia running around. There's cops running around. There's FBI running around and you didn't know who's the enemy, who's the friend. The whole town was upside down.''

]http://media.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/photo/2016/12/29/21785149-large.jpg (http://media.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/photo/2016/12/29/march.JPG)

Protesters march along Court Avenue in Burns on Saturday, Jan. 2, 2016, to show their support for the Hammond family. Les Zaitz/Staff

A crowd of about 300 people paraded to their home. Dwight Hammond stepped out briefly to talk to Ammon Bundy. They shared a prayer and Susie Hammond accepted a bouquet of flowers.

That night, Bundy and about 20 supporters seized the Malheur refuge. Word of the takeover got back to the Hammonds about 8 o'clock that evening.

Susie Hammond said Bundy hadn't shared his plan with them beforehand.

"There's nothing about it that makes sense,'' she recalled thinking. "We thought the whole thing was nuts.''
The next morning, father and son flew to California, to report to federal prison at Terminal Island in San Pedro.

There was no farewell party. They were determined to follow through on their plans and hoped that getting out of Burns also would tamp down the tumult they were caught up in.

"If they were the focus of all this ruckus, if they removed themselves, they thought it might put the fire out,'' she said. "They didn't go to jail because they wanted to go to jail. They went to jail because they thought this was the least disruptive way to get out of here and make the fire go away.''
Of course, that didn't end up working.

***
Left behind was Susie Hammond.

Curious about what was happening at the refuge as the occupation entered its first week, then second and finally its sixth week, she received regular reports from friends and neighbors.

"I wanted to know what was going on, but I didn't want to be part of it,'' she said. "I couldn't afford to be part of it. I wasn't in physical shape to be part of it.''

http://media.oregonlive.com/oregonian/photo/2016/02/11/19730328-large.jpg (http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/oregon_standoff_timeline_41_da.html)

In early April, she underwent hip replacement surgery. As she was recovering, she suffered a complication, a piece of her right hip bone broke off. She was hospitalized overnight but doctors decided to let the bone heal on its own, hoping to put off another surgery.

Now she uses a wheelchair to get around the house, sometimes struggling to maneuver the chair through tight corners. Mementos from her family's long ranching history fill the place: a bronze calf greets visitors in the entry, a rifle hangs above the living room window, cowboy ropes are draped on a mantel in the dining area and the latest editions of Range magazine grace a living room table.

"Log it, graze it, burn it,'' reads a bumper sticker plastered on the refrigerator in her small kitchen.
Her daughter-in-law, Earlyna Hammond, married to Steven, remains at the ranch.

A black metal silhouette of a cowboy riding a horse behind three black cows and a calf greets visitors to Hammond Ranches, reached by a long gravel road about 50 miles southeast of Burns. The property abuts the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, with an expansive view of the fault-block Steens Mountain and surrounding wilderness.

Susie and Dwight Hammond bought their ranch in 1964. They moved from Northern California, raised three boys, and acquired more land over time. All three sons have worked on the ranch, but their youngest, Steven, and his family have remained in recent years.

Hammond Ranches Inc. has operated on a combination of private and public land -- 12,872 acres of deeded territory and another 26,421 acres on grazing allotments before the federal government curtailed its permits.

Dwight Hammond Jr. sent a letter to The Oregonian/OregonLive from federal prison saying he's aware some people in Burns and Harney County believe Ammon Bundy exploited his family, but he doesn't feel that way.
He said he understands Bundy's frustration with the government and his desire to come to Burns.

Hammond reiterated what he said on the day that Bundy's march of support stopped at his house on Jan. 2.
"It's not about the Hammonds at all,'' he said. Instead, it's about "the trashing of personal property rights.''

The family breeds its own cows with its own bulls, tends to the birth of the calves in the spring, moves the herd through pastures in the spring and summer, grows its own hay and sends the majority of the calves to market in the fall. The family hired a ranch manager to tend to the business while Dwight Hammond and Steven Hammond are away.

Earlyna Hammond tries to bring the children -- two sons and a daughter -- to visit their father on birthdays and holidays, recently returning from a pre-Christmas visit, but Susie Hammond has gone to the prison only once.

Her September trip -- a four-hour drive to Boise and then a flight to Los Angeles -- proved too difficult. She had a hard time seeing them in such a setting.

The men, used to the wide open spaces of the high desert, live in a barracks-style building and share a bunk. Steven Hammond, who has the top bed, does carpentry work in a prison wood shop; his dad has grounds-keeping duties. Susie Hammond's niece in the Los Angeles area visits them most often.

"It's just cement and water and razor wire. I went down once. I'm not going again. I can't do anything about it,'' Susie Hammond said, her voice trailing off. "I just have to hope that the good Lord will keep them safe.''
She paused, then added, "I think Dwight thinks his working life is over.''

***
Susie Hammond talks to her husband almost every night, but shares little, not wanting to worry him.
She has longtime friends who check on her daily; oldest son Rusty Hammond, 52, of Lake County, isn't too far and talks to her once or twice a day. He talks by phone to his father.

Rusty Hammond said his father and brother are coping in what he calls their "gray bar motel,'' with "a little bit of God and what choice do they have.''

Unlike his mother, Rusty Hammond supported the Bundys from the start. He marched with the protesters in Burns and sent food to the refuge occupiers. He was called as a witness by the Bundy defense at their trial,
testifying that his father was threatened by the government for his contact with Ammon Bundy.

"Without the Bundys and their bunch,'' Rusty Hammond said, "you wouldn't know the name of Hammond.''

https://bcsecure01-a.akamaihd.net/13/260825828001/201601/1546/260825828001_4688025751001_vs-568d5453e4b0fb5fe9e2dd70-782203294001.jpg?pubId=260825828001 (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/post_227.html)

Susie Hammond closely tracked the Bundy trial in Portland.

She hoped it would help people learn about her family's battle with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "where people who didn't live in Burns, Oregon would see what's going on way out here in the weeds.''
The trial offered a window into the obstacles ranchers face, she said. Arrogant federal bureaucracies that brush aside local voices, break promises and ignore or impose rules because they can.

"Bundy helped draw attention to these problems,'' she said. "I was hoping something positive was going to come out of this that would make it possible for private property owners and public administration to be able to get along and be productive.''

That hasn't happened, she acknowledged.

Hammond Ranches is in the middle of appealing the land bureau's refusal in 2014 to renew the company's 10-year grazing permit.

When Hammond saw an online post Oct. 27 that a jury had acquitted Bundy, his brother, Ryan, and the five co-defendants on conspiracy and weapons charges, she immediately checked with her oldest son.

"I had to call somebody and ask them if I was crazy, if I heard that right," she said. Then the phone didn't stop ringing, she said.

http://media.oregonlive.com/oregonian/photo/2016/10/27/21403531-large.jpg (http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/oregon_standoff_defendants_fou.html)

She doesn't believe what the Bundys did was a crime. They didn't do much harm to a refuge that's "frozen over'' and not very busy in the winter anyway, she said. But she didn't expect the criminal justice system to agree.

"They were not guilty of anything except for being human beings who wanted to be free and who wanted to shine the light on some really bad stuff going on in Harney County, Oregon,'' she said. "It seemed to me like the wrong people were on trial. The government should have been on trial.''

She wonders how the Bundys will fare in their federal conspiracy case pending in Nevada.

"The government never lets go of you,'' she said.

Still, she's thankful the Bundys are no longer in the county and the national glare has moved off Burns.
The occupation left behind a still-shuttered refuge headquarters and visitors center, an exodus of refuge workers and a county still locked in an economic downturn.

She has no idea how the Portland verdict may affect her husband. But she expects the changing political climate led by President-elect Donald Trump can only help.

***
A quote about executive pardons from Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper 74 leads off Dwight Hammond's 215-page clemency petition:

"The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.''

Attorney Kendra Matthews asked for mercy for Hammond, citing his "high character," longtime service to his community, the "unfortunate severity of his punishment," his trial judge's support and his family situation.
Hammond is asking the president to to reduce his sentence, either totally or partially, though it wouldn't change his conviction. A petition for son Steven is expected but hasn't been filed yet.

Letters of support for the elder Hammond described good deeds done for his neighbors, his children and grandchildren's schools, the county's 4H and FFA clubs and many others in need. They spoke of his sincerity, decency, his humility and the respect for him in Harney County - a man who dressed up as Santa Claus for schoolkids and what one friend described as "a real life John Wayne."

]http://media.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/photo/2016/12/29/21785165-large.jpg (http://media.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/photo/2016/12/29/ward.JPG)

Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward facilitated a community meeting at the Burns fairground, on Jan. 6, 2016. Beth Nakamura/Staff

Even Sheriff Dave Ward, who hadn't backed the family publicly before or during the occupation much to Susie Hammond's still-raw anger, wrote a letter.

Ward said he couldn't stand in the way of a lawful order by a federal judge but "personally felt the initial prison sentences ... and the monetary penalties imposed covered the debt owed to society.''

"I did not want to see them return to prison,'' the sheriff wrote.

By the end of this year, Dwight Hammond, now 74, will have served a year and three months in prison for a single ranch fire in 2001, his lawyer noted.

Hammond set a prescribed burn on about 300 acres of his own land that then traveled onto Bureau of Land Management property and burned an additional 139 acres, his lawyer wrote. He said he was trying to fend off invasive species.

Prosecutors argued the fire also was to cover up illegal deer poaching and got out of control, placing firefighters who had to be airlifted out of the area in grave danger.

"They lit this fire to cover up their crimes," said Amanda Marshall, Oregon's U.S. attorney when the conviction and appeal occurred.

The federal pursuit followed years of permit violations by the ranchers and fires set, and they never accepted responsibility, Marshall said. Steven Hammond was convicted of arson for two fires.

Her office appealed the lighter sentences because she said the trial judge didn't have discretion to depart from a mandatory minimum sentence. The Hammonds could have faced less than a year in prison under a plea offer they declined, she said.

"I don't have anything but grave compassion for Mrs. Hammond and the situation she's in," Marshall said, "but I think the situation was caused by the conduct of her husband and son."

Dwight Hammond's lawyer pointed out in the petition that he and his son faced other sanctions. They paid $400,000 to settle a civil suit brought by the government and are having a hard time sustaining the cattle operation because of the grazing permit denial. The ranch recently lost the first stage of the appeal - a request to put the permit denial on hold while they argued the case.

]http://media.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/photo/2016/12/29/21785208-large.jpg (http://media.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/photo/2016/12/29/refuge1.JPG)

Ammon Bundy and supporters often invoked the names and prison sentences of Harney County ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and son Steven Hammond as examples of what they said was "overreach" by the federal government.Mark Graves/Staff

"The disproportionate penalty in comparison to the conduct underlying Dwight Hammond's conviction is, indeed, deeply troubling," Matthews wrote. "A clemency would not only serve as a balm to the community's angst about these sentences, but, very practically, give the Hammonds a real chance to keep their ranch afloat."

Then Dwight Hammond made his own emotional plea for release.
Not for him.
For his wife.

Susie Hammond, the love of his life, runs the show. She's always taken care of him, their sons and now seven grandchildren, he said.

"For 55 years, she has been there for me in every way possible," he said. "And now, when, for the first time in our marriage, she needs me to be there for her, I am not.''

"I am fine. I can handle anything that is put in front of me,'' he said. "But I am supposed to be there for my wife. It is her turn. It is incomprehensible to me that I am not."

They're not young, he noted and wrote about her physical setbacks. He knows his wife has friends to look out for her, but she wants to remain independent.

"So at the most fundamental level,'' he said, "I am seeking commutation of my sentence so that I can return home to take care of my wife.''

"I live in fear that one of us will pass before we are reunited.''

-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212 (tel:503-221-8212)
@maxoregonian (http://gold-silver.us/forum/safari-reader://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/12/"https://twitter.com/maxoregonian)

monty

30th December 2016, 09:51 AM

Contiued from above. http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/12/oregon_occupation_a_year_later.html

***
Two weeks ago, Susie Hammond read about the 78 people pardoned by President Barack Obama and the 153 sentences he commuted, a record number of clemency acts granted by a U.S. president in a single day.

"Well, that's really neat that he did that, but he missed a few,'' she said. "I kept hoping he would have some compassion. But it's no surprise. I don't have any faith in our current government.''

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/olive-media/width155/img/oregon-standoff/photo/2016/12/29/21785262-small.jpg (http://media.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/photo/2016/12/29/dwight-hammond-jr.JPG)

Dwight Hammond Jr. on Jan. 2, 2016, at his Burns house. Les Zaitz/Staff

If her husband serves out his full sentence, she'll be 79 when he gets out. "I always think worse case scenario so I won't be disappointed,'' she said.

But she does hold onto a glimmer of hope that her husband and son may have a better chance with the new administration. She's counting the days until the inauguration.

"We hope we got the paperwork done in a timely fashion so we could be first on the list next time,'' she said. "You have to go through the process. Maybe it will happen ... who knows.''

As for Bundy, Susie Hammond chuckles when she looks back at how she once viewed his heavy focus on prayer with a bit of unease.

She would welcome any sort of intervention - divine or otherwise.

"He's always praying and, at the start, you don't take it seriously,'' she said. "But after awhile you're thinking, he's got a direct line to somebody I need to know better.''

-- Maxine Bernstein

mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212 (tel:503-221-8212)
@maxoregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/12/"https://twitter.com/maxoregonian)

monty

30th December 2016, 09:13 PM

Interesting comment from a lady, Vickey Gray about Maxine Berntein's report on the Hammond family. I believe she is refering to the youtube video of Les Zaitz and the other reporters bragging at a dinner about a year ago . . . .

https://m.facebook.com/groups/1717765141769695/

https://s19.postimg.org/jw5jg63kz/IMG_1427.png

monty

6th January 2017, 03:42 PM

RangeFire - Remembering Hammonds One Year Later

http://rangefire.us/2017/01/02/remembering-hammonds-one-year-later-hammond-benefit-event-this-weekend/

This is pretty much a reprint of part of Maxine Bernstein's Oregon Live story. It does advertize a benefit for Hammonds tomorrow Jan. 7 in Burns, Oregon.

Some have criticized Maxine Bernstein's coverage of Mrs. Hammond's last year. Considering her left wing bias I think she did a fairly decent story.

Remembering Hammonds One Year Later — Hammond Benefit Event This Weekend

January 2, 2017 - Oregon Standoff (http://rangefire.us/category/oregon-standoff/), Trent Loos (http://rangefire.us/category/trent-loos/) - Tagged: benefit (http://rangefire.us/tag/benefit/), Hammond (http://rangefire.us/tag/hammond/), Oregon (http://rangefire.us/tag/oregon/), Range (http://rangefire.us/tag/range/), RANGEfire (http://rangefire.us/tag/rangefire/) - 2 comments (http://rangefire.us/2017/01/02/remembering-hammonds-one-year-later-hammond-benefit-event-this-weekend/#comments)

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Hammonds-1-300x223.jpg

Some Important Reminders about the Hammonds, including Trent Loos’ interview with Ammon Bundy from one year ago on Loos Tales (https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/trent69050/episodes/2017-01-02T13_41_49-08_00) and an interesting interview with Susie Hammond about her family’s changing perspectives about Bundys and the Oregon Standoff (http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/12/oregon_occupation_a_year_later.html).

This is a also both an announcement and reminder about the Hammond Benefit dinner at the Burns Elks Lodge, in Burns, Oregon, on Saturday, January 7th from 3:00 to 9:00 PM.

