Remember the Bundy Family in Nevada? Listen to the Hammond Family tale

[Artful]

https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/hammond-family-update/


Hammond Family UpdateToday is the day we need you to act.
Many have been working with David Ward – Harney County Sheriff, in an effort to influence him to stand and protect the Hammonds. He is checking all the facts and will make a decision soon.
Federal agents, which reportedly flow through his office, are also influencing the Sheriff.
We ask that anyone who may care about whether the Hammond’s go to prison, contact the Sheriff and express to him that it is not acceptable that he allows good people to suffer at the hands of our government.
It has been a great pleasure to get to know the Hammonds. They are wonderful people.
If all people were like the Hammonds, the world would be a very peaceful, productive and happy place to live.
It will be a great injustice if the Hammonds are punished further because of these false accusations. They have already suffered much.

The injustices the Hammonds are suffering will be a type and shadow of the suffering the American people will endure if we do not stand and put an end to it.
It is time to act.
Contact Sheriff Ward as soon as possible and then be prepared to gather in Burns, Oregon if necessary.
If e-mail or fax is your choice to contact, please use “Hammond” in the subject line.
David M. Ward, Sheriff
485 N Court Avenue #6
Burns, Oregon 97720-1524
Phone: 541-573-6156
FAX: 541-573-8383
Email: dave.ward@co.harney.or.us
http://www.co.harney.or.us/sheriff.html
LINKS TO THE FACTS-
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
PLEASE: Forward this message to anyone who will help the Hammonds.


to sum up ...

The claim that the Hammonds have done several 'misdeeds' is reported by the VERY GOVERNMENT AGENCY that is continuing to punish these people for running their ranch.

This same agency has forced the Hammonds to pay $400K in statutory fines to FINANCE THEIR OWN PROSECUTION...

AND has filed as the entity with first right of refusal if (when) the Hammonds have to sell the ranch to pay the fines. Get it?

They're bankrupting these people to get the ranch.

I'll make it quick:

1) they bought their own ranch in 1964

2) they bought/obtained water rights - proven in court State of
Oregon

3) the BLM built fences to keep their cattle from using their OWN water

4) the BLM had the local sheriff arrest Hammonds for taking down the fence

5) the Federal judge released them, and there was no hearing set in the future

6) the BLM gated or closed county public roads to keep the Hammonds from using their own ranch (private property - not grazing rights)

7) Hammonds proved in court that the roads weren't Federal, but were, in fact, county roads, and couldn't be closed by the BLM

8) Hammonds burned their own property, and accidentally burned 127 Federal acres. They put it out themselves, and no contact was made by BLM, and no agency personnel were called out

9) Hammonds set a back fire to keep their ranch house and ranch grass from being burned by lightning strike fires. Worked so perfectly well, that it put out the wildfire, and saved the ranch and the winter grass for the cattle

10) Hammonds were arrested and charged under the Terrorism act

11) BLM insinuated that the Hammonds started the lightning strike fires. Ha. Came to the house looking for tire and/or boot print to match a partial print found out in the (roughly) millions of acres out there. Didn't find a match.

Now they are being sentenced to Federal Prison !
http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/hammond-family-declared-as-terrorist.html


Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Hammond Family Declared as Terrorist and Sentenced to Five Years in Federal Prison
November 3, 2015

Re: Hammond Family Declared as Terrorist and Sentenced to Five Years in Federal Prison

From: The Bundy Family
Bunkerville, Nevada

To: Aware Citizens & Government Officials

Our hearts and prayers go out to the Hammond family with deep empathy. The magnitude of the injustices dealt to them is hard to comprehend. Their once happy lives have been forever darkened with pains of corruptions. The nature of their sentencing proves once again that justice is currently not found in the federal courts. The Hammonds are a simple ranching family that for generations has cared for the land they live upon. Prescribed burns are a vital process in keeping the land healthy and productive in the area. The BLM also performs prescribed burns and have let it get out of control many times, but never has it cost any federal agent hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and years of life in prison. The Hammonds prescribed a fire that moved to public land, they extinguished the fire themselves. The courts found that the burn increased vegetation for the following years, and had a positive impact on the land. With no authority or justification to prosecute, eleven years after the fire, federal attorneys have obtained judgment that the Hammonds are terrorists and must be punished severely for their actions.
The illegal predatory actions of federal agencies placing themselves as the sole beneficiaries of the land and resources must end or the people will stand in open resistance against it. The collaboration between federal agencies and the federal courts is shameful and will continue to accelerate the peoples demand for justice. The Hammond prosecution, and many offenses like it, solidify that the federal government is no longer an entity that functions for the benefit of the people.
We warn federal agencies, federal judges and all government officials that follow federal oppressive examples that the people are in unrest because of these types of actions. The purpose of government is to protect the unalienable rights of the people, not to take them away. It is the duty of the people to defend their God given rights if government fails to do so or turns to devour them. Good, civil citizens wish only to live in tranquility and peace, but demand freedom while doing so. We call upon you and all civil servants to effectuate the true purpose of government and change your actions as needed by fulfilling your sworn duty to the Constitution and ultimately to the People.
We further warn that the incarceration of the Hammond family will spawn serious civil unrest. We advocate that all charges be dropped and that the Hammond family be allowed to return to the home and life that was so rudely interrupted. The Hammond family has paid enough for this mistake, if any mistake at all. Further punishments to the Hammonds will require restitution upon those who inflict the injustices.
We call upon aware citizens and government officials to promote the protection and freedom of the Hammond family, and by so doing, maintaining the spirit of liberty that this beloved nation is built upon.

signed
The Bundy Family

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-csIWUG7ru7o/VjkYbTjwG9I/AAAAAAAABTg/nkUXI7E_E04/s640/Hammond%2BFamily.jpeg
HAMMOND FAMILY




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.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qlquGjPM6nM/VjkdsoHOZGI/AAAAAAAABUA/36eMcBSyzJM/s1600/Hammond%2BRanch%2B3.png
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.

[dragon813gt]

Wow!!

[starmac]

Sure looks like a bunch of terrorists, don't it.

[Win94ae]

We need to get disband the BLM... as well as ignore the other BLM group.

[str8shot426]

If only our government was this adamant on taking care of the real threat. This is most likely someone's personal agenda. I've seen this locally on a smaller scale. Absolute bs!
This is how generations of hard work is rewarded in the new America.

[mexicanjoe]

When they come on your land and its for illegal motives, may I suggest a citizens arrest...call the sheriff to come to the scene , and notify their supervisors... Advise them they will be released to the supervisors or the sheriff only. Make sure you have lots of " friends" around as witnesses..here in Texas we have some pretty stiff laws concerning theft; which is what the Hammonds are enduring..and we have an old saying: remember the Alamo !

[str8shot426]

When they come on your land and its for illegal motives, may I suggest a citizens arrest...call the sheriff to come to the scene , and notify their supervisors... Advise them they will be released to the supervisors or the sheriff only. Make sure you have lots of " friends" around as witnesses..here in Texas we have some pretty stiff laws concerning theft; which is what the Hammonds are enduring..and we have an old saying: remember the Alamo !

Funny how this doesn't happen in Texas.

Coincidence?

[MaryB]

BLM is out for revenge for getting the water rights case tossed out. Like the Bundy ranch look for a rich government employee like Harry Reids son in NV who needed the Bundy ranch as an offset for the solar farm he sold to the Chinese. Our government has turned into the enemy of the people and it needs a wake up call and a spanking!

[starmac]

Funny how this doesn't happen in Texas.

Coincidence?

Not a whole lot of blm, or any kind of public land in Texas, yet they have talked about trying to take some private land and make it public.

[dragon813gt]

Funny how this doesn't happen in Texas.

Coincidence?

Did you forget about Waco? Not a land grab but they attacked US citizens for no reason.

[458mag]

If you have anything the goobernent is your enemy. If you have nothing and are to lazy to work for it they love you. To you democrats out there. KEEP ON VOTING THE WAY YOU DO!!!!!!

[Kent Fowler]

Funny how this doesn't happen in Texas.

Coincidence?

The BLM has very little presence in Texas as it's about 98% privately owned and the state owning most of the rest. 55% of the state is under ranch management. Here is a quote from the Economist magazine which pretty much sums up what most Texans think about the Federal government:
"It is bad manners to ask a Texas rancher the size of his spread. And, unsurprisingly, reliable statistics on land ownership are hard to come by. Proposals to lay out who owns what, and how much, are thrown out of the state legislature as soon as they arrive. “They're dismissed for what they are,” says one official at the Texas Land Office: “federal, socialist, environmentalist plots.”

[str8shot426]

Not a whole lot of blm, or any kind of public land in Texas, yet they have talked about trying to take some private land and make it public.

I would venture to say it wouldn't go over too well.

[quilbilly]

Bureaucrats make a vengeful enemy. As in any banana republic, they don't have to obey the law, they are the law. One of the things I have noticed about the BLM is they vary by district. In some they are good people who are helpful while in others they are vengeful ecofascist bullies who think they have a right to anything they can steal from the helpless. Power to the Sagebrush Rebellion. Hopefully Oregon's Harney County Sheriff will follow the lead of Nevada's Nye County Sheriff.

[MaryB]

BLM in Minnesota tried closing all the logging roads in the national forests. Didn't go over well because we are used to using them to get to camping and hunting spots. BLM thinks they own the land and they need to block all access except for high ranking politicians and government flunkies! We blocked it and BLM has been trying to cause trouble since.

