FBI agent indicted for false statements and obstruction in Oregon standoff case

[OmCheeto]

I'm wary of bureaucrats. They like to expand their power via creeping infringement. As Parkinson said, "Bureaucrats want subordinates not peers."

To my knowledge, nobody likes bureaucrats.

One of my favorite stories, whether true or not, strikes me as anecdotally true, as far as human nature goes:

My Dad Worked at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and He Knows What Happens When Ranchers Get Their Way

My first experience with cattle grazing on the refuge lands was in the south part of the refuge near Frenchglen. Several fields between the west side canal and the Donner und Blitzen River were being used for grazing. There were lots of cattle there. I think these cattle were from one of the larger ranches in the area, can’t say which one, but Roaring Springs Ranch comes to mind. The cattle had pretty much eaten just about all available vegetation there. These fields were merely mud and cow dang. It was ugly. We were not able to survey these fields for prehistoric sites until a few years later when the fields were not used for grazing.

As my dad recalls, this poor stewardship of the land was what drove the government to limit grazing and buy up ranches:

bolding mine

Sounds like a reasonable story to me.

 

[jim hardy]

from OM's immediately prior post :

As my dad recalls, this poor stewardship of the land was what drove the government to limit grazing and buy up ranches:

A park should be a good neighbor
and anyone lucky enough to live adjacent one should do likewise .

 

[nsaspook]

Ranching is messy (something I know from personal experience as a kid) at any scale but in a few years after the cows have been moved the mud and cow **** fields will be some of the best grass land in the area. With proper land management you rotate cattle fields, tight restrictions on grazing rights have made the problem worse on the limited lands that can be grazed when combined with the western drought. I think a large part of the current problems can be traced to the lack of water for years in the west. This year looks a lot better so hopefully it will take some of the pressure off.

http://www.nuggetnews.com/main.asp?SectionID=8&SubSectionID=8&ArticleID=23503

 

[mheslep]

i like the idea of parks

Im sure everyone does, within reason.

 

[mheslep]

To my knowledge, nobody likes bureaucrats.

The SEIU likey very much.

 

[OmCheeto]

https://www.nccs.net/2002-07-the-u-s-constitution-and-federal-lands.php
"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the 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, dockyards, and other needful buildings" (Art I, Sect. 8, Clause 17)

I don't speak "lawyer", so I can't say for sure what the above is saying in regards to land ownership. Just change a word, and I'm sure the lawyers will say the feds can own everything...

hmmmm... browsing the constitution, this is almost like picking and choosing random verses out of a religious text, to make ones point:

United States Constitution, literal print [gpo.gov]
Section 8
...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the 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;
...

bolding mine

As far as I know, Obama specialized in constitutional law. Perhaps I should send him a reminder e-mail, regarding "disciplining the Militia". ps. That looks like one very whackadoodle source (www.nccs.net) you came up with there:

The National Center for Constitutional Studies (NCCS) is a conservative, religious-themed constitutionalist organization, founded by Latter-Day Saint political writer W. Cleon Skousen. It was formerly known as The Freemen Institute.
According to the NCCS, the founding of the United States was a divine miracle. As such, the NCCS worldview and program are based on two major pillars: (1) understanding the divine guidance that has allowed the United States to thrive and (2) rejecting the sometimes tyrannical and/or sinful deviations of the modern U.S. federal government from that divine mold.

wow. just, wow.

 

[OmCheeto]

Well, there's one down:

Takeover update: Crescent man held in theft of 2 refuge vehicles [ktvz.com Central Oregon's News Leader]
Oregon State Police troopers arrested Kenneth Medenbach, 62, shortly after noon at the Safeway in Burns...

Safeway is regional grocery chain.

Crescent is about 200 miles from the standoff.
The perp, Kenneth Medenbach, REALLY hates the BLM.
His Facebook page seems to have been almost completely devoted to it, since its inception.