You can also donate to a silent auction item by clicking here; hammondbenefit@gmail.com .

You can get tickets at the Broadway Deli in Burns or by going to pay pal on line at: paypal.me/hammondbenefit2017 (http://paypal.me/hammondbenefit2017)

Please support the Hammonds the way they have always supported Harney County and the Southeast Oregon ranching community.

For exerpts from a special report written by Maxine Bernstei (http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/12/oregon_occupation_a_year_later.html)n (of all people) based on an interview with Susie Hammond about the whole story of what happened between the Hammonds and Ammon Bundy, and the relationship between them, CHECK OUT THIS STORY: (http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/12/oregon_occupation_a_year_later.html)

BURNS — A knock on the front door awakened Susie Hammond at the break of dawn.
She struggled out of bed, hobbled by an aching right hip, and limped to the front of her small house in downtown Burns. Whoever it was, she thought, must be someone she knew because of the early hour.
As she neared the door, all she could see was a large shadowy figure blocking the light that usually streamed
through its glass panes. She unlocked the bolt and opened the door to find two men standing on the stoop.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Ammon-Bundy-Oregon-1-267x300.jpg
“Susan?” one of them said. “My name is Ammon

So began Hammond’s passage from 75-year-old matriarch of an eastern Oregon ranching clan to reluctant symbol of the rural West’s revolt against federal ownership of vast resource-rich rangeland.

The Hammond name became a mantra for Bundy as he moved into Oregon and seized the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge last winter in a 41-day takeover that captivated the nation with its cowboy ringleaders, armed followers and impassioned protest message.

Bundy often invoked the story of Hammond’s husband, Dwight Jr., and their youngest son Steven, convicted of setting fires on public lands and ordered back to prison to serve out five-year sentences. He saw their prosecution as the perfect example of federal authority run amok.

Susie Hammond wasn’t equally enamored of Ammon Bundy.

Her family didn’t invite his attention and didn’t want it, she said in her first extensive interview since Bundy launched the surprise occupation on Jan. 2 — about two months after he first appeared at the Hammonds’ front door.

She worked to keep her distance, shunning Bundy’s requests that her family publicly stand with him as throngs of militants descended on Harney County and set neighbor against neighbor in a fierce debate over control of public land — all under the eye of FBI agents who set up a command center at the tiny Burns Municipal Airport.
The Hammonds had their own troubles to handle without picking a fight with the very people who controlled their future, she said.

Yet over the past year, Susie Hammond has changed. She’s come to appreciate Bundy’s stand and populist politicking, if not his push to draw her family into his cause. She recognizes that his family’s fight over cattle grazing rights in Nevada has parallels to her own family’s conflict. She’s tracked Bundy’s arrest, trial and acquittal from afar.

Ammon Bundy has a way of “worming his way into your psyche” as she put it.

“If he’s trying to make a point with you, he’s got all day. He’ll explain it to you until the cows come home,” she said. “When you see what the government does to people when they get them cornered out in the desert, then you can have a little bit of sympathy for their way of thinking and you can understand them better. We’ve been there. I could see some similarities, and I developed a different attitude.”

Hammond lives alone, forced to leave the ranch she called home for half a century to be closer to doctors and the hospital as she recovers from hip surgery.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Susie-Hammond-1.jpg

A tall, thin woman with short-cropped white hair, she had expected at this age to retire with her husband, turn management of the ranch over to the next generation and spend the rest of her years on the family’s far-flung property. Now, she wonders if their legacy and livelihood will survive.

While her ailments and the absence of her husband and son have dimmed her spirit, they haven’t dulled her feistiness. Her distaste for the federal government remains as sharp as ever and she’s not shy about sharing her thoughts, often throwing in some choice words to make her point.

Fed up with the criminal justice system, the Hammonds look to the executive branch to grant them mercy. Late last month, Dwight Hammond Jr.’s lawyer filed a clemency petition to reduce his federal sentence. His son’s petition is expected to follow soon.
***
“What are you doing here?” Susie Hammond asked as she let Ammon Bundy into her home on the cold, dark morning of Nov. 5, 2015.

Dwight and Steven Hammond were gone, moving cattle from the ranch to a feedlot in Idaho to prepare for their scheduled return to prison in two months.

Susie Hammond knew about Bundy only from what she had read in newspapers about him and his father, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and their showdown with federal rangers in Bunkerville, Nevada.

As Ammon Bundy took a seat in her living room, he handed her a letter and a business card with his name on it. He told her he’d driven the night before from his home in Emmett, Idaho, had “prayed about this all night” and wanted to hand-deliver his proposal.

Hammond sat on a brown leather recliner, her back to the living room window. Bundy grabbed a chair to her right. His friend, Ryan Payne, sat to her left, a pistol on his waistband.

Hammond quietly read the letter: “From: The Bundy Family. To: Aware Citizens and Government Officials.”

“Our hearts and prayers go out to the Hammond family with deep empathy,” it started, and went on to describe the “magnitude of the injustice dealt” to the Hammonds by their lengthy sentences. It called on government officials to drop all charges against the Harney County ranchers and warned that putting them back behind bars “will spawn serious civil unrest.”

* * * * * * * READ THE WHOLE STORY (http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/12/oregon_occupation_a_year_later.html)

Rusty Hammond said his father and brother are coping in what he calls their “gray bar motel,” with “a little bit of God and what choice do they have.”

Unlike his mother, Rusty Hammond supported the Bundys from the start. He marched with the protesters in Burns and sent food to the refuge occupiers. He was called as a witness by the Bundy defense at their trial, testifying that his father was threatened by the government for his contact with Ammon Bundy.

"Without the Bundys and their bunch,” Rusty Hammond said, “you wouldn’t know the name of Hammond.”

Susie Hammond closely tracked the Bundy trial in Portland.

She hoped it would help people learn about her family’s battle with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, “where people who didn’t live in Burns, Oregon would see what’s going on way out here in the weeds.”

The trial offered a window into the obstacles ranchers face, she said. Arrogant federal bureaucracies that brush aside local voices, break promises and ignore or impose rules because they can.

“Bundy helped draw attention to these problems,” she said. “I was hoping something positive was going to come out of this that would make it possible for private property owners and public administration to be able to get along and be productive.”

That hasn’t happened, she acknowledged.

Hammond Ranches is in the middle of appealing the land bureau’s refusal in 2014 to renew the company’s 10-year grazing permit.

When Hammond saw an online post Oct. 27 that a jury had acquitted Bundy, his brother, Ryan, and the five co-defendants on conspiracy and weapons charges, she immediately checked with her oldest son.

“I had to call somebody and ask them if I was crazy, if I heard that right,” she said. Then the phone didn’t stop ringing, she said.

She doesn’t believe what the Bundys did was a crime. They didn’t do much harm to a refuge that’s “frozen over” and not very busy in the winter anyway, she said. But she didn’t expect the criminal justice system to agree.
“They were not guilty of anything except for being human beings who wanted to be free and who wanted to shine the light on some really bad stuff going on in Harney County, Oregon,” she said. “It seemed to me like the wrong people were on trial. The government should have been on trial.”

She wonders how the Bundys will fare in their federal conspiracy case pending in Nevada.

“The government never lets go of you,” she said.

Still, she’s thankful the Bundys are no longer in the county and the national glare has moved off Burns.

The occupation left behind a still-shuttered refuge headquarters and visitors center, an exodus of refuge workers and a county still locked in an economic downturn.

She has no idea how the Portland verdict may affect her husband. But she expects the changing political climate led by President-elect Donald Trump can only help.
* * * * * * *

READ THE WHOLE STORY (http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/12/oregon_occupation_a_year_later.html) . . . about how Susie Hammond’s views about Ammon Bundy and his actions have changed over the course of (http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/12/oregon_occupation_a_year_later.html) the past year. (http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/12/oregon_occupation_a_year_later.html)

monty

26th February 2017, 06:21 PM

More than 20 years before Ammon Bundy went to Burns to help the Hammond family CNN ran a piece attempting to justify federal overreach

http://youtu.be/EJyzoinSp5o

https://youtu.be/EJyzoinSp5o

Hammonds & Burns segment 1995 CNN - Patriots for Profits

Valley Forge Network (https://m.youtube.com/channel/UC-_1sVxL3OF_iQ2LGGNQiog) 6 views

https://yt3.ggpht.com/-lo1d6vjbM_Q/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/s9fTCB44rXQ/s88-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg

SUBSCRIBE
1,590

1 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EJyzoinSp5o&feature=youtu.be#)

0 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EJyzoinSp5o&feature=youtu.be#)
Published on Feb 26, 2017CNN Attempts to validate Federal Overreach with this poor narrative in1995. There are , however, some great segments on the Hammonds and Burns in this segment from 1995 that I thought my viewers may find intriguing. This is over 20 years before Ammon went to help them!

Category

People & Blogs

License

Standard YouTube License

COMMENTS

monty

26th February 2017, 07:08 PM

Burns Confidential ~ Prologue 1995 Episodes 1 & 2

http://youtu.be/Iwzvpcv8pCg

https://youtu.be/Iwzvpcv8pCg

http://youtu.be/dB4xnc3h2dU

https://youtu.be/dB4xnc3h2dU

monty

17th March 2017, 01:17 PM

Oregon State Republican Senators asking Trump for clemency for Dwight and Steven Hammond. They should be asking for a pardon, then following up with an investigation to the murder of LaVoy Finicum

https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17155791_1189669457797305_8633524996171897687_n.jp g?oh=65b28c1f94ced960bd4f92918b8b1551&oe=592B72ED

https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17309821_1189669467797304_4676894706155132561_n.jp g?oh=f015e27bf03c6e81a316ad91ae890b50&oe=5966A115

https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17362044_1189669477797303_2084768439768940408_n.jp g?oh=647d5d4dfe92b268069ee290bfacb927&oe=592C79F8

monty

17th March 2017, 06:17 PM

Hammond Clemency Petition Sign the Petition (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/sign-the-petition-to-request-clemency-for-the-bundys/)

Hammond Clemency Petition

https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/unnamed.jpg?resize=799%2C6393 Generations of the Hammond Family

In November of 2015 father and son ranchers from Harney County, Oregon, Dwight and Steven Hammond, were convicted by a federal court and hauled off to prison to fulfill mandatory sentences on charges of ‘terrorism.” Their alleged crimes were setting prescriptive burns on their own grazing allotments in order to control noxious plants, reduce accidental fire fuel, and restore the soil to improve forage for their cattle. Over the years, a couple of those burns spread outside of their intended boundaries and went onto land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). No structures were burned and no property was harmed, nevertheless, the agency charged Dwight and Steven Hammond under federal terrorism statutes for the minor damage caused to BLM property.

The District judge who first sentenced them asserted that it would constitute ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ for the Hammonds to have to serve mandatory 5-year terms. Subsequently, the Hammonds received ‘lighter’ sentences than those required by the terrorism statute under which they were convicted. Years later, a federal prosecutor revisited the case, and determined that the time served Dwight and Steven Hammond previously spent in prison for minor damage caused to ‘federal property’ was insufficient, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sent Steven, and his elderly father Dwight, back to prison to fulfill the mandatory 5 year terms.

To this day, Dwight and Steven Hammond remain in a federal prison for literally giving proper care to the forage on their ranch by conducting prescriptive burns to promote the health of the soil and vegetation upon which their cattle grazed. Law-abiding family men, whose family has run cattle in Harney County, Oregon for decades, Dwight and Steven’s left behind wives and children to manage their ranch and try to make ends meet. Susie Hammond is 75 and worries constantly for the health and well-being of her husband, Dwight, who is 74, and has several years yet to serve of his federal prison sentence.

Please sign this petition to Congress and to President Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and other members of his Executive Cabinet, to grant immediate clemency to Dwight and Steven Hammond, and exonerate them of all charges under federal terrorism statutes.

The editors of Free Range Report will compile your electronic signatures and names to be sent to key members of Congress, as well as the White House and the office of the United States Attorney General.

Please help us correct this grave injustice.

Learn more about the Hammonds by clicking here. (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/02/06/free-the-hammonds-a-letter-to-the-president-from-a-family-friend/)

Share this:

Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window) (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/sign-the-petition-to-request-clemency-for-the-bundys/?share=google-plus-1&nb=1)
Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/sign-the-petition-to-request-clemency-for-the-bundys/?share=pinterest&nb=1)
Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/sign-the-petition-to-request-clemency-for-the-bundys/?share=tumblr&nb=1)

1
Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
1
(http://freerangereport.com/index.php/sign-the-petition-to-request-clemency-for-the-bundys/?share=linkedin&nb=1)
Click to print (Opens in new window) (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/sign-the-petition-to-request-clemency-for-the-bundys/#print)
More (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/sign-the-petition-to-request-clemency-for-the-bundys/#)

crimethink

17th March 2017, 08:32 PM

monty

18th March 2017, 07:39 AM

Will Trump's NON- or negative-response be sufficient for people to realize Trump is not their friend?

I think some are still holding out hope he will. Trump is a globalist. He is a New Yorker, spent his life making money with jews offshoring his businesses, surrounded by jews in his office, the worst of the worst, Goldman Sachs in his cabinet. Those people see the west as a goldmine and nothing more.

crimethink

18th March 2017, 01:29 PM

I think some are still holding out hope he will. Trump is a globalist. He is a New Yorker, spent his life making money with jews offshoring his businesses, surrounded by jews in his office, the worst of the worst, Goldman Sachs in his cabinet. Those people see the west as a goldmine and nothing more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeilxKluTCU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgrGyR6EYbY

Jew York stands against everything the normal, real American believes in.

monty

13th July 2017, 03:13 PM

Hammonds sold cattle, their supporters bid price to top the market.
Wvm Cattle (https://www.facebook.com/wvm.cattle?hc_ref=OTHER) with John Rodgers (https://www.facebook.com/john.rodgers.1044186?hc_ref=OTHER).

23 hrs (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1490122804382218&set=a.357859897608520.81565.100001535390020&type=3) ·
The Hammond family sold cattle on today's Western Video Market sale, and while they graciously turned down an offer for a fundraising auction on their behalf, the industry still came together by bidding their cattle up to top today's sale. Pictured here is Col. John Rodgers co-founder of WVM with Steven Hammond's wife Earlyna and their children Claire, Corbin and Emery . Photo credit: Ann Black Rutan

https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/19894674_1490122804382218_1488594947708262605_n.jp g?oh=a2c57601188835da57323a2ed9c368c8&oe=5A1138CB
(https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1490122804382218&set=a.357859897608520.81565.100001535390020&type=3)
725 Likes63 Comments481 Shares (https://www.facebook.com/wvm.cattle/posts/1490123587715473?comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%2 2O%22%7D)

monty

7th August 2017, 08:36 PM

Dr. Angus McIntosh has shown federal law that says an allotment owner can burn on his own allotment. He also puts Bundy/Hammond troll Raymond Donavan in his place.

Judge Brown wouldn't allow Dr. McIntosh to testify in the Malheur Protest trial because he would have exposed all the govt. lies.

I read somewhere that some of Hammond's friends begged and pleaded with them to change lawyers, but they refused. Sounds to me like they made a huge mistake

https://www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2/posts/1649322748411762

Angus McIntosh (https://www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2?hc_ref=ARQNYjlLYgu3dRuinFlAo0_sDhEQ On0dzftsK9MSfX3OWrpTNSIwdRIS96A9oLYsjuw&fref=nf)
August 4 at 10:03pm (https://www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2/posts/1649322748411762) ·

Go to Cornell Legal Information Institute .com look in United States Code Title 18 section 1855. Read all the way to the end where it says it is not illegal for an allotment Owner to burn brush or grass on his own allotment.