[Bad Water Bill]

Isn't the BLM trying to grab lands on both sides of the RED RIVER in Texas?

IIRC almost 100 miles of it.

Most of that land has belonged to some of those ranchers going back many generations.

[starmac]

I don't remember if it was blm, but the feds were talking about it, seems like they met some resistance and I have heard no more about it sor quite a while.

[dkf]

The BLM serves no meaningful, good purpose whatsoever. The state can take care of the land issues between their borders. Any national parks can be taken care of by the National Park Service, or better yet let the state take care of those parks too.

[Circuit Rider]

Read about the Hammonds' some time ago in Range magazine. This has been going on for years all over the West. They(Goobermint) are driving the ranchers and farmers out, will only be corporate farms. And guess who will control it all! Government control of the food source, health care, education, etc. They just about have it all. CR

[Bad Water Bill]

Might be the right time to elect someone with real business experience.

They understand the reason for balancing books.keeping small businesses strong and will keep our borders locked down.

[Landy]

Bundys, Hammonds, Yantises, those two mines, and innumerable more less infamous but no less egregious cases; there is something bigger and broader here afoot.

The Government Class needs dependents.

We are seeing nothing less than a war on independence.

Most of us they are content to exclude or slowly, but surely, grind down or co-opt with taxes, cronyism, and regulation.

The icons of American independence, though, are targeted for much more drastic measures.

154281

[Blackwater]

Guys, this is just a practice run before they get into treating us ALL like this!!!

They're just whetting their knives before they dig in and carve up what's left of what was once America, Land of the Free. The handwriting is on the wall, and the only question left is whether we'll read it .... or not.

When Obama said he intended to "fundamentally transform America," many laughed. It's getting less and less funny as he does just exactly that!

[quilbilly]

BLM in Minnesota tried closing all the logging roads in the national forests. Didn't go over well because we are used to using them to get to camping and hunting spots. BLM thinks they own the land and they need to block all access except for high ranking politicians and government flunkies! We blocked it and BLM has been trying to cause trouble since. Is that ever the truth! The same applies to our state Dept. of Natural Resources.

[daniel lawecki]

Funny how Americans are treated like criminals and illegal immigrants have more rights. Almost wish you were and illegal free schooling healthcare and a by on being illegal.

[nagantguy]

It just maybe time to water a few trees. Yesterday bunnd'y today Hammonds tomorrow the rest of us peons. Sounds like the sheriff there is a dolt. There is a special place in hell for those who would steal someone's home and food from their mouths.

[Bad Water Bill]

In this case IIRC it is the family of Sen Hairy Reid that will have a windfall of money when the old family ranch is CONFISCATED.

Reid starved to death as a lawyer so turned to politics to make his fortune and look at him now.

[Landy]

In this case IIRC it is the family of Sen Hairy Reid that will have a windfall of money when the old family ranch is CONFISCATED.

Reid starved to death as a lawyer so turned to politics to make his fortune and look at him now.

That rich Republicans come to public office with their money but rich Democrats leave public office with 'their' money is a very telling fact.

[Bad Water Bill]

That rich Republicans come to public office with their money but rich Democrats leave public office with 'OUR' money is a very telling fact.

Fixed it for you.:bigsmyl2:

[winchester85]

independent people, people who stand up for their rights, people who exercise their 2nd amendment rights, are all picked on.
i have people all the time tell me to look the other way when someone is breaking the law, or "mind my own business" when i turn someone in for poaching.
the gubmint does not like people who are not willing to hand over their rights!

[Duckiller]

Something is missing from this story. Who is sending them to jail? BLM doesn't send anyone to jail. They can only get US attorney to charge you in court. I assume they had a trial and a judge or jury of their peers found them guilty of some crime. What crime were they charged with? Understand they are in a feud with the BLM but that is not a crime.

[starmac]

Somebody had to file the charges to get them into a court.

I remember wholeheartily how you stuck up for Reid and his cronies on the Bundy ranch fiasco. Is their anything the blm or any other agencies can do to a family that couldn't be justified through your eyes??

We hear of probably less than ten percent of the ranches the govt has ruined, only in recent social media times has individual ranchers gotten help or even attention from anyone other than their neighbors.
Our own Bill Weddle had been in a fight for several years, before he left the forum, wish I knew how he was coming along.

[MaryB]

They were charged with arson after a yearly burn fire to clear the invasive scrub got out of control and burned 127 acres of BLM land(and the BLM in court admitted that it improved the land!). They also had another backfire they set to stop a wildfire burn some BLM land. In neither case did they need outside help and they put them out themselves. They were fined and spent 6 months in jail. Now YEARS later after the fact the BLM filed terrorism charges against them! Double jeopardy is apparently legal... in neither fire did it spread far or do any damage, in both cases it actually improved the land for native species while eliminating invasive ones. In neither case did they have to call in help to put the fire out. In both cases they paid the fine and served the short jail sentences.

Prescribed burns are done all the time BTW, even the BLM does them!



Something is missing from this story. Who is sending them to jail? BLM doesn't send anyone to jail. They can only get US attorney to charge you in court. I assume they had a trial and a judge or jury of their peers found them guilty of some crime. What crime were they charged with? Understand they are in a feud with the BLM but that is not a crime.

[Duckiller]

Thank you Mary.

[Duckiller]

Starmac Mr. Bundy was raising cattle on my land and not paying for the privilege. From what Mary says the ranch in Utah is also using Federal land. You may burn your own property. A federal bureaucrat may have something to say about you burning federal property. They paid a fine and went to jail. They either committed a crime or two or they need a much better lawyer. When you lease/rent land the owner can change the conditions of the rental or lease. Don't like it buy the land. Can't afford to buy the land or the owner won't sell tough. I have trouble understanding why people are so eager to support people who won't follow the rules.

[Bad Water Bill]

Isn't the Bundy ranch the ONLY ranch surviving in that county.

When the Bundies are finally DRIVEN off of the land Sen Hairy Reids son (IIRC) has several deals going where he along with a CHINESE corp will build a hugh solar farm.

Any creatures trying to fly over the solar farm will be instantly fried by the intense heat (again IIRC) of over 1,000 degrees radiating off the pannels.

Talk about causing global warming.:evil:

[starmac]

Duckkiller, you apparently have NO idea of how ranching on federal (blm land) works. When you buy the lranch, the improvements are bought and paid for by you, not the public (or you) These improvements generally cost as much (sometimes more) as the land itself and are yours to keep or sell to the next rancher.
The Bundys TRIED to pay the yearly fees, which are a pittance of the fees associated with it.
The blm land is still open to the public unless the feds decide to close it, even though the rancher owns any and all improvements on it. Usually most or all of the water on a ranch is on deeded land, making blm land close to worthless without the ranchers private property, That and the privately owned improvements on govt land is why no one bids a higher price every year for the grazing rights. Anyone can bid a higher price and take over the grazing rights at any given year, but then they HAVE to pay the rancher his price for improvements, and the private land that usually holds all the available water.

The Bundys paid their rental fees for many years, until the feds decided they wanted the ranch for different reasons, which does not include you or any other member of the public. The bundy ranch will be closed to the public once the feds get their greedy habds on it, as it stands as long as they maintain possession, it is OUR land and can be accessed for recreational use, hunting, camping, hiking, or whatever.

[MaryB]

They paid the penalty for accidently burning some BLM land. Now the government is trying to penalize them AGAIN 11 years AFTER THE FACT!

After reading these accusations and the court proceedings, it is perfectly clear that the Hammond's were not convicted for anything other than what Ammon Bundy said they were convicted for - two fires - one permitted prescribed burn that got out of control onto BLM land before the Hammonds put it out, and for starting a back burn without BLM permission to save their own property from multiple naturally started lighting range fires.

http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/

The feds tried to make up a bunch of trumped up charges but no evidence to go with them was ever produced and they were never charged with them. The BLM is driving people off the land, they do not want anyone living independent of government and its controlling minions!


Starmac Mr. Bundy was raising cattle on my land and not paying for the privilege. From what Mary says the ranch in Utah is also using Federal land. You may burn your own property. A federal bureaucrat may have something to say about you burning federal property. They paid a fine and went to jail. They either committed a crime or two or they need a much better lawyer. When you lease/rent land the owner can change the conditions of the rental or lease. Don't like it buy the land. Can't afford to buy the land or the owner won't sell tough. I have trouble understanding why people are so eager to support people who won't follow the rules.

[Duckiller]

That may have been how ranching was done on BLM land. It appears to me that the landlord, the BLM, is changing the rules. Politics is raising its ugly head. The good citizens of Nevada voted the good Senator Reid into office for several terms and now he is not going to run again so his children must work fast to have a project that daddy can help with. Not sure if a Senator or Congressman is retiring in Utah . Maybe some one just doesn't want to wait and feels that he/she has a better use for the property than ranching. Not saying this is good just that the times are changing. Don't want things to change? Contribute to one or both political parties. Right or wrong every one else does it.

[starmac]

So the govt should be able to just TAKE what ranchers bought and paid for. Most with big bank loans, who will also lose out.
It is one thing to change rules, if you want to close land to the public, buy them out, the taxpayer may as well pay twice, by losing the use of the land, and the price of the ranch. Sounds like a win win, huh.

Another thing all the greenies fight to get ranchers kicked off of our land, thinking it just isn't fair that a family can make a living there, while all we can do is hunt, hike, camp prospect, etc,etc, then it is CLOSED for most uses.