From the above KTVZ article:

...
Back in 1995, the Bureau of Land Management told Medenbach he had to leave his makeshift cabin on federal land in northern Klamath County that he claimed to own.
"I feel the Lord's telling me to possesses the land, and I can legally do it, because the U.S. Constitution says the government does not own the land," said Medenbach
...

As I mentioned, I don't know squat about the law, but was curious what this fellow is potentially looking at:

Consequences Of Stealing Government Property (18 U.S.C. Section 641)
[Wallin & Klarich, A Law Corp, Criminal Defense Attorneys, (877)4-NO-JAIL]
...
Stolen or converted government property amounting to more than $1,000 can be prosecuted as a felony and upon conviction is subject to up to 10 years in prison, a maximum $250,000 fine, or both. ...
Other Consequences of a Government Theft Conviction ...
Loss of your right to possess, own or purchase a gun, if you are convicted of a felony ...

 

[lisab]

Poor way to start a discussion, to label the actors in the story as crazy in the first sentence.

To take over a publicly owned place using weapons? Uninvited and becoming more uninvited every day? Pretty much fits my notion of crazy.

I can just speculate how the course of events would have been different if these Patriots just happened to be well-armed Muslim Americans instead of a bunch of well-armed old white dudes.

 

[russ_watters]

Poor way to start a discussion, to label the actors in the story as crazy in the first sentence.

Agreed - I'd heard about the incident before reading the OP, so I would have gone with something stronger. "Terrorists", for a start...while trying to avoid the potential for a philosophical discussion about whether terrorists are all, more or less, by definition, "crazy".

I'd start with the fact that the federal government somehow owns over a quarter of the land in this enormous country with a federal system, going as high as 85% in Nevada, so that the federal government may own half of all the land west of the Rockies. In a more or less one government country like, say, Russia, such would be unsurprising, but the United States ostensibly has a federal system, where the states and federal government are independently sovereign in matters of, for example, the police power resides which resides with the states. That balance can't exist in reality when the federal government owns an overwhelming share of the land.

I'm really not following that even a little bit. What does any of that have to do with anything and why do you judge it the way you do?

This isn't the northeast we're discussing, where most of the territory was settled prior to the creation of the federal government. As far as I can tell, most of this land was bought by the federal government in the Louisiana Purchase and I would imagine hasn't changed hands since...for the basic reason, that who would want to buy it? - it's mostly desert. Maybe these guys would like to buy it...or, maybe they'd prefer using it for free?

Either way, the US is supposed to be a civilized country. Civilized citizens of civilized counties do no express their grievances via terrorism.

 

[Astronuc]

This isn't the northeast we're discussing, where most of the territory was settled prior to acquisition by the federal government. As far as I can tell, most of this land was bought in the Louisiana Purchase and I would imagine hasn't changed hands since...for the basic reason, that who would want to buy it - it's mostly desert. Maybe these guys would like to buy it...or, maybe they'd prefer using it for free?

The Louisiana Purchase was mostly the Mississippi River Valley, which was mostly prairie grassland.

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/louisiana-purchase
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/UnitedStatesExpansion.png
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/louisiana-purchase
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Louisiana.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Territory
http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/borders/essay3.html
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/oregon-territory

Originally Spain, Great Britain, Russia, and the United States claimed the territory. In 1819, under terms of the Transcontinental Treaty, Spain ceded its claims to the territory to the United States. Shortly thereafter the United States contested a unilateral Russian move to grant its citizens a fishing, whaling, and commercial monopoly from the Bering Straits to the 51st parallel.

It was the US government, which negotiated treaties, on behalf of the public. Ergo, it is the US government, which controls the land, not the residents of the territories.

One has to look at what was part of Mexico, which was at one point, Spanish territory, and so on.

The desert part is the region between the coastal range, e.g., Sierra Nevada/Cascades, and the Rocky Mountains.

With the exception of Southern California, south of Monterrey, the Pacific coast is temperate rainforest. Inland, east of the coastal ranges, the climate is drier.