I believe it's called the Bowers Rule that says if a person can be prosecuted under two different statutes for the same crime the prosecution can choose which one they want to UNLESS the legislation clearly intended for the lesser punishment to apply to the situation (as in providing an exemption to an allotment owner).

See US v Jones 449F.Supp. 42 (1977) and cases cited therein. Free the Hammonds.

46 Likes6 Comments58 Shares (https://www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2/posts/1649322748411762?comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%2 2O%22%7D)

Kevin Daly, Cheryl Johnson, Margene Eiguren and 43 others like this.

58 shares (https://www.facebook.com/shares/view?id=1649322748411762)
Comments

View 2 more comments (https://www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2/posts/1649322748411762#)

Tammy Jo Soles
Thanks Y'all
August 5 at 11:47am (https://www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2/posts/1649322748411762?comment_id=1649929598351077&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R2%22%7D)

https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/c0.16.64.64/p64x64/76298_104658169605179_6203515_n.jpg?oh=4987f6c1531 624a8dd27a33fa560fd87&oe=59F5FA48
Amanda Blankenship
He burned his own allotment in a reckless manner, causing the fire to spread from his property, endangering lives and the property of others. This was not an isolated incident, and the Hammonds probably suffered from their history of aggression and violence toward the BLM when they were sentenced.
1 (https://www.facebook.com/browse/likes?id=1650124284998275) · August 5 at 4:10pm (https://www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2/posts/1649322748411762?comment_id=1650124284998275&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R1%22%7D)

https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/c0.6.48.48/p48x48/10262121_10208725932813977_9056563080524120798_n.j pg?oh=65f4ebdfbf136521c3641682b86d3c09&oe=59EDE48D
Jackson Pemberton
"aggression and violence toward the BLM"? What???
4 hrs (https://www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2/posts/1649322748411762?comment_id=1650124284998275&reply_comment_id=1652122321465138&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R4%22%7D)

https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/c11.0.64.64/p64x64/10559885_831333520210693_359556112458352895_n.jpg? oh=988f79de71f6324c3b9ecc500294b438&oe=59FA4838
Angus McIntosh
This is a nation of laws. So far the ignorant on here are spouting innuendo and speculation. The facts are that Hammonds had the legal right to burn their own allotment. The BLM and US Attorney know this (or should have known) and on its face this appears to be a case of malicious prosecution intended to force the Hammonds to sell their ranch to the government.
Trump needs to clean house on the US Attorney's office for Oregon.
6 (https://www.facebook.com/browse/likes?id=1651180848225952) · Yesterday at 5:09pm · Edited (https://www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2/posts/1649322748411762#)

https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/p48x48/19702088_336792263420543_6211859922976977452_n.jpg ?oh=a31145d159f3e5363ecdfce147b91621&oe=59F50DBB
Raymond Donovan
Detailed testimony from the Hammond's own son as well as a local hunting guide was the fires were set to cover up poaching. That's court record not innuendo. Following the testimony, the Hammonds decided to take a guilty plea in exchange for reduced charges.

Unfortunately, deliberately setting fires (arson) carries a five year mandatory minimum.

I will agree with anyone who says mandatory minimums are usually a bad idea because it removes discretion and considering mitigating circumstances from the judge's hands. Fire ban is fire ban.

Right now there are significant fires in Harney County burning over 50,000 acres. According to you, a permit holder can burn his allotment today, correct?
21 hrs (https://www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2/posts/1649322748411762?comment_id=1651180848225952&reply_comment_id=1651351178208919&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R4%22%7D)

https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/p48x48/19702088_336792263420543_6211859922976977452_n.jpg ?oh=a31145d159f3e5363ecdfce147b91621&oe=59F50DBB
Raymond Donovan
If we agree we are are nation of laws, then we should agree that Cliven Bundy must respect the three outstanding court orders to remove his cattle from the the former Bunkerville allotment area as well as the additional trespass areas that he expanded his herd into, correct?
21 hrs · Edited (https://www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2/posts/1649322748411762#)

https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/c8.0.48.48/p48x48/10559885_831333520210693_359556112458352895_n.jpg? oh=2a8c6b27050ff6f778c6ab539aada964&oe=5A33088D
Angus McIntosh
What's interesting is how you've gone from the argument that there's no such thing as split estate property rights in an allotment, to the argument that government has the unlimited authority to tell property owners what they can do with their allotments. Which, by the way you're wrong about that also.

Government cannot use permit authority to take property without due process and just compensation (Curtin v Benson 1911, Dolan v Tigard 1976).

Under the Bowers Rule the Hammonds should not have been tried under the Terrorism Law.

Also, private ownership of an allotment does not end until government gives the property owner due process AND just compensation (Leo Sheep Co v United States 1979).

It doesn't matter if they send Dan Love and a thousand other mercenaries to physically occupy the Bunkerville Allotment, until they pay for it it's still his.

Article 1 section 8 clause 17 requires that the US obtain permission from the State BEFORE they acquire private property for a needful federal purpose. That was never done.

Which brings me back to my original post and answers your question: The court order was to remove cattle from public land and an allotment is not public land, so Dan Love was in the process of rustling cattle when Bundy's legally intervened and called upon the Sheriff to stop the rustling operation.

However, even if some twisted interpretation could be given to the court order to somehow authorize the taking of cattle from the "allotment", Love was still violating Nevada State Brand Law because he did not have a valid Brand Inspection Certificate (and that is a violation of Federal Animal Health Law requiring compliance with State livestock law. See Missouri K&T RR v Haber 1898).
3 (https://www.facebook.com/browse/likes?id=1651699428174094) · 13 hrs (https://www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2/posts/1649322748411762?comment_id=1651180848225952&reply_comment_id=1651699428174094&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R2%22%7D)

https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/p48x48/12278956_993629007363781_9001501396760394883_n.jpg ?oh=480ec32e64e49547105c0c82cfa2d227&oe=5A27EC96
Pat Horlacher Raymond doesn't it strike you odd that Macintosh has lots of wellsource documentation to substantiate his claims and you don't? As far as the Hammonds are concerned, there is context and nuances to that case that your statements lack. For the record I ...See More (https://www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2/posts/1649322748411762#)
4 (https://www.facebook.com/browse/likes?id=1651844364826267) · 10 hrs (https://www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2/posts/1649322748411762?comment_id=1651180848225952&reply_comment_id=1651844364826267&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R1%22%7D)

https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/p48x48/20525789_1377843132332238_5266003194214563343_n.jp g?oh=93f6f4444a1f0017e76fa05f383034f5&oe=5A37D5E3
Sandy Potter Thanks you Pat Horlacher for your post. You are absolutely right!!!! It's so great to read facts!!!
2 (https://www.facebook.com/browse/likes?id=1652084458135591) · 5 hrs (https://www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2/posts/1649322748411762?comment_id=1651180848225952&reply_comment_id=1652084458135591&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R0%22%7D)

https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/c0.0.64.64/p64x64/18767456_1829104534016970_794823494151067549_n.jpg ?oh=6647fc8b0f4ba0066c5d36856a0821a0&oe=59F6AD18
Cheryl Johnson ? How many acres of private land have been caught on fire by the BLM
5 hrs (https://www.facebook.com/angusmcintosh2/posts/1649322748411762?comment_id=1652087994801904&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D)

monty

8th August 2017, 07:17 PM

I am going to add this Supreme Court Decision where they defined "public land" to Dr. McIntosh's list. Most of the land in the West probably has rights attached. Bardon v Northern Pacific RR Co., 145 U.S. 535 (1892)

https://s19.postimg.org/tilzzyotf/IMG_2090.png

monty

7th January 2018, 09:53 PM

Loren Edward Pearce has written a fairly long piece on the Hammond family’s mistreatment by the U.S. Fish & Wild Life Service, Bureau of Land Management, USDOJ and the U.S. District Court

Shocking The Conscience: The Hammond Story (https://redoubtnews.com/2018/01/shocking-conscience-hammond-story/)

IN THE HAMMONDS' PLEA AGREEMENT IN THE 2012 TRIAL, THE BLM OBTAINED THE FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL SHOULD THE FAMILY HAVE TO SELL THEIR LAND AND BLM LEASES

January 7, 2018 (https://redoubtnews.com/2018/01/) BLM (https://redoubtnews.com/category/blm/), DOJ (https://redoubtnews.com/category/doj/), Featured (https://redoubtnews.com/category/featured/), Oregon (https://redoubtnews.com/category/oregon/)

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/hammonds.jpg
Steven, left, and Earlyna Hammond with Steven’s parents, Susie and Dwight Hammond, in a family photo. (Photograph: Susan Doverspike)

Shocking The Conscience: The Hammond Story
“I find it incredible that the government would want to try these ranchers as terrorists…Now is where the rubber meets the road. Right now, is when the public should absolutely be incensed. And the public, I think, should be fearful.” ~Barry Bushue, President, Oregon Farm Bureau (http://www.preparingyou.com/wiki/Hammond)

by Loren Edward Pearce (https://redoubtnews.com/?s=Loren+Edward+Pearce)

We reported on Duane Ehmer’s last ride (https://redoubtnews.com/2017/12/ehmer-hellboy-destination-hell/) to destination Hell (prison) on his horse, Hellboy.

Duane stated that the main purpose of his ride was, not to call attention to the injustice being heaped on him by a corrupt federal justice system, but to call attention to the plight of the Hammonds, the ranching family in Oregon.

To extract the maximum amount of benefit from Duane’s last ride, the sacrifice of LaVoy Finicum, who laid down his life for reasons related to the Hammonds and the greater cause of liberty, and the sacrifice made by the Bundys and many others, it is time to revisit the Hammond story (https://redoubtnews.com/2016/02/hammond-case-facts-ammon-bundy/) and how it ties into the bigger picture.

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/hellboy-678x381.jpg
Hellboy, A Symbol Of How The Federal Government Should Be

When the founders gave us the U.S. Constitution, they did so with the goal of making government a servant, opposite of what they had experienced with Great Britain. The constitution was designed to restrain, rein in, restrict and place limits on government. In effect, to make government a servant, not a master, like Duane’s faithful horse, Hellboy.

Imagine, as Duane makes his way to destination hell (prison), that Hellboy is riding on the back of Duane, rather than the other way around. Imagine an upside down world, where the horse becomes the rider and the two-legged human rider, the bearer of the horse. That is what we have today with the federal government, rather than acting as a public servant, it has become a fearful master.

The Hammond story is but one of many manifesting this upside down world, a world where, like Barry Bushue said, “the public, I think, should be fearful”.

The Nutty Ninth
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, also known as, the “Nutty Ninth”, allegedly had jurisdiction to consider the appeal made by the federal government against the ruling made by Judge Michael Hogan, in which he ruled that the mandatory 5 year sentence for charges of arson, as sought by the federal prosecutors against Dwight and Steven Hammond, “shocked the conscience” and was “grossly disproportionate” to the crime that the Hammonds were accused of.

Judge Hogan, in keeping with the doctrine of the Nuremberg trials (http://www.elliswashingtonreport.com/2012/10/11/the-nuremberg-trials-the-death-of-the-rule-of-law-in-international-law/), refused to go along with something so fundamentally unfair, something that violates basic human rights and was tantamount to crimes against humanity, allowed his conscience to be “shocked”, just as the Nazi officers should have been shocked by the actions and laws of Nazi Germany.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Nuremberg-trials-300x217.jpg (http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/nuremberg-trials)
You may recall that during the Nuremberg trials, the Nazi defendants, one after another, invoked the defense (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/04/nuremberg-a-fair-trial-a-dangerous-precedent/306492/) that they were “just following orders”. The response by the Nuremberg court was that “following orders” defense and fear of consequences by the Nazi government against them was not a sufficient defense for their actions against humanity.

The Nuremberg judges made it abundantly clear that if one must choose between following orders that lead to crimes against other human beings or the consequences of disobedience to the government powers who sponsor the unjust laws, and if such consequences include your own imprisonment and/or death for such disobedience, then so be it.

Likewise, Judge Hogan invoked his right as a human being, and as a judge, to do the right thing, which is to reject the lunacy, the insanity, the nonsense and the upside down world of the federal government who claims that a 5 year mandatory sentence for arson is reasonable and appropriate.

The process employed by Judge Hogan is not too different from jury nullification in which a group of human beings, peers to the defendant(s), can use the reasoning of the Nuremberg court and then judge not only the facts, but the law, and if the law is “grossly disproportionate” to the crime and “shocks the conscience”, then they have a duty to nullify it.

In regards to the supreme sanctity of the law, Thomas Jefferson said,
“…law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of an individual.”

The Nutty Ninth, in a display of shocking logic and nonsensical reasoning, cited numerous court cases that support the idea that the Hammond sentence was not unreasonable. The Court found that a five-year sentence for arson does not violate the Eighth Amendment:
“Given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense. The Supreme Court has upheld far tougher sentences for less serious or, at the very least, comparable offenses. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (upholding a sentence of fifty years to life under California’s three-strikes law for stealing nine videotapes); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (upholding a sentence of twenty-five years to life under California’s three-strikes law for the theft of three golf clubs); Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 (1982) (per curiam) (upholding a forty-year sentence for possession of nine ounces of marijuana with the intent to distribute); Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (upholding a life sentence under Texas’s recidivist statute for obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses). And we and other courts have done the same. See, e.g., United States v. Tolliver, 730 F.3d 1216, 1230–32 (10th Cir. 2013) (upholding a 430-month sentence for using arson in the commission of a felony); United States v. Major, 676 F.3d 803, 812 (9th Cir. 2012) (upholding a 750-year sentence for offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 280; United States v. Meiners, 485 F.3d 1211, 1212–13 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (upholding a fifteen-year sentence for advertising child pornography); United States v. Uphoff, 232 F.3d 624, 625–26 (8th Cir. 2000) (upholding a five-year sentence for arson of a building).” ~As cited by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in their decision to reverse Judge Hogan’s decision.

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/stop-678x381.jpg
STOP! Let Your Conscience Be Shocked!

Did you read the reasoning of the Nutty Ninth above?

The mandatory sentence of 5 years for the Hammonds, following time already served, according to the Nutty Ninth, is reasonable! Why is it reasonable? Because there is abundant precedent to, not only support, but to actually make the sentencing even tougher than 5 years, based on these and many other precedent setting court cases.

Do you grasp it? Are you digesting and assimilating it?

Fifty years to life under California’s three-strikes law for stealing nine videotapes! 50 years to life!! Lives ruined, permanently, for stealing 9 videotapes. Lives not only of the accused, but their families and others. And, the conscience just keeps getting shocked as you read through the list.

The Queen Of Hearts And The Queen Of Spades
We have spoken before how precedent, also known as “stare decisis (https://redoubtnews.com/2018/01/federal-team-losing-option/)”, is a process where courts, often with their own biases and agendas, make unconstitutional decisions, based on unconstitutional decisions of previous courts, perpetuating and making worse, the constitution destroying process of decisions handed down by previous courts.

Here, we have the Nutty Ninth, justifying the conscience shocking decision to impose a mandatory sentence of 5 years on the Hammonds, because of other conscience shocking decisions made by courts stuck in the whirlpool of bad and unconstitutional precedents.

It would be like the Queen of Hearts justifying her nonsense by holding up the nonsensical decisions made by the Queen of Spades, whose decisions were as bad or worse than those of the Queen of Hearts.
It would be like Hitler justifying his crimes against humanity by showing that another German ruler had made equally bad or worse laws before him.