[Duckiller]

Didn't say it was right just that it was done. I didn't vote for our President nor either of My Senators. I would hope that a President and Senators from a different party would make a difference but I fear it won't. Bureaucrats are too inclined to do what they have deemed proper and not listen to what the citizens of this Country want. Politicians can slow them down. Only slow them down not stop them. Probably the result of having too many city people in the country and not enough with rural/farm backgrounds.

[MaryB]

Ranchers spend thousands of dollars developing water rights on these BLM grazing leases. They OWN those water rights once they are improved even though they are on public land. Now we have the eco nazi's wanting people off the land so it can go back to nature, they do not want ANYONE accessing it unless they can pay to play aka are wealthy! They are using dirty tricks and denying people proper trials by only giving the defending attorney 1 day to look at evidence while the government lawyer goons had a week. This is the tyranny the founding fathers warned us about!



That may have been how ranching was done on BLM land. It appears to me that the landlord, the BLM, is changing the rules. Politics is raising its ugly head. The good citizens of Nevada voted the good Senator Reid into office for several terms and now he is not going to run again so his children must work fast to have a project that daddy can help with. Not sure if a Senator or Congressman is retiring in Utah . Maybe some one just doesn't want to wait and feels that he/she has a better use for the property than ranching. Not saying this is good just that the times are changing. Don't want things to change? Contribute to one or both political parties. Right or wrong every one else does it.

[dtknowles]

So the govt should be able to just TAKE what ranchers bought and paid for. Most with big bank loans, who will also lose out.
It is one thing to change rules, if you want to close land to the public, buy them out, the taxpayer may as well pay twice, by losing the use of the land, and the price of the ranch. Sounds like a win win, huh.

Another thing all the greenies fight to get ranchers kicked off of our land, thinking it just isn't fair that a family can make a living there, while all we can do is hunt, hike, camp prospect, etc,etc, then it is CLOSED for most uses.

If you make improvements to land you do not own, you risk the loss of your investments when the owner of the land will not renew your lease. This is a well documented fact and is clearly delineated in most lease agreements.

Tim

[quilbilly]

Starmac Mr. Bundy was raising cattle on my land and not paying for the privilege. From what Mary says the ranch in Utah is also using Federal land. You may burn your own property. A federal bureaucrat may have something to say about you burning federal property. They paid a fine and went to jail. They either committed a crime or two or they need a much better lawyer. When you lease/rent land the owner can change the conditions of the rental or lease. Don't like it buy the land. Can't afford to buy the land or the owner won't sell tough. I have trouble understanding why people are so eager to support people who won't follow the rules.
Pretty tough to obey rules when they change every day to suit corrupt, fascist bureaucrats and politicians. The Bundy incident was only one part of a huge corrupt land theft deal to pay off unhappy Chinese PLA autocrats, pay off unhappy Sierra Club lobbyists who contributed millions to Reid over the years, and retribution against the Bundy family who had been in a feud with the utterly corrupt and violent Reid clan since the 1950's. The BLM had no choice but to be the enforcers for the Old Las Vegas Reid crime family. Friends of mine who were at the demonstrations down on the river near the Bundy Ranch talked to some of the BLM swat team and even the swat guys knew the score so were not happy about becoming enforcers for the crime mob. This is all banana republic stuff that happens all the time.

[dtknowles]

Pretty tough to obey rules when they change every day to suit corrupt, fascist bureaucrats and politicians. The Bundy incident was only one part of a huge corrupt land theft deal to pay off unhappy Chinese PLA autocrats, pay off unhappy Sierra Club lobbyists who contributed millions to Reid over the years, and retribution against the Bundy family who had been in a feud with the utterly corrupt and violent Reid clan since the 1950's. The BLM had no choice but to be the enforcers for the Old Las Vegas Reid crime family. Friends of mine who were at the demonstrations down on the river near the Bundy Ranch talked to some of the BLM swat team and even the swat guys knew the score so were not happy about becoming enforcers for the crime mob. This is all banana republic stuff that happens all the time.

Right or Wrong, you need to understand who you are dealing with and what are your chances. With such powerful enemies the Bundy's probably got off lucky and without the special help could have lost their lives. How does one make such powerful enemies? Did they turn down an offer that nobody should refuse?

Tim

[Circuit Rider]

The bottom line is, with the Bundy PROPERTY, not leased land, as with the Hammonds' PROPERTY, Harry Dirtbag Reid's sons' want the property for a deal with the Chi-Comms! CR

[starmac]

[QUOTE=dtknowles;3453232]Right or Wrong, you need to understand who you are dealing with and what are your chances. With such powerful enemies the Bundy's probably got off lucky and without the special help could have lost their lives. How does one make such powerful enemies? Did they turn down an offer that nobody should refuse?
You are talking a private lease. All together a different deal with farm and ranch blm land. The west would not be improved today if that was the case. As far as I know the ranch leases come up for bid every so often, but if the winning bidder is anyone except the currant leassee, then they have to pay market vallue for all improvements.
Sometime travelling through Eastern New Mexico, if you pay attention you will notice a row of trees beside the road usually a mile long, in an area that is mainly treeless for miles upon miles. These are school sections, leased to farm from the govt. Many have houses on them, but years ago the first thing a farmer did when he obtained a lease was plant trees, many trees, then if anybody tried to out bid him in a year or so, they had to pay a set amount for every tree.

[dtknowles]

[QUOTE=dtknowles;3453232]You are talking a private lease. All together a different deal with farm and ranch blm land. The west would not be improved today if that was the case. As far as I know the ranch leases come up for bid every so often, but if the winning bidder is anyone except the currant leassee, then they have to pay market vallue for all improvements.
Sometime travelling through Eastern New Mexico, if you pay attention you will notice a row of trees beside the road usually a mile long, in an area that is mainly treeless for miles upon miles. These are school sections, leased to farm from the govt. Many have houses on them, but years ago the first thing a farmer did when he obtained a lease was plant trees, many trees, then if anybody tried to out bid him in a year or so, they had to pay a set amount for every tree.

I will accept your word on that. What happens with the lease holder dies? Who sets the value of the improvements?

Tim

[starmac]

Tim, I do not know who actually sets the value, but when the lease holder dies assets are dealt with just like any other. Most ranches running cattle on blm property are bought and sold, just like private property, and morgaged just like private property. The owner may just hold the deed on a 160 acre quarter section, or a few key 20 acre patented mining claimsbut the value is, or at least can be many times what the deeded land is worth. Most bigger ranches have deeded property where the available water is too, making everything else pretty much worthless to anyone but them.

[MaryB]

If the BLM forces a rancher off they should have to pay market value for the water rights. Western water rights are a whole different kettle of fish than typical property rights we deal with. Water rights can be passed down via a will, they can be sold, but they cannot be taken by government without fair compensation. At least from what I have studied on it. Not a lawyer so I did not get super deep into it.



If you make improvements to land you do not own, you risk the loss of your investments when the owner of the land will not renew your lease. This is a well documented fact and is clearly delineated in most lease agreements.

Tim

[dtknowles]

Tim, I do not know who actually sets the value, but when the lease holder dies assets are dealt with just like any other. Most ranches running cattle on blm property are bought and sold, just like private property, and morgaged just like private property. The owner may just hold the deed on a 160 acre quarter section, or a few key 20 acre patented mining claimsbut the value is, or at least can be many times what the deeded land is worth. Most bigger ranches have deeded property where the available water is too, making everything else pretty much worthless to anyone but them.

Thanks, what if the Government decides that it is not interested in renewing the lease and does not put the property up for auction, does the government have to pay the lessor for the improvements, couldn't the government insist that the improvements be removed and the property be returned to its original state.

Tim

[MaryB]

Some reading on western water rights and the BLM http://tipton.house.gov/press-release/blm-forest-service-attempting-take-private-water-rights

[starmac]

I don't know how that would work Tim, Pretty much unheard of until recent years. I would think it would be better if the govt did just that instead of the way they have been dealing with ranchers the last 25 years or so, It has gotten pretty popular for the govt to make a criminal out of the ranchers, and try to steal even their deeded land instead of just not renewing their lease.
I suspect the ranchers have some protection under the law, or lending institutions would never deal with them to start with.

[dtknowles]

I don't know how that would work Tim, Pretty much unheard of until recent years. I would think it would be better if the govt did just that instead of the way they have been dealing with ranchers the last 25 years or so, It has gotten pretty popular for the govt to make a criminal out of the ranchers, and try to steal even their deeded land instead of just not renewing their lease.
I suspect the ranchers have some protection under the law, or lending institutions would never deal with them to start with.

Thanks again, I have no dog in this fight but was curious but not enough to do my own research. I have worked a few places where the government gave NASA land for use supporting the space program, that land had some private properties mixed in and some owners did not want to be bought out and did not move so NASA let them stay but the land was not allowed to be transfer to new owners. When the owners died the land went to NASA.

Tim

[quilbilly]

The reason I have been so aware of the Reid clan is back in the late 50's and early 60's my parents and their friends in the Las Vegas area warned over and over not to play with the Reid boys because they were bad people. I have been watching them ever since even from the "rain forests" of the Olympic Peninsula. Ever since that TV show about old Las Vegas was cancelled a couple years back in spite of its popularity, I was convinced that the reason was the last couple episodes were far too accurate a depiction of the Reid clan (names changed of course) and their crooked land deals.