When the US was developing in the early 1800s, not much was known about the west. Most of the civilization was along the eastern seaboard, and there were limited communities along the Pacific Coast. Development in the west didn't take off until gold was discovered in California in 1849. Most of the west was 'Indian' territory.

One has to look at not only the Constitution (and amendments), but the US Code (Public Law) and Code of Federal Regulations, which many folks do not know much about, particularly the folks like Ammon Bundy and his supporters.

Crazy applies to those who take up arms and attempt to usurp legal authority. Protesting is fine, but there are appropriate ways to protest against a perceived or actual injustice, and the armed protesters trespassing on federal lands are acting inappropriately, as well as illegally, including harassment of local law enforcement and judicial officials.

If folks object to how government works, let them work through the system and get themselves elected to public office.

 

[russ_watters]

The Louisiana Purchase was mostly the Mississippi River Valley...

Fair enough - it's been a while. Googling, it looks like the area we're discussing is mostly in the Utah Territory, which was acquired by the federal government from Mexico and the Oregon Territory, taken from the British. The identities don't change my basic point: when sparsely populated lands were acquired by the US from another country 150+ years ago, the federal government owned much of the land -- and still does today. I see nothing inherently untoward about that.

 

[Astronuc]

One has to look at the history behind the map. Mexico (Spain) controlled much of the red territory in the southern part of the map. Russia controlled from northern California up though Alaska.

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

German immigrant, Johann August Sutter (aka John Sutter) bought land from Mexico and Russia. He controlled considerable land, until gold was discovered at 'Sutter's Mill'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sutter

The US government retained mineral rights in the US because of the vast mineral wealth. Back east (east of the Mississippi River), most property is sold with mineral rights. Folks need to learn about 'fee simple absolute'.

 

[Astronuc]

when sparsely populated lands were acquired by the US from another country 150+ years ago, the federal government owned much of the land -- and still does today.

Actually, it's more complicated than that. The federal government owns much of the land, but also sold or granted land, but withheld the mineral rights.

The railroads and some land grant universities were granted land with all rights in order to promote development of the west. At one point, the Southern Pacific Railroad was the largest private real estate owner in California. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railroad was another significant land (and mineral) owner. The Northern Pacific and Great Northern railroads has significant real estate ownership in Washington and Oregon, and that real estate went into the Burlington Northern. The BN and ATSF subsequently merged, and the resulting corporation is now part of Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffet).

One has to look at the treaties, public law (US Code) and corporate histories (over the past 200 years) to understand the current situation regarding land ownership.

About 20 years ago, I was interested in starting a short line railroad. I quickly discovered the morass of local and state legal legacy. It lead me to the state archives and the various contracts and mergers and acquisitions involving railroads (going back to the 1800s). Contract law is interesting, but if one is interested, one should delve into the contracts and M&A involving the railroads in the eastern US. They certainly knew how to write contracts back then.

With respect to the states, one needs to review the act by which each state entered the US. That is where the disposition of the land (and mineral rights) was decided. The relevant acts should be in the Library of Congress and the particular State Archives of each state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsllink.html

 

[jim hardy]

It was the US government, which negotiated treaties, on behalf of the public. Ergo, it is the US government, which controls the land, not the residents of the territories.

With respect to the states, one needs to review the act by which each state entered the US. That is where the disposition of the land (and mineral rights) was decided. The relevant acts should be in the Library of Congress and the particular State Archives of each state.

there's the link that's been missing.

Some folks argue when a territory becomes a state it becomes sovereign and assumes that control , thus if Oregon wants to let ranchers overgraze public lands that's Oregon's decision. Pastureland is not forts arsenals or dock-yards, ie not defense related.
What's the purpose of granting statehood if it doesn't convey sovereignty?

ps. That looks like one very whackadoodle source (www.nccs.net) you came up with there:

that doesn't change the text of Art I, Sect. 8, Clause 17 though,
from a less wackadoodle source https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-105sdoc11/pdf/CDOC-105sdoc11.pdf

Are these guys suitably un- whackadoodle ?
http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-i-section-8

Since the turn of the 20th century, federal legislation has dealt with many matters that had previously been managed by the states. In passing these laws, Congress often relies on power granted by the commerce clause, which allows Congress to regulate business activities "among the states."