Another person put it this way (http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/04/rancher-arson-case-that-inspired-oregon), “In other words, since even worse miscarriages of justice have passed constitutional muster, this one must be OK too. Given the binding authority of the Supreme Court’s precedents, the 9th Circuit’s legal reasoning is hard to fault. But it highlights the gap between what is legal and what is right, a gap that occasionally inspires judges to commit random acts of fairness.”

The Devil Is In The Details
As one delves into the all the background and circumstances surrounding the Hammond case, truly, one’s conscience is shocked. It is not the intent of this article to name all the devils in the details, they are just too numerous, but let me give a few.

The Rare Appeal Of Amanda Marshall Not So Appealing
Federal U.S. Attorney for Oregon, Amanda Marshall, was plucked out of obscurity, with no previous experience in a leadership role and given the enormous power of, not only a federal prosecutor, but the head of the U.S. Attorney’s office in Oregon.

Marshall was appointed by Obama in October, 2011, with no previous federal prosecutor experience. It was Marshall who pushed for the appeal of Judge Hogan’s decision not to impose the 5 year mandatory sentence on the Hammonds.

Appeals of a sitting judge’s decision are rare (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/04/unbelievable-update-oregon-bundy-militia-standoff-the-federal-prosecutor-at-the-heart-of-the-hammond-family-problem/):
“Amanda Marshall: Former U.S. Attorney for Oregon. Marshall recommended that the federal government challenge the Hammonds’ original prison sentences. By law, the convictions come with mandatory five-year sentences, but U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan in 2012 balked at the punishment and instead sentenced Dwight Hammond to three months and Steven Hammond to one year.
Marshall called Hogan’s punishments “unlawful.” The solicitor general authorized a rare appeal of an Oregon judge’s order. The appeals court sided with the prosecution, and the Hammonds returned to federal court last year to face a second sentencing. At that hearing, U.S. Chief District Judge Ann Aiken ordered the pair to finish five-year terms.”
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Amanda-Marshall-150x150.jpg
Amanda Marshall

One is reminded of the parallels between Navarro and Marshall, both women launched into enormous positions of power, with no previous experience. Both ideological supporters of Obama, Reid and their ilk. Both united in a common cause, issues surrounding the Hammonds and the Bundys.

Marshall ascended to her position of power from her previous position as a child advocacy worker. After winning the appeal against the Hammonds, she stepped down from her position. Was her mission accomplished?

Marshall’s background (http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-32952-u-s-attorney-amanda-marshall-allegedly-stalked-subordinate.html) gets even weirder and darker. Marshall was accused of stalking a subordinate.
But then, here is the kicker. As a child advocacy worker for Oregon, Marshall may have had involvement with the Hammonds through their troubled grandson, Dusty Hammond, who was the government’s main witness against his grandfather and uncle, Dwight and Steven Hammond respectively. There is evidence that, Dusty, the government’s star witness against his family, had many years of mental problems, prior to the incidents giving rise to the charges against the Hammonds. While the nexus between Marshall and Dusty is not conclusive, it raises a lot of suspicions.

Suffice it to say, the combination of Brown, Navarro and Marshall, provide a potent force for furthering federal government interests, interests that are dirty and unconstitutional.

Who Set The Fires For Which The Hammonds Have Been Imprisoned?

Ammon Bundy has stated that there is additional exculpatory evidence that could exonerate the Hammonds.
While at the Malheur refuge, Ammon Bundy indicated that they had gathered evidence that the BLM had started the fires (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/06/ammon-bundy-there-will-be-time-to-go-home-but-not-yet.html) using drip torches.

Another source (http://www.kgw.com/news/local/eastern-oregon/inside-the-hammonds-arson-case-at-the-center-of-the-oregon-occupation/11749883) quotes Ammon:
“We have evidence of eyewitnesses that saw the Bureau of Land Management – an agent, two agents from the Bureau of Land Management – that actually lit the fire with a drip torch on the south and the north side of the Hammonds’ Steen Mountain property,” he said.

This fact is buttressed by a statement in which Steven Hammond told a BLM agent that he would take them down with him as they were the ones who started the fire.

Joe Glascock, a Bureau of Land Management conservation manager, confronted the men with a sheriff official about the fires in 2006. At trial, prosecutors said Steve Hammond told Glascock the situation could get “sticky” if the fire investigation wasn’t dropped.

“If you want to stay here, you’ll make this go away,” the rancher said (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/03/oregon-militia-threatens-showdown-with-us-agents-at-wildlife-refuge), per the prosecutor. “If I go down, I’m taking you with me. You lighted those fires, not me.”
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/blm.jpe
Could this be one reason why, after 41 days of peaceful occupation of the refuge, the federal government chose to arrest Ammon and his supporters, in an effort to suppress that evidence?

Regardless of who started the fire, there is abundant evidence that the BLM lights fires all the times that get out of control and cause damage and suffering to property and livestock. Where are the justifiable and soul cleansing minimum sentences for them?

The Lust For Power And The Hidden Agenda Of The Federal Team
Those who know the Hammonds, and who know them well, can testify of the relentless persecution of this family based on sinister motives.

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 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.

In the Hammonds’ plea agreement in the 2012 trial, the BLM obtained the first right of refusal should the family have to sell their land and BLM leases, Maupin added.

The Maupins themselves (https://www.thefencepost.com/news/two-members-of-oregons-hammond-family-to-serve-time-in-prison-after-burning-140-acres-of-blm-land/) had a small lease that also bordered the “cow-free wilderness” and the Oregon Natural Desert Association was “relentless in their pursuit to have us off, in order to expand the cow-free wilderness,” Maupin said. The group would criticize the ranchers’ water usage, causing them to pipe water to their cattle, which in turn instigated more complaints from the group.

Eventually the Maupins sold their permit and moved.

But the Hammonds remained.

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/cliven-dwight.jpg
Parallels Between The Hammonds And The Bundys

Are you seeing the similarities (https://redoubtnews.com/2017/09/courage-price/) between the Hammonds and the Bundys?

Besides being ranchers, besides being persecuted by a powerful federal government, besides being among the last ranchers standing, another quality that the Bundys (https://redoubtnews.com/2017/09/bunkerville-never-cows/) and the Hammonds share in common is a reputation for being good decent family people.

After 34 years working for the U.S. Forest Service in Oregon, Rusty Inglis resigned from his position with the federal government and now ranches about 40 miles from the Hammonds and is unique in the area – he has no federal land permits and operates strictly on private land.

“The Hammond family is not arsonists. They are number one, top-notch. They know their land management.”

Inglis, president of his county Farm Bureau organization and a member of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association said both groups are working to help gain media attention for the Hammond case. The state Farm Bureau group gathered signatures online for a petition to show widespread support for the family.
“Enough is enough. We are not in Nazi Germany. We are in the United States of America.”

Maupin talked about the Hammonds helping her and her husband with ranch work, like hauling cattle, lending portable panels and never expecting anything in return. Wilber recalled them hauling 4-H calves to the fair for neighbors and Inglis said Dwight once offered to lend him money because he thought he needed help.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/susie-hammond-150x150.jpg
Susie Hammond

”Here’s a guy with $400,000 in fines and legal bills I can’t imagine, worrying about my welfare,” said Inglis.
“I think that’s the biggest point of all of this – how can you prosecute people as terrorists when they aren’t a terrorist?”

Susie Hammond (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/17/oregon-militia-standoff-occupation-dwight-steven-hammond), like most Americans, cannot get her head around it, things like this just don’t happen in America, or do they?

“We didn’t think it could happen,” said Susie Hammond, adding that stress has taken a serious toll on her health. “We thought we lived in America where you have one trial and you have one sentencing. They just keep playing political, legal mind games with people and people’s lives.”

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews (https://www.paypal.me/RedoubtNews)

Tumbleweed

8th January 2018, 04:06 AM

Loren Edward Pearce had some things right in his article about the Hammonds and their struggle with our government. He gets caught up though in the Jew lies about NS Germany and screws his article all up with all the Jew propaganda lies. The "Nazi" bullshit made it hard for me to read.

He fails John Kaminsky's "The Hitler test". https://johnkaminski.org/index.php/john-kaminski-american-writer-and-critic-2/16-best-kaminski-stories/56-the-hitler-test

Communists are running our government and the courts. NS Germany fought the communists in Europe and America and lost. Loren Edward Pearce needs to wake up to the truth of what's really going on instead of spewing the communist jew propaganda about it. This isn't going to change unless people like him wake up to the truth and realize our enemy is the same one NS Germany fought and that Hitler and the german people were the good guys.

The Hammonds and Bundys are the new "Kulaks" fighting against the collectivization of their land and rights by communists similar to what the peasants in Russia and Ukraine faced. This isn't going to end well unless all the people of this country wake up to the truth.

The Hammonds and Bundys are kind of like the Germans in the Nuremberg trials.

monty

8th January 2018, 04:02 PM

Tumbleweed

8th January 2018, 04:53 PM

I almost didn’t put his article in this thread because of his biased opinions. I decided the Hammond’s need the publicity since the Bundy trial has kept their situation out of the public eye.

I agree that the Hammonds need the publicity and the article was good when he focused on their troubles. Thanks for posting it. I just get weary of people like him that could investigate what happened to Germany and who the real criminals are and expose them instead of bashing the germans with the lies of the Jews.

JohnQPublic

8th January 2018, 05:07 PM

Bundy Back Home

https://twitter.com/BundyStrong/status/950518690700779520

9588

monty

22nd January 2018, 10:54 AM

Sibel Edmonds and Todd MacFarlane - mega corporations-federal government versus independent ranchers and farmers, how you can help the Hammonds ~ Newsbud The Newsbud video is 52 minutes.

http://youtu.be/AxXIB8OmN_o

https://youtu.be/AxXIB8OmN_o (https://youtu.be/AxXIB8OmN_o)

This is How You Can Help The Hammonds (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2018/01/09/this-is-how-you-can-help-free-the-hammonds/)

Free Range Report

https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/hammonds-.jpg?resize=560%2C416

This is how YOU can help free the Hammonds

Rather than charging Dwight and Steve under the BLM’s own land-use statutes, prosecutors instead maliciously charged them as domestic “terrorists” under the Antiterrorism Act of 1996. This time the BLM succeeded in obtaining a conviction against Dwight Hammond, Jr., now 78, and Steven D. Hammond, 50. However, the government did offer to drop all charges if the Hammonds would simply sign over two-thirds of their ranch to the federal government.
Please copy and paste the letter below (or use the linked PDF) and submit it to your United States Congressmen, Senators, Interior Secretary Zinke, and the Office of President Donald Trump, using the instructions which follow the letter. Even better, if you have the time, please write a letter of your own and make an appeal from the heart to these leaders in behalf of Dwight and Steve Hammond, the Oregon ranchers unjustly imprisoned by the Obama Administration on trumped-up terrorism charges related to minor maintenance and mitigation fires which accidentally spread from their ranch onto BLM property, causing little or no damage.

http://freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/diamondvalleyranch.jpg
Their story is detailed in the letter below.
Appeal to Trump Administration to Commute Sentence
of Dwight and Steve Hammond

For decades agencies of the Department of Interior, namely the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), have deployed their administrative powers to punitively regulate and maliciously prosecute the Hammond family of Oregon in a thinly veiled attempt to drive them off their ranch, their historic grazing allotments and vested water rights.

In August of 1994, the BLM and USFWS falsely arrested Dwight Hammond for protecting their legally owned water rights. While the Hammonds prevailed in state court proving their vested water right claims against water right claims made by the government they elected not to counter-sue for the BLM and USFWS for damages and false arrest.

For 20 years, the Hammonds fought to be able to trail cattle on historic stock driveways through USFWS land using historical records to establish their right to trail their cattle. During that time, government records document repeated efforts by the USFWS and BLM to prevent the Hammonds from using their historic rights. Between 1994 to 2006, the Hammonds were arbitrarily stripped of three BLM grazing permits and one Malheur National Wildlife Refuge grazing permit, gutting the economic viability of their ranching operation. The grazing permits were attached to the Hammond’s statutorily protected vested stockwater rights and grazing preferences.

In the present case, in 2001, with BLM permission, Steve Hammond started a prescribed burn on their private land that accidentally spilled onto 137 acres of adjoining federal land. The BLM never cited the Hammonds for that fire.

In 2006, during a violent thunderstorm, lightning struck federal land near the Hammond’s home, barns and stack yards of winter feed. The Hammonds started an emergency backfire on their private land to protect their home and buildings but which burned one acre of adjoining federal land before it could be contained. The BLM was notified of the burned acre of land. The backfire not only saved the Hammond’s home and barns but ultimately their grazing lands potentially protecting thousands of acres of federal land from the ravages of the wind-driven wildfire.

The BLM pursued criminal charges for the fire against Dwight and Steve in state court. District Attorney Tim Colahan reviewed the case and dismissed all charges against the Hammonds.

In 2010, before the statute of limitations had run on the 2001 fire, the BLM brought the Hammonds into federal court, indicting them on 9 charges relating to both fires. Rather than charging Dwight and Steve under the BLM’s own land-use statutes, prosecutors instead maliciously charged them as domestic “terrorists” under the Antiterrorism Act of 1996. This time the BLM succeeded in obtaining a conviction against Dwight Hammond, Jr., now 78, and Steven D. Hammond, 50. However, the government did offer to drop all charges if the Hammonds would simply sign over two-thirds of their ranch to the federal government.

Significantly, the Interior Department avoided bringing charges under their own statutes which specifically provide an exception for crimes attaching to fires started by ranchers who own grazing allotments in certain circumstances: “This section shall not apply in the case of a fire set by an allottee in the reasonable exercise of his property rights in the allotment,” 18 U.S.C. § 1855.

Federal District Court Judge Michael Hogan stated at sentencing, “I will impose a sentence that I believe is defensible under the law, but also one that is defensible to my conscience.” Hogan specifically found, “It would be cruel and unusual punishment for this crime to give them the mandatory minimum of five years.” Steven was sentenced to one year; Dwight, 90 days, which they served. He also sentenced both Hammonds to three years of post-prison supervision and required them to surrender their firearms. The judge also allowed the men to stagger their sentences in order to keep operating their ranch.

Tragically, council for the Hammonds failed to raise critical defenses in pleadings, and pressured the Hammonds to take a midnight plea deal to a partial verdict. The Hammonds understood the plea to mean that the case was over once and for all. They did not realize that in signing the agreement they had waived all their rights to appeal but that the federal government’s right of appeal was retained. Once the ink was dry on the plea agreement the government prepared to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a separate but related civil case, the Hammonds were fined $400,000. The Hammonds signed this agreement under duress, giving the BLM the first right-of-refusal should the Hammonds be forced to sell their ranch.

In 2015, the DOJ and DOI appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Court ordered the Hammonds to be re-sentenced for the full five-year term beginning January 4, 2016. Dwight and Steve are currently incarcerated in federal prison in Southern California.

We, the undersigned, strongly advocate for the rule of law. We believe that impositions of arbitrary and capricious rules and regulations singling out one rancher is inconsistent with the rule of law. The government clearly engaged in selective criminal and civil prosecutions of the Hammonds as terrorists for accidental fires when there is ample evidence the BLM and USFWS had for decades been attempting to drive the Hammonds out of business and off the land as they had with numerous other ranchers in the ever expanding Mahler Wildlife Refuge. The punitive double imprisonment of the Hammonds is especially troubling in light of multiple documented cases of Oregon BLM employees starting controlled burns or backfires which “accidentally” spread to burn thousands of acres of both federal and private land and structures. Those employees remain unpunished and property owners uncompensated for lost property.