[Artful]

The reason I have been so aware of the Reid clan is back in the late 50's and early 60's my parents and their friends in the Las Vegas area warned over and over not to play with the Reid boys because they were bad people. I have been watching them ever since even from the "rain forests" of the Olympic Peninsula. Ever since that TV show about old Las Vegas was cancelled a couple years back in spite of its popularity, I was convinced that the reason was the last couple episodes were far too accurate a depiction of the Reid clan (names changed of course) and their crooked land deals.

Corrupt Politicians in America - Nope never happen

[starmac]

The govt has been known to steal water rights, even on private property and from farmers and ranchers that have never had a govt lease, loan or anything else.
Two of my wifes uncles had the misfortune of running across this.
One did have an fha loan when he first started farming, a couple of years the govt forclosed on him, he had to come up with the funds to pay them off in full or relinquish his farm, BECAUSE they decided he made too much money that year.
Years later he sold his farm and bought a ranch, with the ranch he bought the water rights, which was actually worth more than the property. He had no intentions of irrigating anything, but bought them as an investment. A couple of years later along swoops the govt and declares that he either had to develop the water rights, or they would take them. Now with the sale of the farm, he had also sold all farm equipment, so he had to take out over a 1/4 million dollars worth of loans to drill wells, buy two circle sprinklers and some used farm equipment, when he really didn't even want to farm.
All this was deeded property, the only thing that the govt had to do with it was collect taxes.
After he gets the water wells drilled, sprinklers installed and ready to break ground, along comes another govt agency that would not let him plow the ground, on the grounds that it had never been plowed before and there was a possibility that there was an arrowhead on it somewhere. lol
It took 2 years, lawyers and studies to prove there was no indian artifacts, all the while he was paying notes on the 1/4 million.
His brother was the largest alfalfa producer in the state, which has to be plowed up every 7 years and a different crop grown on it for a couple of years, then replanted in alfalfa, to keep the quality up.
The only dealings he had ever had with the govt, was to pay taxes, but all of a sudden they decided he could no longer plow his land, BECAUSE it was erroedable. ALL plowed land is errodeable.
He was tied up in court for awhile over this, costing him a year or two's crop.
Both of these guys were very successful farmers, or they would have lost there farms, many others have, that couldn't afford the fight and monetarily loss in the meantime.

[Artful]

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/3/10703712/oregon-militia-standoff


A militia protesting the "tyranny" of the federal government seized the headquarters of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon on Saturday and, in a video posted to Facebook, called on "patriots" from all over the country to come to the refuge with their guns to join their fight.

Among the militia's members are Ammon Bundy, whose father Cliven Bundy (http://www.vox.com/cards/nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-explained) became a Fox News star in 2014 for his armed standoff in Nevada with the federal government over cattle-grazing rights. On the surface, this is about a father and son from Oregon who were ordered by the court to return to prison to serve additional time for a 2012 arson on federal land. But, as with Cliven Bundy's standoff, the anti-government militiamen who are driving this crisis believe it's about standing up to a tyrannical federal government.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/us/militiamen-vow-to-hold-federal-wildlife-office-in-oregon-for-years.html?_r=0


Militiamen Vow to Hold Federal Wildlife Office in Oregon ‘For Years’
By JULIE TURKEWITZ and LIAM STACKJAN. 3, 2016

Federal officials said Sunday that no federal wildlife employees were in danger after a group of armed activists and militiamen protesting the prosecution of two ranchers took over a remote federal wildlife refuge in the rural southeastern corner of Oregon over the weekend.

A building at the refuge seized on Saturday afternoon by the group houses the offices of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and is operated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, about 30 miles southeast of Burns, in Harney County. A representative of the Fish and Wildlife Service said the agency was monitoring the situation. “While the situation is ongoing, the main concern is employee safety and we can confirm that no federal staff were in the building at the time of the initial incident,” the press officer said.

Protesters marched in Burns, Ore., on Saturday in support of two ranchers who were ordered to serve more time in prison.Wildlife Refuge Occupied in Protest of Oregon Ranchers’ Prison TermsJAN. 2, 2016

The occupation began after a demonstration on Saturday in support of Dwight Hammond, 73, and his son Steven Hammond, 46, who were to report to California prison after a federal judge ruled that the sentences they had served for arson were not long enough under federal law.

Among the occupiers were Ammon and Ryan Bundy, two sons of Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher who became a symbol of anti-government sentiment in 2014, according to The Oregonian.

“We’re planning on staying here for years, absolutely,” Ammon Bundy told The Oregonian in a telephone interview. “This is not a decision we’ve made at the last minute.” The two men refused to provide details on how many people were taking part in the occupation, but militia members claim there are as many as 150 people at the refuge.

In a telephone interview Sunday morning with CNN, Mr. Bundy said his group wanted the federal government to restore the “people’s constitutional rights.”

“People need to be aware that we’ve become a system where government is actually claiming and using and defending people’s rights, and they are doing that against the people,” he said.

A lawyer for the Hammonds said, however, they did not welcome the Bundys’ help, according to The Associated Press.

“Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond family,” the lawyer, W. Alan Schroeder, wrote to David Ward, the Harney County sheriff.

An email to the sheriff seeking comment was not immediately returned.

Amanda Peacher, a reporter and producer for Oregon Public Broadcasting who was near the the wildlife refuge Sunday, posted pictures on Twitter of arriving militiamen bringing in supplies and blocking the refuge’s entrance.

In a video posted to Facebook on Thursday, Ammon Bundy called on the members of “different militia groups” to participate in the protest on Saturday.

“This is not a time to stand down,” he said. “It is a time to stand up and come to Harney County. We need your help and we are asking for it.”

The Hammonds admitted they lit fires in 2001 and 2006, but said it had been to protect their property from wildfires and invasive plant species, The A.P. said. They were convicted three years ago, and the father served three months in prison, while the son served one year.

The Harney County Sheriff’s Department said the Oregon State Police was handling the incident. Beth Anne Steele, a spokeswoman for the F.B.I. in Portland, said the agency was aware of the situation, but declined to comment further.

The Bundys have been organizing opposition to the government case against the Hammonds on social media in recent weeks, which they described as a tyrannical use of federal authority.

“We’re out here because the people have been abused long enough,” Ammon Bundy said in a separate video posted to Facebook on Saturday.

He called the prosecution of the Hammonds “a symptom of a very huge, egregious problem” that he described as a battle over land and resources between the federal government and “the American people.”

“The people cannot survive without their land and resources,” he said. “We cannot have the government restricting the use of that to the point that it puts us in poverty.”

Mr. Bundy described the federal building as “the people’s facility, owned by the people” and said his group was occupying it to take “a hard stand against this overreach, this taking of the people’s land and resources.”

He said the group would remain there indefinitely and told an interviewer that he hoped more supporters would join them. “We have a facility that we can house them in,” he said, referring to the occupied building.

“We pose no threat to anybody,” Mr. Bundy said. “There is no person that is physically harmed by what we are doing.” He added that if law enforcement officials “bring physical harm to us, they will be doing it only for a facility or a building.”

However, in an interview with The Oregonian earlier on Saturday evening, Mr. Bundy and his brother said they would not rule out violence if law enforcement officers attempted to remove them from the building.

“The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds,” Ammon Bundy told the newspaper. He said he planned to remain in the building for “years.”

Ian Kullgren, a reporter for The Oregonian, posted on Twitter that he had spoken by phone with Mr. Bundy on Sunday morning.

Continue reading the main story


http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/


Armed group's leader in federal building: 'We will be here as long as it takes'

By Ashley Fantz and Holly Yan, CNN
Updated 2:31 PM ET, Sun January 3, 2016

(CNN)Armed anti-government protesters have taken over a building in a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, accusing officials of unfairly punishing ranchers who refused to sell their land.

One them is Ammon Bundy, the 40-year-old son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who is well-known for anti-government action.

He spoke by phone to CNN on Sunday at 8 a.m. ET. Asked several times what he and those with him want, he answered in vague terms, saying that they want the federal government to restore the "people's constitutional rights."

"This refuge -- it has been destructive to the people of the county and to the people of the area," he said.

"People need to be aware that we've become a system where government is actually claiming and using and defending people's rights, and they are doing that against the people."

Armed protesters rally to support Oregon rancher

Armed protesters rally to support Oregon rancher 02:05
The group is occupying part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns after gathering outside for a demonstration supporting Dwight and Steven Hammond, father-and-son ranchers who were convicted of arson.

Prosecutors said the Hammonds set a fire that burned about 130 acres in 2001, to cover up poaching. They were sentenced to five years in prison.

The Hammonds, who are set to turn themselves in Monday afternoon, have said they set the fire to reduce the growth of invasive plants and to protect their property from wildfires, CNN affiliate KTVZ reported.

The Hammonds have been clear in that they don't want help from the Bundy group.

"Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond family," the Hammonds' attorney W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Harney County Sheriff David Ward.

CNN law enforcement analyst Art Roderick, a retired U.S. marshal who investigated anti-government militias for years, warned that Bundy's call for supporters to join him might "turn into a bad situation."

"What's going to happen hopefully (is) ... we don't go out there with a big force, because that's what they're looking for," he said. "The last thing we need is some type of confrontation."

He said that over the years, law enforcement has learned how to handle a situation like this; one that hasn't erupted in violence and in which a law may be broken, but there's no immediate threat to anyone's life.