The commerce clause gives Congress broad power to regulate many aspects of our economy and to pass environmental or consumer protections because so much of business today, either in manufacturing or distribution, crosses state lines. But the commerce clause powers are not unlimited.

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has expressed greater concern for states’ rights. It has issued a series of rulings that limit the power of Congress to pass legislation under the commerce clause or other powers contained in Article I, Section 8. For example, these rulings have found unconstitutional federal laws aimed at protecting battered women or protecting schools from gun violence on the grounds that these types of police matters are properly managed by the states._{bold mine}

I don't live out there. Does Oregon do a decent job of managing grazing lands ? Or do they leave that to BLM ? Seems to me it ought to be Oregon's call how many cows per acre he can run on public land in Oregon.

If as reported BLM put a fence around a watering hole the rancher leased from the state for his cows,
well,,,
he has a legitimate beef .

 

[mheslep]

"Terrorists", for a start..

Hardly. Terrorists set out to harm and kill so that they can terrorize. They don't camp out and hold press conferences. Maybe these guys belong in jail. But they've not acted as terrorists. More to come ...

 

[mheslep]

I can just speculate how the course of events would have been different if these Patriots just happened to be well-armed Muslim Americans instead of a bunch of well-armed old white dudes.

I don't know that it is relevant, but I can speculate too. If they were affiliated with ISIL as in San Bernardino, we'd all expect a great deal of wanton killing instead of press conferences.

 

[Astronuc]

Police say man arrested in vehicle stolen from refuge
http://news.yahoo.com/eastern-oregon-standoff-goes-residents-aim-calm-172105752.html

What's the purpose of granting statehood if it doesn't convey sovereignty?

States have limited sovereignty (basically within their borders), which is subordinate to the US federal) government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenther_movement

Federalism, State Sovereignty, and the Constitution: Basis and Limits of Congressional Power
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30315.pdf

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

See also Article IV, particularly Section 3.Some good discussion herein - https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-9-7.pdf

 

[p1l0t]

Whether it's maritime law, the treatises of outer space, or plain old personal property the truth is you can only own what you can defend. Laws are for subordinates.

 

[Astronuc]

The longer the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is occupied, the more attention the group's complaints get. How will this end?
http://news.yahoo.com/does-victory-look-armed-oregon-refuge-occupiers-175656530.html

“Many who criticized [the] takeover have begun to voice support, even admiration, for the amount of attention the occupation has brought to the underlying grievances,” Carli Brosseau wrote this week in an expose in the Oregonian of how the occupation took shape.

To be sure, many Americans still want the government to round up the occupiers and reestablish federal control. Mollycoddling armed white militiamen, they say, only encourages extremism.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Hardly. Terrorists set out to harm and kill so that they can terrorize. They don't camp out and hold press conferences. Maybe these guys belong in jail. But they've not acted as terrorists. More to come ...

Not "maybe these guys belong in jail". These people definitely belong in jail -- these thugs came in armed and took over a federal building (i.e. occupied, seized control, invaded, etc. a federal building), and pointed their guns at police. I would say beyond a shadow of a doubt that they committed a criminal act and belong in jail. In fact, instead of allowing these buffoons to hold press conferences, why not cut these off and wait until these people surrender to the authorities? And if that doesn't work, try to capture these people by force and arrest them?

And yes, I agree with russ on this, these people are terrorists. The FBI definition of terrorism is as follows: "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

Let's see. These thugs definitely unlawfully used force against property (i.e. federal building) to coerce a government (i.e. US federal government) in furtherance of social/political objectives (according to the words of the ringleader themselves, to "restore their land and resources back to the people"). Sounds like it meets the FBI definition of terrorism.

So yes, we are dealing with terrorists here.

 

[jim hardy]

great article, Astro - thanks !