For the rule of law to mean anything in this country it must be applied equally to everyone—not selectively to private citizens for ulterior motives. Federal employees receive immunity for the very same act for which the Hammonds were charged criminally and sent to prison in a manner even the trial judge found to be egregious. Even more troubling is the long history in the Hammond case, and others, of federal administrative and prosecutorial powers being weaponized in what appears to be a concerted effort by the BLM, aided by the Department of Justice, to take property without compensation and extort exorbitant fines from law abiding ranchers. While government abuse of power is not uncommon, it is uncommon for a 78-year old man and his son, both of whom have exemplary records, to be sent to prison for as domestic terrorists for an accidental fire.

We respectfully request the Trump administration review the pattern of persecution, and selective and malicious prosecution of Dwight and Steve Hammond. We respectfully request that the Inspector Generals of the DOJ and DOI, or an unbiased third party, review the pattern of malicious prosecution, fraud, and corruption which taints this prosecution, giving rise to the appearance of a sanctioned federal persecution for the purpose of obtaining private property without just compensation—in direct contravention of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Hammond case is viewed by many in the West, and indeed across the nation, as a manifest miscarriage of justice akin to double jeopardy. The Hammonds are highly regarded in their rural community of Burns Oregon. The beleaguered western ranching industry has sustained years of political, regulatory and prosecutorial attacks by officials within the DOI, USDA and DOJ during previous administrations. Ranching has either been eliminated or drastically reduced from multiple grazing allotments across the West without compensation to ranchers for their vested water rights or privately-owned range improvements.

Rural communities of the West are greatly appreciative of the efforts of the Trump administration to restore the economies of these communities. However, as long as Dwight and Steve Hammond remain in jail for what is obviously a gross miscarriage of justice, this matter remains a blight on the federal regulatory agencies and the criminal justice system. The current administration is afforded a rare opportunity in the Hammond case to reverse a clear miscarriage of justice.
Thank you for your consideration of this very important issue.

(PDF of letter linked here) (https://www.scribd.com/document/368719257/Hammond-Appeal-to-Trump-Administration-Protect-the-Harvest-1)
TAKE ACTION:
SIGN THE CHANGE.ORG PETITION HEREhttps://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-pardon-steven-and-dwight-hammond/psf/share?after_sign_exp=default&just_signed=true&share=true

And…
To all Friends and Supporters of the Hammond Family and Supporters of Equal Justice for All
Protect the Harvest and the Range Rights and Resource Symposiums’ principals have drafted a letter (see above) to President Trump and Secretary Zinke outlining the Miscarriage of Justice that has been perpetrated on Dwight and Steven Hammond and the Hammond Family.

We ask that you use this letter to contact your legislators both Federal and State and the office of the Pardon Attorney and Secretary Zinke and say you support its content.

There is an online form you can use on the Federal Office of the Pardon Attorney page.

The PDF from Protect the Harvest is to send to the legislators and your lists etc. (linked below)
Following are instructions to fill it out with the word doc to cut and paste for the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA).
1. Go to; https://www.justice.gov/ pardon/webform/your-message- office-pardon-attorney (https://www.justice.gov/pardon/webform/your-message-office-pardon-attorney)
2. Fill out your information
3. For Clemency case use; Dwight and Steven Hammond (or send messages separately for each man)
4. For BOP Inmate Register Number (https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/): use 59886-065 for Dwight and 60061-065 for Steven (i.e. 59886-065 and 60061-065)
5. For general topic use; general complaint/concern
6. In the message box say; I support the following letter
7. Then in the message box cut and paste the above word doc letter
8. Click the submit button

The OPA message box accepts up to 2000 words and the letter is +/-1300 words.
Thank you for your support in this critical effort to get the Hammond men out of Federal prison where they never should have been.
The time is NOW for your action.

Don’t forget to send the letter to your legislators and Secretary Zinke (feedback@ios.doi.gov) as well!

Free Range Report

Thank you for reading our latest report, but before you go…

Our loyalty is to the truth and to YOU, our readers!

We respect your reading experience, and have refrained from putting up a paywall and obnoxious advertisements, which means that we get by on small donations from people like you. We’re not asking for much, but any amount that you can give goes a long way to securing a better future for the people who make America great.

For as little as $1 you can support Free Range Report, and it takes only a moment.

monty

31st January 2018, 01:47 AM

Update on the Hammond Ranch

See more of David Goncalves on Facebook
Log In (https://www.facebook.com/login/?next)
or
Create New Account (https://www.facebook.com/reg/)

English (US) · Español (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=402419670214464&id=100013393038916#) · Português (Brasil) (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=402419670214464&id=100013393038916#)· Français (France) (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=402419670214464&id=100013393038916#) · Deutsch (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=402419670214464&id=100013393038916#)

Privacy (https://www.facebook.com/privacy/explanation) · Terms (https://www.facebook.com/policies?ref=pf) · Advertising (https://www.facebook.com/campaign/landing.php?placement=pf_rhc&campaign_id=242449722530626&extra_1=auto) · Ad Choices (https://www.facebook.com/help/568137493302217) · Cookies (https://www.facebook.com/help/cookies?ref_type=sitefooter) · More (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=402419670214464&id=100013393038916#)

Facebook © 2018

https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/p100x100/17796166_274388703017562_3312716293650088878_n.jpg ?oh=95beb99f9b9a7223f5b1b426e47b7630&oe=5AE6680A

David Goncalves added 6 new photos (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=402419670214464&id=100013393038916).

January 27 at 7:27am (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=402419670214464&id=100013393038916) ·

Dwight Hammond and Steve Hammond are in the midst of their five year prison sentences under the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996," for burning – and subsequently putting out – about 140 acres of Bureau of Land Management-administered land in their area.

But there is so much more to the story.

The family has been denied the ability to use their grazing allotment for nearly four years. Many in the community including Erin Maupin and Travis Williams wonder "why?"

No fences or other property were damaged in the fires and a range conservationist testified under oath that the larger fire improved the condition of the rangeland.

Dwight was found guilty of burning one acre of BLM land, when a prescribed burn on private land to reduce overcrowding juniper, spilled over slightly onto the adjoining federally administered land in 2001. The BLM incorporates the same prescribed burning in their management tactics.

Steven was found guilty of burning that same one acre, plus 139 more acres in 2006 when he lit a back burn to protect the family ranch headquarters from a series of lightning-lit fires were heading toward them. The backfire succeeded in protecting the home quarters. The BLM regularly uses backburns to slow or direct fire.

Hammond Ranch, Incorporated (HRI)- incidentally the only ranching family that continues to maintain a large tract of private land and graze BLM-administered land on the top of the Steens Mountain – was denied a renewal of their grazing permit in 2014, prior to a judge imposing the full five year prison sentence on Dwight and Steven.

According to Erin Maupin, former BLM watershed specialist and neighboring rancher, the other ranchers who had previously grazed BLM land in that area, traded allotments and large private inholdings to the government through the creation of the Steens Mountain Act. Much of the grazing allotments that were handed over were then declared a Wilderness Area of around 180,000 acres. Almost 100,000 acres were named "cow-free" wilderness due to pressure from environmental groups and from the Clinton administration, she recalls.

The two Hammond men served time in 2013 for the fires they admitted to starting.

Although they had been sentenced, imprisoned and released, a different judge decided to impose the mandatory minimum, five years in prison, and back to jail they went in 2016. They also paid a $400,000 fine to the BLM as the result of a civil suit.

The BLM denied them the renewal of their grazing permit in 2014, before the second sentencing, saying they have an "unacceptable record of performance."

HRI appealed, and the matter is now before the Hearings Division of the USDI, Office of Hearings and Appeals, for an adjudication of the merits of Hammond's appeal.

Onlookers are confused as they watch employees of federal lands – whether it is the BLM in Oregon or the US Forest Service in South Dakota – light matches that start burns on federal grazing permits with bought-and-paid-for grazing rights that spill over to private land, destroying in many cases hundreds of thousands of dollars in value of grass, fences, trees and more.

Ranchers have asked, if the Hammonds' "record of performance" is "unacceptable" to the point that they can no longer be allowed to graze their purchased grass, what is the reprimand for careless federal employees who destroy private property?

The Hammonds have appealed the grazing permit denial and also requested a stay (the right to graze while waiting for the decision). Their request for a stay has been denied and they are still waiting for a decision on their appeal.

"HRI applied to renew it's grazing permit because HRI has maintained its satisfactory record of performance as a permittee within the Burns District for the last 45 years and counting," reported the Hammonds' in their appeal and petition for a stay.

Because the Hammonds can't use their grazing allotment, they are also unable to use their private land which is not fenced, and nearly impossible to fence due to the rough terrain. "They own a significant amount (around 10,000 acres) of private land intermingled with their BLM allotment (around 60,000 acres total) that they are unable to use because there are no fences to separate the two," said Maupin.

"Another thing people maybe don't understand – they've paid for their BLM allotment with the purchase of the land and grazing rights. It has real value," said Maupin.

"This is why this case is so important. The government is taking real property without due process. If this stands and they can do this to the Hammonds, they can take any of our property whether it is a BLM administered allotment or a house or anything. That's the problem – there was no due process. They just said 'you're done. We're not renewing your permit. We're taking what amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars without just compensation."

A grazing allotment owner is not allowed by the BLM to sell or transfer his or her grazing rights when the permit has been denied, said Maupin, and she's seen denials lead to an eventual retirement of grazing rights more than once.

"The thing with the Hammonds, they've always been wonderful managers of the BLM allotment and their private ground. The BLM has never had any complaints on how they manage until this," said Maupin.

"The Hammonds are at the top of the mountain. There is green grass all the way up, all summer long, from April to September. The purpose behind this is that they are the last major private landowner on the Steens Mountain. If they get rid of the Hammonds, there will basically be an extension of the 'cow free' wilderness from the top of the mountain down to the Malheur Refuge," said Maupin.

While there are small parcels of private land here and there along the mountaintop, there is virtually no privately owned grazing left on the top of the mountain, other than the Hammond's, Maupin said.

While the Hammonds wait for a ruling by the US Department of Interior Office of Appeals, the grass on their permit goes unused and the family, already strained by two individuals imprisoned for five years, is forced to find alternate forage for their entire herd of cattle.

The family has sold some cattle and the remaining herd grazes in a co-op near Burns, Oregon.
"So this is how they roll," said Maupin referencing the boards that make decisions on federal lands discrepancies.

"They drag their feet for years, and meanwhile ranchers go out of business waiting for decisions."

Brendan Cain, the former BLM District Manager who denied HRI their grazing permit renewal because the ranch had an "unacceptable record of performance," used 11 pages to describe, in detail, the fires that the Hammonds readily admitted to starting, and the danger that the fires supposedly created for firefighters.
In the denial document, Cain references in great detail, testimony that was ordered by the judge in the 2012 case to be thrown out and also references charges that they were accused of but found not guilty of.

"In the final decision, BLM relied on the Hammonds' convictions as well as trial evidence of other fires in concluding that HRI did not have a satisfactory record of performance. That evidence includes multiple instances of the Hammonds setting fires to eliminate juniper for the purpose of increasing forage for their cattle," said Cain.

Cain, in the denial, goes into painstaking detail about the "damage" caused by the Hammonds' fires, and says that the Hammonds "could be found responsible for additional fires."

"The Hammond burning, without regard to BLM's prescribed burning objectives, has foreclosed some of BLM's flexibility for ecological restoration in the area. By unilaterally burning habitat, the Hammonds have removed areas that could have served as habitat while BLM conducted smaller prescribed burns in other areas. The BLM carefully considers the balance of available habitat on a large scale before undertaking a prescribed burn."

According to Jeff Rose, the current BLM Burns District Manager, the Burns District BLM burned over 28,000 acres in 2001 on private and BLM-administered land, in two big prescribed burn projects on the top of the Steens Mountain.

"We operated under cooperative agreements and the BLM conducted the two burns. Private landowners help put in firelines prior to the fires and helped with operations and logistics when the fires were conducted," he said.

According to a BLM report from 2002, the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service used prescribed fire to intentionally burn 87,988 acres in Oregon alone. Also in Oregon during the same year, wild fires burned 1,010,952 acres on federal and state land.

Rose, said in a January, 2018, interview with Tri-State Livestock News, that the BLM, as an agency, uses fire extensively to manage the range.

"When we do prescribed burning, the plant communities respond favorably. A lot of perennials improve, like flowers and grasses. That's one of the reasons we used to do that a lot in the late 90s and early 2000s, and we still do it in some spots. It's also to control juniper. The prescribed burning allows forage for wildlife and livestock, which is one of the goals for the projects," said Rose.

The BLM is not able to conduct prescribed burns on the 170,000-acre Wilderness Designation on the Steens Mountain because fire management is nearly impossible due to the requirement that no motorized vehicles be used on Wilderness Areas.

"When the juniper comes in, it depletes the understory," said Rose. "In areas where they (the BLM) can do prescribed burns, they are making a positive difference."

Rose said that the area has received adequate moisture in the past year and that even on the segment of Wilderness (which borders the Hammond allotment) that is grazed, grass is healthy and "in good condition."
Rose was unable to comment on the condition of the Hammonds' allotment because of ongoing mitigation over the grazing permit denial. He was also unable to comment on the permit denial itself.

A state of Oregon report reveals that in 2006, a total of 493,420 acres were burned by wildfire across the state's federally-managed land, costing over $90 million to battle.

Judge Hogan, who presided over the first case, said the Hammond-lit fires resulted in about $100 of damage. A range specialist testified under oath that the condition of the rangeland improved following the fires.

Cain said grass improved on the acreage the Hammonds' burned.

"The 2001 fire may have added livestock forage on public lands the Hammonds grazed for profit, but it also endangered people in the area and violated BLM grazing permit regulations," he said.

"Dwight told Mr. Ward that, for years, he had wanted to burn the area where the 2001 fire had burned and that while BLM had promised him that it would be burned with a prescribed fire, it had not. Instead of coordinating with BLM, the Hammonds took matters into their own hands," reported Cain.

The Hammonds did utilize fire as a management tool, in much the same way that the BLM did and continues to do.

Neighbors of the Hammonds' grazing allotment say that because they have been denied the ability to graze for nearly four years now, the overgrowth has become a serious fire hazard.

"To me, as a grass man, there is more being destroyed right now on their allotments, by sitting there for four years or more, than the Hammonds ever did with fire. They didn't destroy any buildings, they just burned grass. They were not found guilty of harming anyone or threatening anyone," said Travis Williams, a neighbor.

Williams said the ungrazed grass presents potential for thousands and thousands of acres to burn needlessly and uncontrollably.

"It is just like kindling waiting for a match," said Maupin. "There would be nothing stopping a 500,000 acre fire if it got going."

Just as the Hammonds' used backburning to protect their home in 2006, Maupin recalls the BLM using the same technique to try to stop that very same blaze, known as the Krumbo Butte fire when several fires merged.

"BLM was lighting backfires all over the mountain. They had drip-torches attempting to light backfires for miles trying to keep the fire from jumping across the Steens Loop Road," she recalls.

Maupin's husband was working with the BLM, trying to keep their cattle out of the fire's path.
Using backburns to slow fire and protect forage and cattle is a good strategy, said Maupin. "We were in favor of the BLM's backburns."