The best approach now, Roderick said, is to wait the group out and to figure out how to bring a peaceful end to the standoff.

'We are not terrorists'
After the march Saturday, the armed protesters broke into the refuge's unoccupied building and refused to leave. Officials have said there are no government employees in the building.

"We will be here as long as it takes," Bundy said. "We have no intentions of using force upon anyone, (but) if force is used against us, we would defend ourselves."

Ammon Bundy said that the group in Oregon was armed, but that he would not describe it as a militia. He declined to say how many people were with him, telling CNN on Sunday that giving that information might jeopardize "operational security."

The elder Bundy drew national attention last year after staging a standoff with federal authorities over a Bureau of Land Management dispute.

"We are not terrorists," Ammon Bundy said. "We are concerned citizens and realize we have to act if we want to pass along anything to our children."

He wouldn't call his group a militia, but others are.

"I don't like the militia's methods," local resident Monica McCannon told KTVZ. "They had their rally. Now it's time for them to go home. People are afraid of them."

A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representative said the agency and the Bureau of Land Management are aware of the armed protesters.

"While the situation is ongoing, the main concern is employee safety, and we can confirm that no federal staff were in the building at the time of the initial incident," the representative said. "We will continue to monitor the situation."

What the protesters want
When asked what it would take for the protesters to leave, Bundy did not offer specifics. He said he and those with him are prepared to stay put for days or weeks.

Cliven Bundy's ranch west of Mesquite, Nevada, on April 11, 2014, was the site of a tense standoff between him and the federal government. Bundy and other ranchers have been locked in a dispute with the government for decades over where they can graze their cattle and how they use the land. Click through the images to see what set it off.
8 photos: Land Rights
"We feel that we will occupy this as long as necessary," he said.

"We are using the wildlife refuge as a place for individuals across the United States to come and assist in helping the people of Harney County claim back their lands and resources," he said.

"The people will need to be able to use the land and resources without fear as free men and women. We know it will take some time."

He did not explicitly call on authorities to commute the prison sentences for the Hammonds, but he said their case illustrates officials' "abuse" of power.

"Now that people such as the Hammonds are taking a stand and not selling their ranches, they are being prosecuted in their own courts as terrorists and putting them in prison for five years," Bundy said.

He said the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has taken over the space of 100 ranches since the early 1900s.

"They are continuing to expand the refuge at the expense of the ranchers and miners," Bundy said.

He also said Harney County, in southeastern Oregon, went from one of the state's wealthiest counties to one of the poorest.

CNN has not independently corroborated Bundy's claims.


"I want to emphasis that the American people are wondering why they can't seem to get ahead or why everything is costing more and you are getting less, and that is because the federal government is taking and using the land and resources," Bundy said.

"And if it is continued, it will put the people in poverty."

What the feds say
Acting U.S. Attorney Billy J. Williams of Oregon gave a starkly different perspective on the arson case.

His office declined to comment on the situation at the wildlife refuge Saturday, but it cited an opinion piece written by Williams in the Burns Times Herald last month defending the federal prosecutors' actions in the Hammonds case.

Protesters march for Oregon ranchers

Protesters march for Oregon ranchers 02:05
"Five years ago, a federal grand jury charged Dwight and Steven Hammond with committing arson on public lands and endangering firefighters," Williams wrote for the newspaper. "Steven Hammond was also found guilty of committing a second arson in 2006."

The prosecutor said witnesses saw the Hammonds illegally slaughter a herd of deer on public land.

"At least seven deer were shot with others limping or running from the scene," Williams wrote.

He said a teenage relative of the Hammonds testified that Steven Hammond gave him a box of matches and told him to start the blaze. "The fires destroyed evidence of the deer slaughter and took about 130 acres of public land out of public use for two years," the prosecutor wrote.

Williams also disputed the notion that the Hammonds were prosecuted as terrorists, as Bundy suggested.

"The jury was neither asked if the Hammonds were terrorists, nor were defendants ever charged with or accused of terrorism," Williams wrote. "Suggesting otherwise is simply flat-out wrong."

[jmort]

Did we discuss the family that was run out of Area 51?
That ain't right either.

[WILCO]

Did we discuss the family that was run out of Area 51?
That ain't right either.

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/government-takes-familys-land-near-area-51

[jmort]

Yes, that ^^^ is it. Another one that boils my blood. Once again, I am not at a loss for words, just can't write how I feel.

[starmac]

I somehow doubt that taking over the federal building works out well for these guys, and expect a bad outcome.

[Bad Water Bill]

HAS ANY ONE HEARD OF ORCHARD FIELD?

Try the land grab by Chicago when it extended the city limits by MILES, even into a different county,then in their latest move took over a (IIRC) cemetery in another city so that a new runway could be built.

Look at your map and see the LONG trail starting at the actual Chicago limits then how a interstate highway leads to O hare field and try to guess how many folks were forced out of their property over the last 60 years or so.

[Nose Dive]

Well gents, I just spent the last three hours reading on MSN and the attached sites about another stand off by US citizens and Uncle Sam.

There is a lot of feed back on social media, TWITTER, etc., etc.,.. and I usually don't read that, but, this time i spent a few hours reading other folks opinions on what is going on, what is not going on, what will happen, what will not happen and 'why' the fellas (terrorists?, patriots?, protesters?, conscience objectors?,) went into a what appears to be an 'open and empty' building on a federal wildlife refuge and set up shop. If one believes what one reads on MSN.COM (http://msn.com/), they have communicated they 'will never leave'. I have NO SOURCE of the real truth. So, read on with skepticism. Or, other than what I write as 'my opinion', I cannot verify or prove. Also, concerning issues such as these, i find that 'having the truth' in hand is indeed difficult.


Again, I usually don't read the offered snippets, but the first one caught my interest so, away I went for a few hours. It was still abit rainy and nasty out, so, I had time, and again, the first one I read was racially tinted so I read on.


It was an really interesting read. Whites, Blacks, Christians, Muslims, private "Joes", an Oregon senator, (a.k.a. Politician), males, females, employed, unemployed. I consider the prose offered a good cross section. Indeed, it was interesting to read the focus, positions, opinions and attachments provided. I have a couple of upper division degrees, and so, i really enjoy reading and trying to capture other folks opinions and stances on issues that interest me. I don't know if my education has sparked my interest or prepared me to investigate others who have opinion much different than mine. To me, it is fun to listen and read about where they are 'coming from' and my 'effort' to understand their stance. Or, why a black person who lives in Ferguson feels that the only reason why there is no National Guard Unit with tanks and half tracks already encamped at the front gate of the Refuge is that the persons are 'white, western, rednecks'. (shades of Ruby Ridge? Waco-Branch Davidians?) And, and this one is really interesting, why an elected Oregon legislator thinks it odd that two men who were convicted of 'arson' (for control burning land they leased from Uncle Sam) should 'return' to a federal prison after being released from the same institution after serving a few years each. Or, why did this judge remand these two men back to prison after they had already been 'legally' released? I would really like to hear the Judge's opinion on why he feels these guys need to show up tomorrow at the penitentiary and slip back on the white coveralls and once again begin to enjoy Uncle Sam's beanie-winnies and crackers and Kool-Aid. Maybe the fellas once originally released went home and joined an activist group and started running their mouths about getting the shaft the first time around after they 'confessed' to starting the fires on the controlled burn of land they leased. Maybe he thought they provided to much stewardship of the land by trying to manage the invasive grass and shrubs they burned. I don't know. I wish the fellas would have planted some marijuana, watered and fertilized it so they wouldn't have been convicted of a felony. (Pot is legal in Oregon) Now that's stewardship of the land in these United States! You know....maybe sell some to the Judge's daughter or granddaughter so they too can enjoy some 'true recreational' benefit from the federally controlled land.


One fella from Chicago is in a quandary why all the 'persons' weren't shot dead as he feels they are all 'armed and dangerous terrorists on federal land'. His position is that this is what would have happened if these events had unfolded in Chicago. He indeed may be accurate. If the fellas would have shown up in Chicago, armed, rowdy, yelling anti-government slogans, 'broke into and stormed' an occupied building, they may have been fired upon. Maybe. To me however, this shows the difference in mindset and behaviors of persons who live and work in Chicago, Illinois and Burns, Oregon. One other guy noted they are all not dead as none are Muslims. I really don't know how he knows all of the 'occupiers' religious affiliations. He may have surveyed them all before they quietly and quickly, on a day where all refuge personnel where scheduled to be off work, went into an unlocked building and 'took over' from, well, nobody.


It appears at least some the fellas in the building are armed. One writer offers that this issue, firearms, and that the guys are on federal land in a federal building equates them as 'terrorists' and they should be 'bombed' and eradicated immediately to remove the 'threat'. As much as I can read so far, the 'terrorists' have not made any threats and the County Sheriff has come and gone a couple of times and he hasn't put his hands on any of his firearms. One news report said the Sheriff has notified the BLM and they are all gonna start doing something about this situation first thing tomorrow. Good. Let's all have a good Sunday supper and a good nights sleep before we delve into dealing with these 'radicals'.


OK gang...sun is coming out and I gotta move some things about my little place here.