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30315.pdf

In sum, the Court in Garcia seems to have said that most disputes over the effects on state sovereignty of federal commerce power legislation are to be considered political questions, and that the states should look for relief from federal regulation through the political process. ¹¹⁷
This appeared to have ended the Court’s attempt to substantively limit federal government regulation of the states .

See also Article IV, particularly Section 3.

well now ...

Section. 3.
.......
...

... The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

looking at that little map...
Western states should have held out for a better deal before they signed on .

 

[Astronuc]

If Bundy's group or any other group believes that Federal lands should be handed over to 'local control', then they can petition the government or their elected representatives to enact legislation, and act, that would establish the transfer of land and subsequent ownership, or perhaps some framework in which the land is retained by the federal government, or state, and stewardship of the land is granted to interested parties.

I think though that Bundy's group and similar groups are more interested in personal gains at the expense of the rest of the population, i.e., they are motivated by greed and selfishness.

 

[jim hardy]

If Bundy's group or any other group believes that Federal lands should be handed over to 'local control', then they can petition the government or their elected representatives to enact legislation, and act, that would establish the transfer of land and subsequent ownership, or perhaps some framework in which the land is retained by the federal government, or state, and stewardship of the land is granted to interested parties.

People who happen to live in a place that some government bureaucracy covets need protection. That story i related back in post 16 about Florida confiscating property surrounding Pennekamp Park is absolutely true.

I share Hamlet's disdain for "Insolence of office" .
There could be something to the ranchers' complaints - don't dismiss them as whackadoodles just yet.

 

[Astronuc]

There could be something to the ranchers' complaints

I certainly expect there are issues in the various states regarding the management of federal lands. I however, disagree with the course of Ammon Bundy and his group. I think the local ranchers can from a group and protest to their congressional representatives, and if the ranchers feel ignored, then they can make a case to their neighbors and folks in the local communities. There is an appropriate political process.

Edit: From the US Constitution -
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Let Bundy and his group assemble peaceably, without arms, and petition the government regarding their grievances. However, the group doesn't seem to be willing to follow that process.

 

[nsaspook]

So yes, we are dealing with terrorists here.

Let's be real. The threat of an isolated group 30 miles from the nearest small city on frozen ground in a closed for the winter visitors center on the high desert puts those 'terrorist' in about the worst tactical position imaginable. This a more like a 'death by cop' with the FBI doing everything it can to stop them from putting the guns to their own heads and pulling the trigger.

 

[mheslep]

Regard's domestic terrorism, 18 US 2331:

...
(A)
involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)
to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)
to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)
to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and...

To graduate from simple felony, (A) and (B)(i) and B(ii or iii) must apply. In my opinion, the above well applies to the actions of, say, the Occupy http://www.kptv.com/story/15947182/police-protester-shoved-sergeant-into-moving-busof http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_19325025. The Maheur Refuge occupation group has violated the law (A), trespass at least. Whether or not they belong in jail for that crime or not is up to a judge, not you. So far, there is no (B)(i) or (B)(iii). There is no coercion of the civilian population, as there is no civilian population in the refuge. I see no coercion of government. No firearms have been "pointed out the police". There is no act of mass destruction, etc.

 

[Astronuc]

An unknown number of armed individuals have broken into and occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge facility near Burns, Oregon. While the situation is ongoing, the main concern is employee and public safety; we can confirm that no federal staff were in the building at the time of the initial incident. We will continue to monitor the situation for additional developments.

http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Malheur/Alert/Closure.html

The occupation started on Saturday, Jan 2, 2016, so staff we likely home during the weekend. I presume for their safety, they did not return. So the armed occupation is preventing federal employees from performing their duties. The sheriff asked the group to leave, and apparently the group has declined.

http://news.yahoo.com/4-000-artifacts-stored-oregon-refuge-held-armed-061523370.html
Carla Burnside, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's refuge archeologist has an office in one of the occupied buildings. "She's since seen pictures of the occupiers in her office, . . . ."