Minutes from a 2006 Steens Mountain Advisory Committee meeting reveal that Susie Hammond had requested cooperation from the BLM on burning that year.

"As private landowner they have tried for years to address the liability and the responsibility for fire management. She said it doesn't happen, and she doesn't know why. It seems to her it is a pulling back of the agency and not wanting to address the liability. Every landowner has their own reasons for allowing or not allowing fire but she thinks there is an agreement that could be made. She would like to see the BLM produce some kind of proposed agreement for the next SMAC meeting," say the December 2006 meeting minutes, summarizing Susie's comments.

Meeting minutes from March of 2006 reveal that Susie commented on the Oregon Natural Desert Association's (an anti-grazing group) "inventory," saying that their inventory was not credible and that much of it was made by trespassing on private property including that of the Hammonds.'

According to Angus McIntosh, the Executive Director of the Range Allotment Owners Association, permittees or "allottees" are exempt from prosecution for burning brush, trees or grass on their own allotments. The language of the law, 18 U.S. Code 1855 Timber set afire is as follows:
Whoever, willfully and without authority, sets on fire any timber, underbrush, or grass or other inflammable material upon the public domain or upon any lands owned or leased by or under the partial, concurrent, or exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or under contract for purchase or for the acquisition of which condemnation proceedings have been instituted, or upon any Indian reservation or lands belonging to or occupied by any tribe or group of Indians under authority of the United States, or upon any Indian allotment while the title to the same shall be held in trust by the Government, or while the same shall remain inalienable by the allottee without the consent of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

This section shall not apply in the case of a fire set by an allottee in the reasonable exercise of his proprietary rights in the allotment. It is the final sentence that McIntosh believes would give the Hammonds and other federal lands allottees the freedom to perform prescribed burns on their own allotments.

The attorney for the Hammonds said it is obvious that federal prosecutors sought significant sentences for Dwight and Steven.

"The Federal Government had several other civil and criminal statute to apply to seek any punishment against the Hammonds, including the Taylor Grazing Act, 43 U.S.C. § 315a (see also 43 C.F.R. § 4170.2-1), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1733(a) (see also 43 C.F.R. § 4170.2-2), or the certain Public Land fire related criminal provisions, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1855, 1856. However, these statutes did not have mandatory jail time, whereas the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, did have mandatory time. One can only conclude from this that the BLM wanted mandatory time," said Alan Schroeder, who represents HRI.

Maupin said neighbors quietly support the Hammonds. "People think it's a complete travesty." But some are afraid to speak out. "I think people are worried about retribution from the government. Lot's of people have refuge permits. They are hesitant to speak out for fear that they will draw attention to themselves and could lose that forage."

Dwight, who turned 76 in January is scheduled to be released in January of 2020. Steven turns 50 in February and will be released in late June of 2019.

Petitions for Clemency filed by each man are still pending.

A request for additional information to the Department of Interior Board of Appeals was not answered

monty

2nd May 2018, 06:14 AM

Midwest rancher/journalist Trent Loos has been investigating the Hammond Ranch case. It has long been rumored this was about uranium. What Trent Loos has found appears to support the rumors.

It is interesting to me that Harry Reid’s name seldom comes up on all these “deep state” investigations. Niel Kornze went from Reid’s campaign committee to head the BLM. Reid is a snake in the grass and a master at hiding his crimes. I believe he is right up at the head of the list with Hillary and Obama.

http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2018/05/02/did-uranium-put-the-hammonds-in-prison-on-trumped-up-terrorism-charges/

Did uranium put the Hammonds in prison on trumped-up terrorism charges? | Free Range Report

If these actions by the Hammonds were such a “terroristic” crime, why would the government be willing to drop the charges if the Hammonds agreed to turn the ranch over to them?
Opinion by Trent Loos

High Plains Journal (http://www.hpj.com/opinion/there-s-mining-in-oregon-but-not-for-minerals/article_2c264148-48a6-11e8-a4b0-cf8753d64671.html)

http://freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/59a9ca1418a79.image_.jpg
There’s mining in Oregon but not for minerals

There are a tremendous number of people who are scratching their heads trying to figure why Dwight and Steven Hammond continue to sit in federal prison. I no longer wonder and neither will you when you are done reading this.

For the record, Dwight still has three years and Steven has two years left to serve. And if you remember, the original judge in the case, Michael Hogan, stated at their sentencing, “It would be cruel and unusual punishment for this crime to give them the mandatory minimum of five years!” Yet they continue to serve.
Why?

I have now compiled enough information to write a complete and lengthy book about all the players involved in this scenario. There has been so much written about the history of this but I want to share with you the questions that have not been addressed and that are honestly just uncomfortable to even ask.

Many have already forgotten that in the very early stages of litigation of these criminal charges, the Hammonds were offered to have all charges dropped in exchange for paying a fine in what Dwight told me would be equivalent to 75 percent of the ranch’s value. This was long before any “terrorism” charges were ever discussed. Now why would the Hammonds agree to this particularly when the handbook of both the Bureau of Land Management and United States Forest Service grazing codes clearly state that federal land permit holders are exempt from liability for fires that occur on their allotment (18 U.S. Code 1855 Timber)?
If these actions by the Hammonds were such a “terroristic” crime, why would the government be willing to drop the charges if the Hammonds agreed to turn the ranch over to them?

The ties between government and mining get pretty entangled. The director of the BLM under the Obama administration was Neil Kornze. Kornze’s father, Larry, has a long history in minerals and currently serves on many boards. In 2012, the elder Kornze was appointed to the Mesa Exploration board for the purpose of uranium exploration.

In January 2017, it was announced that Greg Bretzing, the 22-year FBI veteran in charge of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation detail, had been hired as chief of security for Greenbrier Companies. Greenbrier manages the global transportation of uranium. The Malheur occupation was all about standing up for the Hammond family as they tried to save their ranch from being taken by the government.

Jeff Bezos is reportedly the current wealthiest American that just happens to own Amazon, the Washington Post, Whole Foods and the list doesn’t stop there. Bezos was a major contributor to the Hillary Clinton campaign. I feel it is worth noting that Washington Post was the first publication to print a story trying to falsify the notion that the Clinton Foundation was on the take from Uranium One leaders. Bezos himself has reportedly invested $19.5 million in uranium.

Enter Peter Thiel—the founder of PayPal and an early investor in Facebook. Thiel is quite unique to all others previously mentioned because he was major contributor to the Trump campaign and reportedly still has the ear of the president. In 2017, the Wall Street Journal ran a story about Jared Kushner not disclosing his business dealings with George Soros and Peter Thiel. In fact, Breakthrough Energy’s own website reports involvement with names like Gates, Bloomberg, Soros, Bezos, Thiel and Zuckerberg just to name a few. The Breakthrough Energy Coalition “is committed to building new technologies that change the way we live, eat, work, travel and make things so that we can stop the devastating impacts of climate change.”

In addition, Thiel owns and serves as the chairman of the board of Palantir, a company which is often referred to as a “data mining machine.” In cooperation with Facebook, Palantir does surveillance on people. In fact, Palantir data was submitted to the Portland Federal prosecutors in the trial against the Malheur occupiers.

Thiel continues to tout himself as an environmentalist even with his new found love for investing in carbon neutral nuclear production and the future of mining uranium. Take for example his new startup company called Helion Energy.

We now know that the FBI sent over 2,000 agents to Harney County, Oregon, because 12 people occupied a federal bird sanctuary. We also know that they were not actually worried about the firearms carried by those 12 because 90 percent of the firearms at Malheur were in the hands of the FBI agents. We also know they were there to protect information that would expose this entire corruption scandal that targeted the Hammond family.

This is where I would love to tell you that I know for a fact that the uranium under the Hammond Ranch property was the whole reason for this cover-up, but I can’t do that yet. However, I have looked at many geological surveys and studies dating back to the 1950s and I am seeing “yellowcake.” I can tell you that Harney County, Oregon, including the Steens Mountain and Malheur refuge, contain some of the best deposits of uranium in the world.

No family in the history of this country has experienced more success in standing up to the federal government for their property rights than the Hammond family right up until they were falsely charged under the 1996 Anti-Terrorism act. I am going to close with the assumption that President Trump has not yet given clemency to Dwight and Steven Hammond because of the misinformation he has received from insiders who are totally invested in mining the Oregon landscape. For the future of everyone’s property rights, we hope to change that.

Editor’s note: Trent Loos is a sixth generation United States farmer, host of the daily radio show, Loos Tales, and founder of Faces of Agriculture, a non-profit organization putting the human element back into the production of food.

Get more information at www.LoosTales.com (http://www.loostales.com/), or email Trent at trentloos@gmail.com.

High Plains Journal (http://www.hpj.com/opinion/there-s-mining-in-oregon-but-not-for-minerals/article_2c264148-48a6-11e8-a4b0-cf8753d64671.html)
Related News:

Oregon gubernatorial candidate reaches out to President Trump in behalf of Dwight and Steven Hammond

A Republican candidate for Governor of Oregon has written an open letter to President Trump in behalf of imprisoned ranchers, Dwignt and Steven Hammond of Harney County.

On April 30, retired Navy Captain Greg Wooldridge wrote the following:
Mr. President,
I am Capt. Greg Wooldridge US Navy (retired). During my active duty I led the Blue Angels three times. It is my intention to be the next Governor of the great State of Oregon.

I am writing to you ahead of the election to urge you to use your presidential pardon for Dwight and Steve Hammond of Harney County, Oregon. These Oregon cattlemen are victims of an egregious abuse of the 1996 Counter Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. It is my understanding that federal law has changed in this regard so this no longer applies to ranchers and farmers working the resources of Oregon. Given these developments your use of a presidential pardon is more than warranted.

I am writing you at this time in an effort to ward off an embarrassing situation as I intend to make this a top priority once in office. We want our boys back home with their families. I would love to be at Terminal Island in a presidential limo with Ryan Zinke to return these Cattlemen back to their proper place at home on their Oregon ranch. This will be a sign of my administration’s commitment to protecting Oregon constituents from federal over reach. Your support in a presidential pardon will go a long way in showing your recognition of this.

By all means don’t wait for my election to use your authority to right this egregious wrong.
Oregon will need a stronger working relationship with Mr. Zinke as our administration puts Oregonians back to work with more responsible local management of our lands and natural resources.

I would like to thank you for your appointment of Ryan Zinke to the head of the Department of Interior. This was a strong message of your intent to change federal land use laws. I look forward to working closely with your administration to improve conditions and expand opportunities for ranchers, farmer, loggers and miners while responsibly managing our natural resources in Oregon.

Thank you sir in advance for considering my request.

Very Respectfully,
Greg Wooldridge Captain Us Navy (ret)

Free Range Report (http://freerangereport.com/)

Thank you for reading our latest report, but before you go…

Our loyalty is to the truth and to YOU, our readers!

We respect your reading experience, and have refrained from putting up a paywall and obnoxious advertisements, which means that we get by on small donations from people like you. We’re not asking for much, but any amount that you can give goes a long way to securing a better future for the people who make America great.

monty

19th May 2018, 01:33 PM

I am a little surprised to see Fox News print this asking Trump to pardon the Hammonds

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/05/19/trump-should-pardon-oregon-ranchers-arent-terrorists.amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

Trump should pardon Oregon ranchers -- They aren't terrorists

William Perry Pendley (http://gold-silver.us/forum/safari-reader://www.foxnews.com/person/p/william-perry-pendley.html)
May 19, 2018

In April, President Trump pardoned I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby Jr., top aide to former Vice President Dick Cheney, who was convicted in an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Now the president should do the same thing for Dwight L. Hammond, Jr., 76, and his son Steven Dwight Hammond, 49, long-suffering ranchers in rural Oregon.

Continue Reading Below

The Hammonds were charged with terrorism and sentenced in 2015 to five years in prison, despite the outraged protests of ranchers and other citizens.

The Oregonian, the state’s left-leaning newspaper, said in a January 2016 editorial (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/01/dismiss_the_bundy_bunch_but_no.html): “The Hammonds broke the law and deserve to be punished” but said their sentence was excessive and that the president (then Barack Obama) “should consider” granting them clemency.

The Hammonds are the victims of one of the most egregious, indefensible and intolerable instances of prosecutorial misconduct in history. Their situation cries out for justice that can come only from President Trump.

The Hammonds’ crime? They set a legally permissible fire on their own property, which accidentally burned out of control onto neighboring federal land. Normally, that is an infraction covered by laws governing trespassing, and the guilty party is subject to paying for damages caused by the fire – if the neighboring land belongs to an ordinary citizen.

But not when a vindictive federal government is involved.

Continue Reading Below

The Hammonds are cattle ranchers in southeastern Oregon’s Harney County, the state’s largest, but home to fewer than 8,000 people who eke out a living. The federal government owns 75 percent of the land in the county.

Congress passed the 1996 law in response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing to “deter terrorism.” Lawmakers did not have in mind a rancher’s efforts to eradicate noxious weeds or to prevent the spread of a lightning fire onto valuable crops.

The Hammond Ranch is near the unincorporated community of Diamond, with fewer than 100 residents. Located on Steens Mountain since it was established in 1964, the ranch is made up of 12,872 acres of deeded private land. Dwight Hammond began running the ranch in his early 20s; for his son, it is the only life he knows.

Like most Western ranches in federally dominated counties, the Hammond Ranch holds grazing rights on nearby federal land. In this case, that is 26,421 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

In the “high desert” environment of Harney County – and throughout the West – federal, state and private landowners use controlled or prescribed burns for prairie restoration, forest management and to reduce the buildup of underbrush that could fuel much bigger fires.

But sometimes the controlled fires get out of control and sweep onto neighbors’ land. That is legally deemed a trespass, and the landowner who set the fire is liable for any damages.

Only the federal government has the power to cite the trespasser criminally for his or her actions. That is what happened to the Hammonds.

It did not happen in a vacuum. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has long coveted the Hammond Ranch for inclusion in its surrounding Malheur Wildlife Refuge. The federal agency pressured members of the Hammond family for decades to follow all of their neighbors in selling their property to the federal government.

For their part, Bureau of Land Management officials, agents and armed rangers too often have had an adversarial and thorny relationship with ranchers and grazing permittees, which worsened during the Obama administration.

In 2001, after alerting the Bureau of Land Management, the Hammonds set a legal fire to eradicate noxious weeds. It spread onto 139 acres of vacant federal land. According to a government witness, the fire actually improved the federal land, as natural fires often do.

In 2006, Steven Hammond started another prescribed fire in response to several blazes ignited by a lightning storm near his family’s field of winter feed. The counter-blaze burned a single acre of federal land. According to Steven Hammond’s mother, “the backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home.”
“We thought we lived in America where you have one trial and you have one sentencing.” She said that federal officials “just keep playing political, legal mind games with people and people’s lives.”

The Bureau of Land Management took a different view. It filed a report with Harney County officials alleging several violations of Oregon law. However, after a review of the evidence, the Harney County district attorney dropped all charges in 2006.

The Bureau of Land Management did not give up. In 2011, federal prosecutors – referencing both the 2001 and 2006 fires – charged the Hammonds with violating the ‘‘Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,” which carries a mandatory minimum prison sentence of five years.

Mugshots of the father and his son accompanied headlines calling them “arsonists.” Their wife and mother said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me.”

In 2012, the Hammonds went to trial. As the jury was deliberating, they agreed not to appeal the jury verdicts in exchange for the government dismissal of a slew of ancillary charges, including “conspiracy” to commit the offense.