OH! I did run into San Antonio yesterday 'packing' my .45 in my shoulder holster. Yea. OPEN CARRY became legal on New Year's Day here in Texas. Did not go to HEB..they don't want us OPEN CARRY fellas hanging about their fine stores. So, Walmart was the place of choice and all persons, employees and patrons, were very polite. Same at feed store, and gas at SAM's. Costco doesn't get my gas business anymore as they too don't like open carry miscreants spending our money at their gas pumps. I did see a couple of AR's downtown and bought two guys some STAR BUCKS before my old TCU HORNED FROGS strapped in on Oregon Ducks. Last 40 minutes of that game was classic Horned Frogs fighting out of a cellar. Just wish we had done more when we played OU.


Happy New Year Guys.


Nose Dive

Cheap, Fast, Good. Kindly pick two.

PS: If you own the deck, the chips, the card parlor, your dealing, well...it's your game. You set the rules and if someone checks out, the rules can change. It's the BLM's game. Good luck the guys at the refuge.

[Thumbcocker]

Couple of quick observations. Taking private property for a runway or street is based on an ancient legal principal called eminent domain. Basically the king or the state can take private property for public uses. Roads, bridges, power lines, and the like. The property owner is entitle to due process including a trial on the value of the property taken. Not sure if that is what is going on here as I have not been following the case closely.


Secondly a person released from incarceration after serving part of their sentence is often still under the jurisdiction of the respective prison system. Parole or mandatory supervised release are a couple of terms used. Essentially you may be out of the lock up but they still own your hiney. Your release is conditional and if you violate the conditions of your release you get sent back to finish your time on the inside. You are entitled to a hearing on the issue of whether or not you violated your release conditions.

[MaryB]

They did not violate terms of probation! The whole story is here including all of the abuses by the BLM over the years as the ranchers were driven out http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

And guess what is under the land? Gas, copper, gold, silver, mercury, uranium.... https://t.co/uHAMbsSqgk

This whole thing stinks! So they burned a little BLM land, charge them for letting a fire get out of control and be done with it! It wasn't arson set to destroy BLM land, the story of poaching was tossed out of court because the grandson reporting it has issues with the family and was considered an unreliable witness plus there was NO evidence. The did a prescribed burn that the BLM knew about that got out of control. NO BLM or other federal agencies were called in to fight it and they put it out themselves so NO federal firefighters were endangered. The second burn was a back fire to save the house and winter grass from a wildfire. It succeeded and also STOPPED the wildfire.

All the misinformation the lame stream media is putting out to smear the Hammond's is bullcrap! They are not the terrorists the federal government is calling them, they do not deserve a 5 year prison sentence due to that terrorism label. The dad served 3 months for the fires, the son served a year. Now they want to send them back under a terrorism charge. I am fed up with the way our federal government has been treating the hard working people in the western states. How soon will they start on the midwest prairie states because they want it to return to native prairie? I live on that prairie! Do we wait until they have us all packed into tuna can apartment complexes in mega cities and are disarmed???

[Artful]

http://freedomoutpost.com/2016/01/feds-preparing-multi-agency-action-in-oregon-as-patriot-militia-says-they-are-willing-to-kill-and-be-killed/




Feds Preparing “Multi-Agency” Action in Oregon As Patriot Militia Says They Are “Willing To Kill and Be Killed”


What started as a peaceful protest in Burn, Oregon, over the imprisonment of two ranchers who lit fires on federal land to curb the growth of invasive plant species and reduce the risk of wildfires on their property (http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/11/bigger-than-bundy-ranch-militia-put-on-level-2-alert-to-defend-oregon-ranchers-against-tyrannical-feds-who-label-them-terrorists/) has turned into an armed standoff pitting the Federal government against armed Patriot militiamen (http://freedomoutpost.com/2016/01/american-patriot-militiamen-descend-on-town-ahead-of-monday-deadline-for-oregon-ranchers-to-turn-themselves-in/).


Joining the Burn protest were Ammon (http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/12/ammon-bundy-issues-resolution-to-local-officials-regarding-oregon-ranchers-we-dont-have-to-remind-you-of-your-duty-to-act-nor-consequences-of-negligence/) and Ryan Bundy, the sons of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy who was at the center of a grazing rights dispute in Bunkerville, Nevada, in 2014. At Bunkerville, as many as 5,000 armed individuals from around the country (http://freedomoutpost.com/?s=bundy+ranch+seige)joined the dispute and eventually pushed back (http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/video-militias-are-on-route-is-the-2nd-american-revolution-starting-in-bunkerville-nevada_04102014) scores of heavily armed Federal government agents. At the time, Senator Harry Reid called Bundy supporters (http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/harry-reid-calls-cliven-bundy-supporters-domestic-terrorists_04172014) "nothing more than domestic terrorists."
In Oregon this weekend, Cliven Bundy's sons split off from the main protests with up to 50 people, including militia members, and have occupied the headquarters of the national wildlife refuge. The two are now calling for more people to join the protest and say that they are not only prepared for a years' long occupation, but are willing to kill (and die) to achieve their goals.

Ammon Bundy, an Idaho militia leader, said that while the occupiers were not looking to hurt anyone, they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, the Oregonian reported.
Bundy's brother Ryan Bundy, who is also an occupier, told the Oregonian that they're 'willing to kill and be killed' if necessary, adding that the federal officials' actions have been 'in violation of the constitution'.
'We're calling people out here to come and stand. We need you to bring your arms and we need you to come to the Malheur National Wildlife refuge,' he said.
The second man, dressed in camouflage gear, said the group is challenging the government.
'Until that line is drawn to say "We've had enough of this tyranny, you are going to leave us alone," it will not change,' he said. 'This is the power of America right here.
'People got together for this and it doesn't have to stop here. This could be a hope that spreads through the whole country.
'Everybody's looking for this hope because the government has beat us, oppressed us and took everything from us. They will not stop until we tell them no.'
Source: The Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382859/Oregon-farmers-center-grazing-rights-dispute-REJECT-Bundy-family-occupation-federal-building-insist-plan-peacefully-report-prison-Monday.html)
But not everyone supports the takeover of a Federal building, especially locals living near the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, some of whom have called for a law enforcement response. Even Dwight and Steven Hammond, the ranchers facing jail time for their illegal fires, have rejected the Bundy family's presence.

Dwight Hammond Jr, 73, and his son Steven Hammond, 46, are at the center of a dispute over grazing rights after starting fires to stop invasive plants from growing on their land in 2001 and 2006.
Despite serving jail time for arson three years ago a judge has ruled their initial sentences were insufficient.
But the father and son insist they plan to comply with law enforcement – and insist the armed demonstrators are nothing to do with them.
…


A sign tacked outside a Burns, Oregon, home reflects growing community sentiment that outsider militia aren't welcome…
image: http://freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/bundys-oregon.jpg (http://freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/bundys-oregon.jpg)
http://freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/bundys-oregon.jpg (http://freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/bundys-oregon.jpg)The Bundy's occupation has come under attack by hundreds of Twitter users utilizing the hashtag #OregonUnderAttack (https://twitter.com/hashtag/OregonUnderAttack?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw). Citing racial factors, some argue that while law enforcement was quick to deploy riot police in Ferguson (http://freedomoutpost.com/?s=riot+police+in+Ferguson), they have done nothing to stop the Bundy's armed occupation in Oregon:

Via RT (https://www.rt.com/usa/327809-bundy-militia-oregon-reaction/): This has, naturally, led to accusations of terrorism by those online who see Bundy's actions as unlawful, to put it mildly. Those people also believe it is groups like blacks and Muslims who are typically and often unfairly associated with the word. Outrage grew over both a lack of response from the National Guard, as well as the mainstream media's avoidance of issuing labels where white people are normally concerned.
But according to Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward, law enforcement is planning to take action and has warned people to stay away from the area:

Owing to the location's remote nature, the authorities largely acted the same as the journalists and issued warnings for people to stay away from the area. They promised more information to come and the sheriff told US media there would be action by "multiple agencies" in the morning.
A standoff is brewing in Oregon. This time, however, militia members led by Ammon and Ryan Bundy have taken over a Federal building with firearms in tow.
Unlike Nevada, where armed protests were taking place on open land, the wildlife refuge building has likely been encircled by law enforcement, so those who do show up to lend support will probably be too far away to make a difference.
While the Bundy's stand against the Federal government should be applauded, there is something to be said for picking ones battles, as Karl Denninger notes:

There's an old saying that I've heard many times before — if you think it's time to take a stand grab your rifle (http://joshuamark5.com/product/joshua-mark-5-arak-hybrid-rifle-gift-certificate/) and head out the front door. If you're the only one out there it's not time.
The question now is how far the Bundy's are willing to take this? We can be 100% certain that the multiple federal agencies involved are more than willing to kill to ensure compliance with Federal law.

[perotter]

Couple of quick observations. Taking private property for a runway or street is based on an ancient legal principal called eminent domain. Basically the king or the state can take private property for public uses. Roads, bridges, power lines, and the like. The property owner is entitle to due process including a trial on the value of the property taken. Not sure if that is what is going on here as I have not been following the case closely.


Secondly a person released from incarceration after serving part of their sentence is often still under the jurisdiction of the respective prison system. Parole or mandatory supervised release are a couple of terms used. Essentially you may be out of the lock up but they still own your hiney. Your release is conditional and if you violate the conditions of your release you get sent back to finish your time on the inside. You are entitled to a hearing on the issue of whether or not you violated your release conditions.

They served full sentence that they were given. They convicted for the burning under a Clinton signed law that was introduced by Sen. Dole as terrorists and don't have habeas corpus rights.

A great deal isn't it? The fed prosecutors could keep appealing the judges sentence, but the ranchers couldn't appeal anything.