I wonder when the occupiers will turn themselves in peacefully.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...dlife-refuge-known-for-listening-to-ranchers/

Grievances of outside protesters don’t seem to fit Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, where local Oregon ranchers and federal managers spent years working out their differences and arriving at a collaborative “adaptive management” plan.

Well, that would seem to discredit the armed occupiers.

There are about 16,000 American ranchers who graze animals on BLM lands. Only 458 of them have not paid their grazing fees for use of that land. Even among those delinquents, the vast majority are two months or less past due on their fees, which are $1.69 per animal per month. Scofflaws like Cliven Bundy, who has racked up a debt of over $1 million to taxpayers from unpaid grazing fees and subsequent trespassing fines, are extremely rare.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/03/3735647/malheur-lake-oregon-militia-explainer/

From the Seattle Times article: "Fred Otley, a fourth-generation rancher whose 93-year-old mother, Mary Otley, is still agile enough to run the swather that cuts grasses in refuge fields," has cattle grazing on the refuge.

Over the years, Fred Otley has had plenty of conflicts with federal land managers. But the current refuge leadership appears to have earned his respect, even as some disagreements still persist about management of federal lands that provide his cattle vital fall and winter feed.

Sounds like the refuge staff work well with local ranchers.

The refuge provides for migratory birds.
http://www.fws.gov/refuge/malheur/aboutSetting_Aside.html

 

[OmCheeto]

I certainly expect there are issues in the various states regarding the management of federal lands. I however, disagree with the course of Ammon Bundy and his group. I think the local ranchers can from a group and protest to their congressional representatives, and if the ranchers feel ignored, then they can make a case to their neighbors and folks in the local communities. There is an appropriate political process.

Regarding the Hammonds:

Judge sends Oregon ranchers back to prison
7 Oct 2015
...
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.
...

In all honesty, I was scratching my head as to why the Hammonds were going back to prison, when I first heard the story. I probably would have signed the petition myself.
But once the "Bundys & Friends" group showed up, well, it was kind of a Pandora's Box affair, as I learned a bit too much, and understood why the Hammonds put up almost no fight when asked to go back to jail.

They allegedly handed a box of matches to a teenaged relative and told him to light the last fire. [ref]
Less likely to convict a teen of an adult crime.
And it would be his 1st conviction, if they did.

I don't live out there.

Oregon is a big state. Most here would say it's actually big enough to be two states.
So I don't really live out there either.

Does Oregon do a decent job of managing grazing lands ? Or do they leave that to BLM ?

Not a clue.

Seems to me it ought to be Oregon's call how many cows per acre he can run on public land in Oregon.

Not if we can pawn the job off on the Feds. I would imagine if we didn't like the way the Feds were running things, we'd make a stink about it.

If as reported BLM put a fence around a watering hole the rancher leased from the state for his cows,
well,,,
he has a legitimate beef .

You're just adding to the crap I'm finding in this Pandora's box...

Federal agents arrest rancher in water dispute
10 August 1994

'An ongoing battle'
According to one version of the
story, a 25-ton earthmover owned by
the Hammonds was parked across
the path of the fence. Susan Ham-
mond denied that her husband had
parked it there to halt more fence-
building.

A 25 ton earthmover? What on Earth were these ranchers doing with a 25 ton earthmover?
hmmmm... A D8 Cat weighs 40 tons.
So I guess it's just a big tractor.
Never mind.

----------
D8 Cat: Largest piece of machinery Om has ever sat upon. His dad worked for a faraway gold mining company, when he was 16. His Oregon based mother was sick of him, so she bought him a one way ticket to Alaska, to be with his dad. His dad bought him a one way ticket back to Oregon, at the end of the summer.
True story.

[edited per OCR correction. D8 Cats weigh 40, and not 6 tons. ps. My D8 Cat personal story was simply an example of people wanting annoying people to go away. This is about the only thing just about everyone here in Oregon is in agreement on.]