The jury found both Hammonds guilty of the 2001 fire and Steven Hammond guilty of the 2006 blaze; he was acquitted on charges the 2006 fire did more than $1,000 in damages.

At sentencing, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan concluded the fires did not endanger people or property. He declared that the law the Hammonds were convicted of violating was aimed at more serious conduct than their case involved.

Hogan added that the Hammonds had “tremendous” character, and stated that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution – barring “cruel and unusual punishment” – justified a sentence below the statutory minimum sentence.

Consequently, Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight Hammond to three months in prison and his son to a year and a day. Both served their sentences and then returned home.

But the federal government was not finished. Federal prosecutors, contending the agreement did not bar them from further action, appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which, without oral arguments, quickly issued a terse ruling reversing the Oregon federal district court.

“Given the seriousness of arson,” the appellate court ruled, “a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.” The Hammonds are both still in prison today.

Congress passed the 1996 law under which the Hammonds were convicted in response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York City and the 1995 federal building bombing in Oklahoma City in order to “deter terrorism.” Lawmakers did not have in mind a rancher’s efforts to eradicate noxious weeds or to prevent the spread of a lightning fire onto valuable crops.

That apparently did not matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Oregon, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service and officials who are supposed to provide adult supervision to prevent personal animus, agency vendettas and prosecutorial abuse.

“We didn’t think it could happen,” said Susie Hammond, the family matriarch. She is still trying to hold onto the ranch, upon which four local families other than the Hammonds rely. “We thought we lived in America where you have one trial and you have one sentencing.” She said that federal officials “just keep playing political, legal mind games with people and people’s lives.”

Now it’s up to President Trump to deliver justice to the Hammonds – something the federal government has long denied them.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes.

monty

24th May 2018, 02:45 PM

The Hammond’s clemency movement is gaining traction. Reports are the White House Office of Councel Don McGhan is reviewing the request.

http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20180523/clemency-decision-may-be-imminent-for-imprisoned-oregon-ranchers#.WwcfgGhU34k.twitter

Clemency decision may be imminent for imprisoned Oregon ranchers

http://www.capitalpress.com/storyimage/CP/20180523/ARTICLE/180529955/AR/0/AR-180529955.jpg&MaxW=600Associated Press File
A sign shows support for the Hammonds Tuesday, Jan. 5, 2016, in Burns, Ore. A clemency decision may be imminent for Dwight and Steven Hammond, two Oregon ranchers convicted of arson.

http://www.capitalpress.com/storyimage/CP/20180523/ARTICLE/180529955/EP/1/1/EP-180529955.jpg&MaxW=600
Dwight Hammond

http://www.capitalpress.com/storyimage/CP/20180523/ARTICLE/180529955/EP/1/2/EP-180529955.jpg&MaxW=600
Steven Hammond

A decision may be imminent on presidential clemency for two Oregon ranchers serving five-year minimum mandatory sentences for arson, according to farm groups seeking their release.

Dwight Hammond, 76, and his son, Steven Hammond, 49, were convicted in 2012 of setting fire to rangeland close to their ranch near Burns, Ore., for which they were initially sentenced to prison terms of three months and one year, respectively.

However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned those more lenient sentences at the urging of the U.S. government, finding the ranchers had to complete the full five-year minimum terms for arson required by federal law.

The Hammonds reported to prison in early 2016 to begin serving the remainder of their time, but protests of their plight culminated in the standoff between federal agents and armed occupiers at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

The father and son asked for clemency from President Barack Obama shortly after resuming incarceration, but it now appears their request has gained traction under the Trump administration.

Protect the Harvest, a nonprofit representing agriculture and hunting interests, has learned the Hammonds’ request for clemency has in recent weeks come under review by the Office of the White House Counsel Don McGhan, said Dave Duquette, the group’s national strategic planner.

“It’s moving much quicker than we anticipated it moving,” he said. “That’s a good thing, from what I’ve heard.”

The Hammonds have sought a commutation of their sentences but are hoping for a full pardon, which is within the president’s power to give, Duquette said.

“If they only get a commutation, then they’re still felons,” and subject to a prohibition on owning guns, among other restrictions, he said.

Jerome Rosa, executive director of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, said he recently broached the subject with Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke during a visit to Washington, D.C.

Just as Congress recently affirmed that air emissions from livestock weren’t intended to be regulated under the Superfund statute for hazardous waste, so too rangeland fires weren’t intended to be punished as arson, he said.

Zinke agreed with this sentiment, giving the sign of the cross while vowing to give his blessing for their release to President Donald Trump, according to Rosa.

Local employees of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which is overseen by the Interior Department, seem to have developed “hard feelings” in the matter and supported the Hammonds return to prison, he said.

The Oregon Cattlemen’s Association and Oregon Farm Bureau are planning to submit a court brief in a civil lawsuit urging that the Hammonds grazing privileges be restored, Rosa said.

Duquette said he believes the Hammonds’ dispute with federal officials in the region originated because the government wanted to buy their property for inclusion in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

However, he said, it’s unfortunate that in the public’s mind, the occupation of the refuge has become entwined with the Hammonds, who did not support the takeover.

Pardoning the ranchers would be a show of goodwill by the new presidential administration, Duquette said. “It shows they’re getting things done and trying to right the wrongs that were done before.”

Marketplace (http://marketplace.capitalpress.com/)

monty

14th July 2018, 01:55 PM

Dwight Hammond tells his thoughts after returning home from prison.

While he's spent decades at loggerheads with officials of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Hammond said he realized his focus should have been elsewhere. He believes a deeper problem threatens the country.

He now intends to wade into another century-old debate: the place of religion in schools. He's firmly on the side of allowing prayer and religious sentiment in the classroom. Yes, he is 100% right.

https://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2018/07/oregon_rancher_pardoned_by_tru.html

Oregon rancher pardoned by Trump: 'I tried to do the right thing'

By Maxine Bernstein (http://connect.oregonlive.com/staff/mabernst/posts.html)
mbernstein@oregonian.com
The Oregonian/OregonLive

Updated July 14, 2018 at 10:10 AM; Posted July 14, 2018 at 6:00 AM

BURNS -- Three-and-a-half hours after pardoned Oregon rancher Dwight Hammond Jr. arrived home, he gathered with his wife and sons around his dining room's large circular table and got back to business.

They hooked him into a live feed of an auction in Nevada where Hammond Ranch Inc.'s 155 calves were on the block.

Hammond could have called in to participate in the annual sale but he held back, not wanting to jerk the reins from his daughter-in-law and others who have run the family's cattle ranch while he and his son Steven served arson sentences in federal prison.

"We've had to trust them. No use to question their judgment now,'' the 76-year-old said later, sitting in his living room, back in his trademark Wrangler jeans, brown cowboy boots and a blue button-down shirt that matched his eyes.

In his first wide-ranging interview since his release, the veteran rancher talked about how he coped in prison, how he learned of his pardon by President Trump and the shock of his sudden release. He addressed the impact of the Bundys and their followers converging on Harney County and spoke about what he plans to do in the future.

He emerged from Terminal Island in Southern California with a new perspective on the conflicts between Western ranchers and federal regulators.

"I have had the opportunity to have a lot of time resting and relaxing while I'm being sheltered and fed to realize that a lot of my life has been misdirected,'' he said.

While he's spent decades at loggerheads with officials of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Hammond said he realized his focus should have been elsewhere. He believes a deeper problem threatens the country.

He now intends to wade into another century-old debate: the place of religion in schools. He's firmly on the side of allowing prayer and religious sentiment in the classroom.

"As I said for a long time, this is not about me. This is not about our industry. It's about America and it's about our youth,'' he said.

"We don't stand a snowball's chance on a slow roll through hell of getting out of this situation until we are willing to let God lead us."

But the conservative cattleman's main priority hasn't changed: working to restore his ranch's grazing permit to keep the family operation viable.

He maintains his belief that the "feds,'' as he calls them, rule by fear. He holds disdain for the management of the wildlife refuge and rangeland surrounding his more than 12,000 acres of land in the Diamond valley of Steens Mountain.

"Friends and neighbors stepped forward and filled in the holes and were able to keep the ranch functioning even though the feds have managed to break both our legs in the process,'' he said. "We still have to crawl forward and are doing so today.''

***

Hammond never sought the intense spotlight that fell on him once Ammon and Ryan Bundy, militia members and other right-wing supporters descended on his dusty high desert town 2 1/2 years ago.

He and his youngest son Steven became the rallying cry for the activists who marched to his home days before the two were scheduled to surrender to prison on Jan. 4, 2016, to complete mandatory minimum five-year sentences.

Hammond said he was overwhelmed by having to leave his family again, and the Bundys' presence in town magnified that feeling. He tried to distance himself from them and concentrate on turning himself into prison despite their urgings to the contrary.

"I tried to do the right thing,'' he said.

Hammond said he never supported the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

"No, I do not condone that, but I have giant sympathy for the frustrations that they have felt,'' he said, referring to patriarch rancher Cliven Bundy's own battles over grazing cattle with the Bureau of Land Management in Nevada.

Hammond felt the successful challenge by federal prosecutors of his initial three-month sentence was unjust, particularly after he and his son had waived their right to appeal. He had been convicted of a 2001 fire that spread to public land.

Prosecutors argued that the trial judge violated the law by ignoring the minimum mandatory sentence for arson under a wide-ranging anti-terrorism statute. They said the fire was to cover up deer poaching and got out of control, placing firefighters who had to be airlifted out of the area in grave danger. Their pursuit of the Hammonds, they said, followed years of permit violations and unauthorized fires and that the father and son never accepted responsibility.

Chris Gardner, a board member of the volunteer Friends of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge group, said the Hammonds had "a long history of contentious and aggressive behavior toward the staff of the refuge."

"These public servants, while working to accomplish their primary mission to protect wildlife that rely on the refuge, have also succeeded in reaching win/win cooperative agreements with most neighboring ranchers," Gardner said in a statement. "Refuge personnel while trying to work with the Hammonds never threatened them or their children, never destroyed their property, and never set dangerous unauthorized fires which put firefighters at risk, which are all behaviors government employees have stated they have had to endure."
The elder Hammond doesn't believe what he did warranted such harsh punishment. Steven Hammond declined to comment.

Dwight Hammond wrote from prison for his clemency petition: "I am over 1,000 miles away because of a slop-over fire that happened in 2001; for a fire for which the government did not even issue a trespass notice in 2001; for a fire that BLM agreed improved the land.''

When he arrived at prison, his name was often on the TV news.

By the end of the month, he learned from a TV news report about the fatal shooting of occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy" Finicum. Two state troopers shot Finicum after he sped off from a police stop and then swerved his truck into a snowbank to avoid a roadblock on U.S. 395. Finicum was shot as he reached inside his jacket where he had a gun, according to investigators.

Hammond said at that moment he was thankful to be in custody. He thought the same thing could have happened to him.

"I was grateful for my iron bars on my window keeping the bad guys out there,'' he said.

***
Hammond established a routine in prison.

He shared a bunk with Steven Hammond, 49. He woke at 5 a.m. each weekday so he could tune into radio station 105.1 to listen to its 6 a.m. rendition of the national anthem. He was upset that the station didn't air the anthem on weekends.

"That's how I liked to start my day. It helped clear out some of my thoughts that I allowed to creep in with the lights out. It cleared out the cobwebs,'' he said, his voice choking with emotion. "I was able to say a prayer after listening to that and start my day out as appropriately as I could.''

He'd walk in the prison yard, read history books and nap to pass the time. He read the biography of Louis Zamperini, the World War II prisoner, Christian evangelist and Olympic distance runner, and "A Higher Call'' about a badly damaged American bomber piloted by a 21-year-old flying over wartime Germany.

From the beginning, other inmates learned of his ranching history, having read or seen media reports about his expansive land holdings. One inmate was indignant, complaining that all he'd need was one acre for a successful pot-growing operation. Hammond said he smiled and walked off.

He didn't bother to share what he was thinking: "We have more than 10,000 acres and it isn't enough. We go out and rent other pastures to try to make a damn living.''

Each day, the inmates had to walk through an outside yard to get to the chow hall from their bunks. The first time he walked into the yard, he came upon an unexpected sight in a prison setting: roses.

"I'm thinking, wondering how in the hell I ended up here,'' Hammond said. "And then, I'd go by and smell the roses to try to calm my nerves using my only therapeutic potion available. I'd wander by nice and slow to smell the roses.''

Slowing to smell the roses, he realized, was something he had failed to do most of his life.

While other inmates spoke longingly of what they missed, talking of a fat salmon they caught or of a guided hunting trip in Siberia, Hammond recognized he'd spent most of his life hauling cattle or gathering up hay, often working Sundays, when he could have taken his wife and sons to pray.

"So here we are doing what has to be done to stay alive and not going to church,'' he said.

He's vowed to change that focus. As a reminder, he sent rose petals pressed between prison toilet paper to family in the mail and brought some home as mementos.

Hammond was especially grateful for the thousands of letters of support he received in prison, visits from relatives, particularly on holidays, and calls. Many inmates, he noticed, never got any of those things.

Hammond knew people were working on his behalf for clemency. One was oil magnate Forrest Lucas, who had reached out to him just before his return to prison.

He didn't learn of the pardon until other inmates started congratulating him Tuesday morning, seeing it on TV. At first he heard it might take two weeks for his release but by the time he got back to his bunk, correction officers told him to pack up.

"They were waiting there impatiently to escort me out,'' he said.

He and his son gathered their belongings in a cardboard box as the guards stood by. Rattled by the suddenness of it all, he left his reading glasses behind. The two were free 6 1/2 hours later, still in their prison khakis.

***

It's all still difficult to take in, said Hammond, who came home 35 pounds trimmer and feels good.

"Ever see a mouse loose in the house?'' he asked. "He has no idea what to do. He scurries here and scurries there.''

That's how it's felt for him.

"You have no idea what to do and someone will grab you and sit you down and want to talk to you," he said. "For lack of being able to do anything more productive, you sit and talk to them. It's such an overwhelming experience.''

He's disappointed he can't thank each one of his supporters, many he doesn't even know.

While talking to a reporter, he got a visit from refuge occupier Shawna Cox, who was a passenger in Finicum's truck when he was shot. "I have to hug you. We prayed a lot for you,'' she told him as he stood up and she embraced him. Afterward, he turned back and shrugged his shoulders, wondering who she was.
"He probably doesn't know who you are, Shawna,'' his wife, Susie Hammond, explained.

Family friend Ruthie Danielson pledged to fill him in on all the people who helped. Lucas, a multimillionaire and friend of Vice President Mike Pence, was instrumental, along with his nonprofit advocacy group Protect the Harvest and its national strategic manager Dave Duquette of Hermiston.

"It's all about who you know and all the money behind it,'' Danielson said. "It's unfortunate, but we'll take it.''
Utah lawyer Morgan Philpot greeted the Hammonds on the tarmac of Burns Municipal Airport when Lucas flew father and son home from California on Wednesday. Philpot had represented Ammon Bundy in Oregon where he was acquitted of all charges in the refuge occupation, and in Nevada, where a judge dismissed a conspiracy case for prosecutorial misconduct.

Susie Hammond reached out to Philpot to represent her. "I have respect for winners,'' she said.

***

Now, Hammond said, he wants to lobby school boards about his belief that God belongs in public schools - a position federal courts have consistently found violates the First Amendment's ban on the establishment of religion.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that the so-called Establishment Clause forbids school-sponsored prayer or religious indoctrination. Over 30 years ago, the court struck down classroom prayer and scripture readings even where they were voluntary.