[MaryB]

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

[knifemaker]

There might be a little more to the story. Here is another version that does not put the rancher and his son in good light. As for the jury in Pendleton, Ore. convicting them of arson says a lot. Pendleton, Oregon is in the middle of "cowboy country" where they hold the big rodeo each year. For a jury there to convict a rancher says a lot.

Wednesday, October 7, 2015
>Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson
>Resentenced to Five Years in
>Prison
>
>EUGENE, Ore. – Dwight Lincoln Hammond,
>Jr., 73, and his son,
>Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both
>residents of Diamond, Oregon in
>Harney County, were sentenced to
>five years in prison by
>Chief U.S. District Judge Ann
>Aiken for arsons they committed
>on federal lands.
>
>A jury sitting in Pendleton, Oregon
>found the Hammonds guilty of
>the arsons after a two-week
>trial in June 2012.
>The trial involved allegations that
>the Hammonds, owners of Hammond
>Ranches, Inc., ignited a series
>of fires on lands managed
>by the U.S. Bureau of
>Land Management (BLM), on which
>the Hammonds had grazing rights
>leased to them for their
>cattle operation.
>
>The jury convicted both of the
>Hammonds of using fire to
>destroy federal property for a
>2001 arson known as the
>Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the
>Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and
>Protection Area. Witnesses at
>trial, including a relative of
>the Hammonds, testified the arson
>occurred shortly after Steven Hammond
>and his hunting party illegally
>slaughtered several deer on BLM
>property. Jurors were told
>that Steven Hammond handed out
>“Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions
>that they be lit and
>dropped on the ground because
>they were going to “light
>up the whole country on
>fire.” One witness testified
>that he barely escaped the
>eight to ten foot high
>flames caused by the arson.
> The fire consumed 139
>acres of public land and
>destroyed all evidence of the
>game violations. After committing
>the arson, Steven Hammond called
>the BLM office in Burns,
>Oregon and claimed the fire
>was started on Hammond property
>to burn off invasive species
>and had inadvertently burned onto
>public lands. Dwight and
>Steven Hammond told one of
>their relatives to keep his
>mouth shut and that nobody
>needed to know about the
>fire.
>
>The jury also convicted Steven Hammond
>of using fire to destroy
>federal property regarding a 2006
>arson known as the Krumbo
>Butte Fire located in the
>Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and
>Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and
>Protection Area. An August
>lightning storm started numerous fires
>and a burn ban was
>in effect while BLM firefighters
>fought those fires. Despite
>the ban, without permission or
>notification to BLM, Steven Hammond
>started several “back fires” in
>an attempt save the ranch’s
>winter feed. The fires
>burned onto public land and
>were seen by BLM firefighters
>camped nearby. The firefighters
>took steps to ensure their
>safety and reported the arsons.
>
>
>By law, arson on federal land
>carries a five-year mandatory minimum
>sentence. When the Hammonds
>were originally sentenced, they argued
>that the five-year mandatory minimum
>terms were unconstitutional and the
>trial court agreed and imposed
>sentences well below what the
>law required based upon the
>jury’s verdicts. The Ninth
>Circuit Court of Appeals, however,
>upheld the federal law, reasoning
>that “given the seriousness of
>arson, a five-year sentence is
>not grossly disproportionate to the
>offense.” The court vacated
>the original, unlawful sentences and
>ordered that the Hammonds be
>resentenced “in compliance with the
>law.” In March 2015,
>the Supreme Court rejected the
>Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today,
>Chief Judge Aiken imposed five
>year prison terms on each
>of the Hammonds, with credit
>for time they already served.
>
>
>“We all know the devastating effects
>that are caused by wildfires.
> Fires intentionally and illegally
>set on public lands, even
>those in a remote area,
>threaten property and residents and
>endanger firefighters called to battle
>the blaze” stated Acting U.S.
>Attorney Billy Williams.
>
>“Congress sought to ensure that anyone
>who maliciously damages United States’
>property by fire will serve
>at least 5 years in
>prison. These sentences are
>intended to be long enough
>to deter those like the
>Hammonds who disregard the law
>and place fire fighters and
>others in jeopardy.”
>
>Assistant U.S. Attorneys Frank R Papagni,
>Jr., AnneMarie Sgarlata and Kelly
>Zusman handled the prosecution of
>this case.

[starmac]

A grassfire destroyed all evidence of 7 dead deer, which was thrown out supposedly because of hard feelings by the one supposed witness, hmmm. Was it the same witness that claimed they intentionally lit the world up.
Back fires have been used to protect property since before there was a word arson, that one is a stretch.
I wouldn't be so quick to call pendleton cowboy country, just because they still have a rodeo, it is still oregon and many folks think ranchers should not be allowed to lease govt property.

[RogerDat]

So the going back to prison to serve 5 years is all based on a jury trial and conviction where an "activist" judge disregarded mandatory minimum sentence by sentencing them to 1/20th of that minimum. On appeal through the courts where both parties had opportunity to make a case the prosecution eventually got the crimes mandatory sentence imposed. And correct me if I am wrong those two are going to turn themselves in and have generally tried to distance themselves from this current action to invade a Federal building on Federal land.

One can argue that the jury should not have convicted, one could argue that the judge was trying to ignore the minimum sentence in the interest of justice. But one could also argue that the defendants had a chance to provide the jury with evidence to avoid a conviction. Of course we all know the "truth" and "facts" from media reports, at least know them much better than that jury that heard the evidence. Unless you already have a pre-conceived attitude against the BLM or government in general I think you will find selling this one to the general public as an abuse of power seems like an uphill battle given the jury trial and mandatory sentence for the jury conviction.

Getting a few people to take over a building on Federal land some of whom are reportedly armed, and at least one stating that if the laws on trespass are enforced by attempting to remove them there will be violence may make a point but will probably make a lot of people dismiss them with labels such as "domestic terrorist" or "militia nuts". While others will support them strictly on the basis of their "patriotic" defense of the constitution and the rights of the "little guy" against the guberment.

All this sort of ignores a couple of things. Defending a position that is surrounded by hostile forces and not self sufficient is called how to lose a siege in most history books. The Federal government at some point MUST enforce it's laws and rules or cease to function as a government. Sort of makes one think the folks in that building are almost guaranteed a chance to defeat the Federal government. Good luck with that. Bit too much like Custer getting a chance to defeat the Sioux Indians at the Little Big Horn.

I predict it will either end badly for the occupiers or people will fade out and leave as the coffee, cigarettes and toilet paper run out. Oh and the media leave or are pushed back. Nothing says time to go like having the press pushed back by the people that outnumber and out gun you badly while surrounding your position.

[Nose Dive]

Yea...I'm telling ya... the truth in these things is hard to obtain.

But I do know one thing for sure. When somebody, anybody, squares off with Uncle Sam with firearms and wherewithal to do harm, well boys and girls, you gonna get into a real scrape.

Sam has a big wallet, lots of lawyers, and, well, plenty of real fire power. And, his behavior in the past is to use all resources at hand to accomplish the goals 'he has in mind'. And his goals don't necessarily have to accommodate yours or mine or any other US citizen.

And I do know for a fact, bullets from an M16 bounce right off a tank. I also know that 30.06 rounds bounce off too. Ask me how I know. Ask David Koresh. I have also see what these little tanks can do. I know also Uncle Sam has plenty of tanks. This I know as I have seen them. I also know ole Uncle Sam has the items, resources and personnel needed to move these tanks and things about all over this planet. This too I have seen first hand with my own eyes.

So, these little insignificant facts I know make me deftly afraid for the folks holed up in that little rock built structure in Oregon. I don't like live fire armed conflicts and certainly distain them if all involved are Americans. In these situations, to me now, at the end of the situation, there are no winners as some Americans usually come away gravely injured. Injuries on both sides...both very bad. Again, ask me how I know.

I would like it if the folks in the refuge packed up their stuff and went home and took what funds they have and march back into a court of law. Now I know too, they have done this and feel cheated and ignored. But, if engaged in this methodology, they will live to see the sunrise tomorrow and be there to fight another day. This is primarily the chosen path here in the United States. It is NOT PERFECT. But, having studied here in the USA and 'other country's' universities, I know from my foreign born and raised classmates testimonies to me, the legal system in the USA is the very best on this planet. The 'rule of law' is generally offered and not the prevailing opinion of the current ruling political regime. I know many who read this disagree and I respect your opinion and proof as offered by you. I respect your position. But I also believe shooting a county Sheriff in pursuit of a legal or political position is totally wrong and should also be subject to the rule of law in these United States.

I fully respect those folks in Oregon opinions and positions on the previous events. I too do not like the fact that two bread winners are now cooling their heels in a federal penitentiary. I also know that live fire, armed conflict with Uncle Sam will, as it has 100% in the past, have only one preordained outcome. Again, in these situations, I see no 'winner'.

When Uncle Sam gets a belly full in Oregon, he will stop it. Ask David Koresh. Ask the biker fellas in Waco. Ask Randy Weaver.

Good Luck and God Speed fellas! Please use your heads and think.

Nose Dive

Cheap, Fast, Good. Kindly pick two.

[MaryB]

Hammond's were tried on charges brought by a federal agency, in a federal court, with a federal judge... yeah justice was NOT served! Government lawyers were given 6 days to go over evidence. Government gave the Hammond's lawyer 1 day... a lot of evidence was blocked that would have shown both fires to be legally set, the prescribed burn went onto a whopping ONE ACRE of BLM land, the other was a back fire that saved the house and put out a wildfire! In neither case were federal firefighters called out or even close by. And this is after YEARS of abuse by the feds!