 

[OCR]

Another source...read if you want, nothing really much different, or new...

http://wildfiretoday.com/2016/01/05/the-timeline-for-the-oregon-rancher-arsonists/

 

[mheslep]

... I think the local ranchers can from a group and protest to their congressional representatives, and if the ranchers feel ignored, then they can make a case to their neighbors and folks in the local communities. There is an appropriate political process...

Why would you think petition has not already been made, for years?

Congressman Walden, representative for the Hammonds, now serving 5 years.

 

[jim hardy]

You're just adding to the crap I'm finding in this Pandora's box...

that sounds almost contumely

(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 the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive toward the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found 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). Dwight spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland. He was then 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.
{_{I'd have used my dozer, too jh} }

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...uge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

sure it's a conservative reporter
you got to read 'em all and decide what's the likely truth.

and something ain't right about the prosecutor.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/03/unwanted_texts_and_attention_b.html

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/...ttorney_amanda_mars.html#incart_story_package

it's a pandoras box allright

 

[StatGuy2000]

Let's be real. The threat of an isolated group 30 miles from the nearest small city on frozen ground in a closed for the winter visitors center on the high desert puts those 'terrorist' in about the worst tactical position imaginable. This a more like a 'death by cop' with the FBI doing everything it can to stop them from putting the guns to their own heads and pulling the trigger.

Just because these weren't very bright in terms of tactical position doesn't mean that the definition of terrorism doesn't apply. The definition of terrorism, as defined by the FBI, doesn't rely on tactical brilliance or the maximum # of casualties.

I don't disagree with you though that the FBI is acting with restraint in ensuring they do everything they can to stop them from putting the guns to their own heads and pulling the trigger. I wish that law enforcement in the US do this more often -- much of the news I've been hearing and reading about suggests that law enforcement in the US do not apply such restraint often enough (although to be fair, this applies to local police departments and not to the FBI).

 

[jim hardy]

(although to be fair, this applies to local police departments and not to the FBI).

FBI learned a hard lesson at WACO .

Billy Budd was on TCM last night... power without judgement is indistinguishable from evil.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Regard's domestic terrorism, 18 US 2331:To graduate from simple felony, (A) and (B)(i) and B(ii or iii) must apply. In my opinion, the above well applies to the actions of, say, the Occupy http://www.kptv.com/story/15947182/police-protester-shoved-sergeant-into-moving-busof http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_19325025. The Maheur Refuge occupation group has violated the law (A), trespass at least. Whether or not they belong in jail for that crime or not is up to a judge, not you. So far, there is no (B)(i) or (B)(iii). There is no coercion of the civilian population, as there is no civilian population in the refuge. I see no coercion of government. No firearms have been "pointed out the police". There is no act of mass destruction, etc.

I disagree with your assessment of the Occupy movement of 2011-2012 (at least for the majority of the Occupy protesters) since law (A) was not broken (the Occupy protesters did not engage in acts dangerous to human lives).

As far as law (B), yes there has been no (B)(i) or (B)(iii) (at least so far as we know). As for (B)(ii) I would think taking control of a government building and refusing to give up such control without meeting their demands is a form of coercion of government, so (B)(ii) clearly applies. Therefore, the conditions required to meet charges of terrorism stands.

Of course, whether the acts constitute a crime is up for the prosecutors and a judge to decide. But if what these thugs did doesn't constitute a crime, then I don't know what does.

 

[russ_watters]

Hardly. Terrorists set out to harm and kill so that they can terrorize.

The typical definition says "violence or the threat of violence". Until the siege is over, we don't know how far these guys are willing to go. Incidents like this have turned into bloodbaths in the past.

Regard's domestic terrorism, 18 US 2331:

Right, so clearly this fits, right?

I see no coercion of government. No firearms have been "pointed out the police".

They did explicitly verbally threaten the police/government based on those guns.

..the actions of, say, the Occupy http://www.kptv.com/story/15947182/police-protester-shoved-sergeant-into-moving-busof http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_19325025.

The obvious difference is the guns.In any case, you didn't really answer my query. I'll try to be more plain/succinct: are you saying you consider these actions a legitimate form of protest?