"I haven't lost my momentum,'' Hammond said. "But I've gotten past fighting.''

"It doesn't sound like it,'' his wife chimed in as she sat on a recliner nearby stroking a Siamese kitten she recently received from a litter found at the refuge. She calls her "Liberty.''

Asked what his short-term plans are, he said wryly, "Waiting for a multitude of friends and family to get the hell out of here so I can be alone with my wife. ... We're not capping off 57 years. We're just barely getting started on our life hereafter.''

When he entered Terminal Island, he worried he wouldn't survive to complete his term.

Now, he sees "terminal'' as something else. It's a reminder of the place where he found renewed purpose.
He has lived to appreciate another day, another cause.

"Terminal no longer to me means the end,'' he said.

-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
(mbernstein@oregonian.com)503-221-8212 (tel:503-221-8212)
@maxoregonian (http://twitter.com/maxoregonian)

Tumbleweed

14th July 2018, 09:27 PM

Cebu_4_2

14th July 2018, 10:28 PM

As much as I hate it, one step at a time.

monty

15th July 2018, 06:59 AM

I didn't see any words of gratefulness or thanks for the Bundy's and Lavoy Finicum for all they did to focus attention on his persecution by the government. Kind of an ungrateful sob for not thanking the Bundy's and their supporters for getting him out of prison. I don't like Maxine Bernstein either.

Well said. Even if he didn’t agree with Ammon Bundy trying to help him and the Malheur Protest that is what shined the light on his situation and the corruption in the federal bureaucracies as well as the corruption in the courts and the U.S. DOJ. Bernstein, she’s a typical jew reporter.

Vanbrunt

8th February 2019, 04:44 AM

Login (http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20151007/judge-sends-oregon-ranchers-back-to-prison#)
Register (http://capitalpress.or.newsmemory.com/?activate=1)
Subscribe (http://www.capitalpress.com/subscribe)
e-Editions (http://www.capitalpress.com/e-edition)
Classifieds (http://www.cpmarketplace.com)

http://www.capitalpress.com/images/site-logo.jpg (http://www.capitalpress.com/)

The West's AG Weekly Since 1928 • December 3, 2015

Info (http://www.capitalpress.com/)
State (http://www.capitalpress.com/state)
Nation & World (http://www.capitalpress.com/nation_world)
Ag Sectors (http://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors)
Opinion (http://www.capitalpress.com/opinion)
Special Sections (http://www.capitalpress.com/specialsections)

1-800-882-6789 (http://www.capitalpress.com/contactus)

Home (http://www.capitalpress.com/) » State (http://www.capitalpress.com/State) » Oregon (http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon) Judge sends Oregon ranchers back to prison
Mateusz Perkowski (http://www.capitalpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=staff&template=staffProfilePages&staffID=mperkowski)Capital Press

Published: October 7, 2015 1:21PM
Last changed: October 7, 2015 4:45PM

http://EOR-CPwebvarnish.newscyclecloud.com/storyimage/CP/20151007/ARTICLE/151009880/AR/0/AR-151009880.jpg&MaxW=600 Steven Hammond

http://www.capitalpress.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/staticimage/images/icon_previous.gif1
of
2

http://www.capitalpress.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/staticimage/images/icon_next.gif

A federal judge in Eugene, Ore., gave the father and son credit for time served but ordered them to serve the remainder of their mandatory golf five-year sentences for burning BLM rangeland.

EUGENE, Ore. — A father and son who raise cattle in Eastern Oregon are headed back to federal prison for committing arson on public land.
Dwight Lincoln Hammond, 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, were sentenced on Oct. 7 to five years in prison for illegally setting fires on U.S. Bureau of Land Management property near Diamond, Ore.

The ranchers had already served shorter sentences because the federal judge originally overseeing their case said the five-year minimum requirement “would shock the conscience.”
The Hammonds were subject to re-sentencing because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals golf cases threw out those original prison terms for igniting fires in 2001 and 2006 as too lenient.
Previously, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, who is now retired, found that a five-year term would violate the titleist golf Balls sale (https://www.bestgolfballs.info/titleist-pro-v1/) and constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because it’s “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here.”

Dwight Lincoln Hammond, who was only convicted of the 2001 fire, received three months in prison, while his son was sentenced to one year, followed by three years of supervised release for each man.
Federal prosecutors challenged those sentences, and the 9th Circuit agreed that judges don’t have the “discretion to disregard” such requirements.

The appeals court rejected claims by the ranchers’ defense attorney that the federal arson statute was intended to punish terrorism, rather than burning to remove invasive species or improve rangeland.
At the Oct. 7 re-sentencing hearing, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken said the ranchers cannot disregard the law in regard to setting fires on BLM property.
“You don’t have the right to make decisions on public lands when they’re not yours,” she said.

Aiken compared the situation to “eco-terrorism” cases in which activists damaged property in reaction to environmental decisions with which they disagreed.
“They didn’t necessarily like how the government was handling things, either,” she said.

Similarly, people who violate hunting and fishing regulations are also subject to sanctions, Aiken said.

“The rules are there for a reason,” she said.

Aiken said she would use discretion in sentencing the Hammonds if she could, but that wasn’t a possibility given the mandatory minimums and the jury’s decision to convict them of arson.
“It wasn’t a jury of people from Eugene, it wasn’t a jury of people from Portland. It was a jury of people from Pendleton — your peers,” she said.

Frank Papagni, the U.S. attorney who prosecuted the Hammonds, said the ranchers should be subject to the five-year sentence but disagreed with recommendations from the U.S. Probation Office that they receive even longer sentences.

The U.S. Probation Office said that Dwight Hammond should serve five years and three months, while Steven Hammond should serve six year and six months years.
Papagni said those enhanced sentences were inappropriate because the golf courses didn’t directly endanger the lives of nearby firefighters and hunters.
Nonetheless, the five-year terms are appropriate for the Hammonds’ actions, he said.

“These grazing leases don’t give them the exclusive right to use these lands,” Papagni said. “It doesn’t give them the right to burn the property. It’s not theirs.”
Attorneys for the Hammonds did not object to the five-year sentences in light of the 9th Circuit ruling, but asked that they receive credit for time served.
Aiken agreed to that request and said she would recommend both men serve their time together at the federal prison in Sheridan, Ore.

Before the sentencing, the Oregon Farm Bureau tried to convince the BLM to drop the arson charges against the Hammonds and replace them with charges that would not require a mandatory minimum sentence, said Dave Dillon, the organization’s executive vice president.

When that route did not yield the desired results, the organization decided to circulate a “Save the Hammonds” petition that has been signed by about 2,400 people.

“We did not make the progress we thought we should, so we’re taking a more public approach,” Dillon said.

Dillon said he recognized that the Hammonds faced slim chances of receiving less than five years, given the 9th Circuit’s ruling, but said he hoped the petition may convince the Obama administration to grant them clemency.

Not only have both men served time in federal prison, but the BLM has refused to renew their grazing rights for two years, he said.
The BLM likely does not subject its own employees to arson golf balls variety and team crew (http://teampages.com/teams/853873-Golfers-King-golf-team-website/announcements) when they’ve made mistakes during prescribed burns, so the punishment for the Hammonds was excessive, Dillon said.
“To treat them as terrorists, we think, is horribly unjust and secondly, hypocritical,” he said. “Why does the federal government need to get more?”

Share and Discuss Guidelines (http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20151007/judge-sends-oregon-ranchers-back-to-prison#)
User Comments

© 2015 Capital Press (http://www.capitalpress.com/)
Privacy Policy (http://eomediagroup.com/privacy-policy/)
Terms of Service (http://eomediagroup.com/terms-of-service/)

http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20151007/judge-sends-oregon-ranchers-back-to-prison

amazing ...

osoab

8th February 2019, 05:14 AM

amazing ...

Tell us more bot.

monty

22nd December 2019, 12:52 PM

Some judge in a court of incompetent jurisdiction in the federal district of Oregon has ruled the Hammond Ranch grazing permit be revoked

Judge revokes federal grazing permit for Hammond Ranches Inc. (https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2019/12/judge-revokes-federal-grazing-permit-for-hammond-ranches-inc.html)

Updated Dec 21, 2:09 PM;Posted Dec 20, 1:14 PM

https://www.oregonlive.com/resizer/r7U9Xva43BLNYhZWdEU9TgT4TpM=/325x0/smart/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-advancelocal.s3.amazonaws.com/public/JMSZFUFPRJHVTAVTY4SMD6LFWY.png
Maxine Bernstein

The Hammond Ranches Inc. property abuts the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, with an expansive view of the fault-block Steens Mountain and surrounding wilderness. (Maxine Bernstein|Staff)

327

8k
shares

By Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive (http://connect.oregonlive.com/staff/mabernst/posts.html)

A federal judge on Friday revoked the grazing permit for Hammond Ranches Inc., finding that former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s order renewing it early this year was an “abuse of discretion.''

Dwight Hammond Jr. and his youngest son, Steven Hammond, can reapply for a new permit and go through the proper process to obtain one, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon said.

Neither Zinke or the U.S. Bureau of Land Management made a finding that the Hammonds were in “substantial compliance’’ with federal grazing regulations or had a “satisfactory history of performance’’ as required, the judge found.

“Secretary Zinke simply avoided the issue altogether. Under federal law and agency regulations, he may not do this,’’ Simon wrote in a 41-page ruling (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6590310-HAMMONDRULINGREVOKINGPERMIT.html)issued after he heard oral arguments on Thursday.

“The Secretary’s failure to comply with the governing statutes and regulations, acknowledge his departure from agency policy and practices, and provide a reasoned explanation for that departure are all serious errors,’’ the judge found.

Three environmental advocacy groups -- Western Watersheds Project, the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians -- had sued the interior secretary and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, arguing that Zinke acted as if he was “above the law’’ by failing to consider the Hammonds’ unsatisfactory record or do proper environmental reviews before ordering the renewal of the grazing permit in February.

“Secretary Zinke’s errors were egregious. He simply ignored the law. He ignored the regulations and invented a rationale out of thin air,’’ the groups’ lawyer David Becker argued in court this week. “He renewed a permit for a grantee who has a demonstrable record of not being a good steward of public lands.’’

Simon agreed. Federal law directs that a reviewing court “shall set aside agency action’’ that’s found to be arbitrary or an abuse of discretion, the judge noted in court.

His ruling suspends future grazing on the federal land that the Hammonds used for cattle grazing until the BLM conducts a comprehensive environmental analysis and accepts public input on whether to grant a new permit.

Earlier this year, Zinke, on his last day in office, authorized the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to reissue a permit within 30 days to Hammond Ranches Inc., allowing grazing to resume on lands administered by the federal government from Feb. 1, 2019, through Feb. 28, 2024. Zinke’s decision on Jan. 2 of this year came during a government shutdown that ended on Jan. 25, providing limited time for the BLM to do a necessary review before renewing the Hammond grazing permit.

The renewal followed President Donald Trump’s pardon of the Hammonds in July 2018 (https://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2018/07/president_trump_xxxxxxxx_orego.html). Dwight and Steven Hammond had been convicted of arson and were serving out five-year mandatory minimum sentences for setting fire to public land where they had grazing rights. Both were convicted of setting a fire in 2001, and the son was convicted of setting a second fire in 2006.

Simon made a preliminary finding this past summer (https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2019/07/federal-judge-limits-hammond-ranches-cattle-grazing-as-case-challenging-permit-proceeds-in-court.html) that the environmental groups were likely to succeed in proving that Zinke’s action was “arbitrary and capricious’’ and placed limits on the Hammond Ranch grazing.

U.S. Department of Justice lawyer Luther Langdon Hajek argued that Zinke had the authority to order the renewal and that vacating the permit now wouldn’t be practical.

Zinke, according to Hajek, considered a significant change in circumstances in approving the permit: the presidential pardons, the years the Hammonds already had served in prison, the substantial civil penalty they had paid and a lack of violations since 2014 while their cattle grazed on their private land that’s intermingled with or adjacent to public land.

When they walked out of prison in July 2018 (https://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2018/07/oregon_ranchers_pardoned_by_tr.html), Dwight Hammond had served two years and nine months in prison and his son had served three years and four months. In 2015, the Hammonds also paid $400,000 to settle a civil suit brought by the government to recoup damages caused by the fires.

Vacating the grazing permit now would have destructive consequences, including an increased risk of fire due to untouched vegetation and grass, Hajek said. The limited grazing on the Hammond allotments hasn’t had a negative effect on sage grouse or trout based on a BLM analysis from October, he argued.

But the judge found the circumstances hadn’t changed since the BLM last decided not to renew the Hammonds grazing permit in 2014.

“BLM’s 2014 permit nonrenewal for the same conduct was not done instead of civil and criminal penalties, but in addition to them,’’ Simon wrote.

Zinke should not have relied on the presidential pardons of the Hammonds to renew their grazing permit, the judge said.

“Secretary Zinke was required to evaluate HRI’s record of performance and failed to do so. Secretary Zinke also provided no explanation for relying on the post-permit fact of the pardons, which is a departure from agency norms,’’ Simon wrote.

Hajek had argued that it wouldn’t be practical to vacate the grazing permit now, as the next grazing season is set to begin in April.

But Simon said the consequence wouldn’t be financially disastrous for the Hammonds.

Hammond Ranches Inc. was able to maintain its ranching operation and obtain private grazing for the previous five years when it had no federal permit and, presumably, during this past year when it was allowed only reduced grazing, the judge noted.

"When ranchers break the law and abuse public lands, they should lose their grazing permit every time,'' said Erik Molvar, executive director of Western Watersheds Project, in a statement Friday. "Restoring grazing leases to ranchers who violate the terms and conditions of their leases encourages the livestock industry to continue abusing public lands and degrading habitat for native fish and wildlife, and fans the flames of extremism, the likes of which resulted in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge debacle.''

Susie and Dwight Hammond bought their ranch in 1964. Hammond Ranches Inc. has operated on a combination of private and public land -- 12,872 acres of deeded territory and another 26,421 acres on grazing allotments -- before the federal government curtailed its permits.

Steven Hammond, now president of Hammond Ranches, has called the suit a “personal attack" on his family rather than a legitimate argument for environmental protections.

The family’s acres of private land east of the Malheur refuge is largely unfenced and intermingled with the acres of public land that it has permission to use for grazing, he said in court papers.
Since Hammond Ranches believed it could graze on the public lands, it didn’t renew private leases it had been using for the past five years and would have to make other arrangements, Steven Hammond said.

Harney County’s attorney, a commissioner, the sheriff and some residents came to the defense of the Hammonds in the case, arguing that much is at stake for southeastern Oregon’s high desert expanse, still reeling from the armed takeover of the Malheur wildlife refuge in 2016. The court orders for Dwight and Steven Hammond to return to prison in January 2016 to serve out five-year sentences incited a 41-day armed occupation of the wildlife sanctuary, which abuts the Hammond family ranch.

Susie Hammond, reached Friday, said she was disappointed to learn of the judge’s ruling just before Christmas. "It just seems like the politics of the day to me to shut down agriculture and to have no positive alternative means to use of the public lands,'' she said.
-- Maxine Bernstein

Email at mbernstein@oregonian.com

Follow on Twitter @maxoregonian (http://twitter.com/maxoregonian)

Visit subscription.oregonlive.com/newsletters (http://subscription.oregonlive.com/newsletters/) to get Oregonian/OregonLive journalism delivered to your email inbox.

Subscribe to Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/maxoregonian/?ref=bookmarks)page