[jmort]

The more you study the facts, the more you see how badly these poor people have been treated. It upsets me, a lot, and I will leave it at that. That the 9th Circuit would stick their noses in this, show how determined the Feds were to railroad these men.

[starmac]

I would call spending one day in jail treated badly, If I had of served a prison them on the whim of a judge , be sentenced again, I would have likely stood with the Bundys and died right there.

I do not see any good come out of this, those in the building will go to prison or worse (depending on how you look at it) and the sad thing is, since the Hammonds didn't make a stand with them, it is all for nothing.

[TXGunNut]

The bottom line is, with the Bundy PROPERTY, not leased land, as with the Hammonds' PROPERTY, Harry Dirtbag Reid's sons' want the property for a deal with the Chi-Comms! CR

Exactly! We weren't able to defeat him at the primaries last time but it could be different next time. The OR situation is very similar but I don't think all the factors have come to light yet.

[TXGunNut]

I would call spending one day in jail treated badly, If I had of served a prison them on the whim of a judge , be sentenced again, I would have likely stood with the Bundys and died right there.

I do not see any good come out of this, those in the building will go to prison or worse (depending on how you look at it) and the sad thing is, since the Hammonds didn't make a stand with them, it is all for nothing.


I think the Hammonds taking a stand with the militia could have given the jackbooted thugs a reason to move in to arrest them. Surrendering and letting things play out could have saved lives. In the end, they were going to prison or worse. By surrendering they can hopefully make themselves heard and prevent bloodshed. At some point it may come to that, just not now, IMHO.

[nagantguy]

Yea...I'm telling ya... the truth in these things is hard to obtain.

But I do know one thing for sure. When somebody, anybody, squares off with Uncle Sam with firearms and wherewithal to do harm, well boys and girls, you gonna get into a real scrape.

Sam has a big wallet, lots of lawyers, and, well, plenty of real fire power. And, his behavior in the past is to use all resources at hand to accomplish the goals 'he has in mind'. And his goals don't necessarily have to accommodate yours or mine or any other US citizen.

And I do know for a fact, bullets from an M16 bounce right off a tank. I also know that 30.06 rounds bounce off too. Ask me how I know. Ask David Koresh. I have also see what these little tanks can do. I know also Uncle Sam has plenty of tanks. This I know as I have seen them. I also know ole Uncle Sam has the items, resources and personnel needed to move these tanks and things about all over this planet. This too I have seen first hand with my own eyes.

So, these little insignificant facts I know make me deftly afraid for the folks holed up in that little rock built structure in Oregon. I don't like live fire armed conflicts and certainly distain them if all involved are Americans. In these situations, to me now, at the end of the situation, there are no winners as some Americans usually come away gravely injured. Injuries on both sides...both very bad. Again, ask me how I know.

I would like it if the folks in the refuge packed up their stuff and went home and took what funds they have and march back into a court of law. Now I know too, they have done this and feel cheated and ignored. But, if engaged in this methodology, they will live to see the sunrise tomorrow and be there to fight another day. This is primarily the chosen path here in the United States. It is NOT PERFECT. But, having studied here in the USA and 'other country's' universities, I know from my foreign born and raised classmates testimonies to me, the legal system in the USA is the very best on this planet. The 'rule of law' is generally offered and not the prevailing opinion of the current ruling political regime. I know many who read this disagree and I respect your opinion and proof as offered by you. I respect your position. But I also believe shooting a county Sheriff in pursuit of a legal or political position is totally wrong and should also be subject to the rule of law in these United States.

I fully respect those folks in Oregon opinions and positions on the previous events. I too do not like the fact that two bread winners are now cooling their heels in a federal penitentiary. I also know that live fire, armed conflict with Uncle Sam will, as it has 100% in the past, have only one preordained outcome. Again, in these situations, I see no 'winner'.

When Uncle Sam gets a belly full in Oregon, he will stop it. Ask David Koresh. Ask the biker fellas in Waco. Ask Randy Weaver.

Good Luck and God Speed fellas! Please use your heads and think.

Nose Dive

Cheap, Fast, Good. Kindly pick two.

I'd have to disagree with your 100% statement as to a fight with uncle sam.... the taliban, isis, al quada, veit cong and the north Koreans might also disagree, the bad guys in the war on drugs also seem to be holding their own.....and the narcotics gangs that have for 40 years or more made our inner cities a war zone still seem to be on the same corners and dealing from the same houses, that one's not even a draw, the gangs are winning. Not calling you out or even disagreeing with most of your well worded and thought out post. We are no longer a nation of laws, it saddens me but it can't be argued. Some laws apply to some people sometimes, some people never and more and more every law edict and abuse apply to some all the time. It might take a few more instances like this to wake the zombies to just how enslaved we've become. 2015 was a new record year for federal regulations, 2012, 13 and 14 were as well, what's left to regulate?

[starmac]

The bottom line is, with the Bundy PROPERTY, not leased land, as with the Hammonds' PROPERTY, Harry Dirtbag Reid's sons' want the property for a deal with the Chi-Comms! CR

Most of the Bundy property was leased land controlled by the same blm. I'm not sure what you are saying here, both the bundys and the Hammonds also have private property.

This is just 2 of several hundred cases just like this in the last 20 years or so, some were sentenced to prison terms, some were just jailed while the govt stole their livestock.

One of the big differences here, is the state the standoff is in, most of oregon just is not going to support a bunch of good old boys.

[MaryB]

Difference in this case is the Hammond family is broken, FBI agents threatened to put a bullet into every family members head if they did not tell the Bundy's to get lost... Hammond's have already lost most of their cattle and land... paid $200,000 in fines... and the BLM is first in line of they sell the rest. They have nothing left to fight with, abuses have broken them!

[Bad Water Bill]

Just a short story about a XXXXX Rancher I frequented many years ago.

I asked him how much land he owned and what happened to his cattle.

At one time he had 640 cattle on the ranch (it is all rock and mountains and not much of ANYTHING green) then the feds stopped by and informed him that THEY had determined ALL of his cattle had TB and HE must destroy AND BURY each and every member of the herd or the government would step in confiscate the ranch and put down all of the livestock and he would be flat broke without a roof over his head.

How long had his family and his wifes family been ranching there?

The covered wagon HER family used to move from "back east"was still well preserved back in the mid 80s when I last visited.

How much land did he own?

Bout 10 miles in any direction and for most here there are about 640 acres to 1 square mile.

Not his but a neighbors ranch info find "HAY CREEK RANCH OREGON."

Lots of great memories from my visits,camping and driving for days without ever leaving his own land.

[Love Life]

Difference in this case is the Hammond family is broken, FBI agents threatened to put a bullet into every family members head if they did not tell the Bundy's to get lost...

Where did you get this information?

[Nose Dive]

Mr. nagantguy.... sir... Your right... You (we) can make a long list of folks who misjudged the focus and desire of the US military's (US citizenry) might and desire to repel oppression, on US soil and abroad. The desire to persevere and succeed as AMERICANS cannot be denied. So, here sir, your 100% correct and I support your position that UNCLE SAM and 'his compatriots' will fight and succeed. This indeed is my point. I think here, we agree. Uncle Sam will persevere when his mind is made up to succeed. Again, I refer you to Mr. Koresh, Mr. Weaver, and about 100 fellas arrested and charged in WACO, Texas. These persons, some anyway, may or may have not decided to oppose Uncle Sam's position and law and order.

Who, in these cases in the USA are the WINNERS? Or, where does WIN start and where does LOOSE begin?

The parlance that US Military engagements overseas, against a foe most of us detest, in the past and now, is a suitable comparison with the fellas in Oregon versus the US BLM and US FBI is similar and like, is to me, short sighted and, well, not comparing 'apples to apples'. Here sir, I, as you, disagree 100%.

I'll offer my Dad had to farm cockroaches from latrines in North Korea and boil them is sea water with crickets, dandelions, worms, what ever, to survive as a POW. My Mother too had to scrape rubber off communications wire and boil the wire to make 'sutures' on Corregidor to sew up American wounded before she escaped on a submarine, the USS Spearfish. (I'll send you to the WWII history of the Pacific Theater) I too spent a few months in the central highlands in NAM and saw how UNCLE SAM's folks fight and behave. We agree Americans will be Americans. God I hope so.

So, now where are we? If we can, let's examine a few of your positions. And I will tell you, my 'well worded and thought out' posts are done as you read them. From my mind via my heart to my hands as best as I can make it happen. Arthritis and cataracts does promote edits.

INNER CITY WAR ZONES... DRUG WARS....NARCOTICS GANGS...

I only suggest here, that Messrs. Bundy and Hammond and families, have, in what I have read, little relation to inner city woes. I cannot see their connection in Nevada and Oregon with these issues. I do not believe either families were dealing in illegal drugs, promoted or participated in gang activity as you describe. They could be, but I have not seen any data to support that position. So, here, I disagree and dispel your position that these families should be considered as 'inner city' combatants who have been denied or afforded the ability to pursue their livelihood as persons living in government provided housing, using government provided health care, and subjected to drug and gang wars while living on government provided financial subsidies. I see no 'gangland' or 'drug world' connection. I may see however, where these families may have been subjected to denial of some due process issues and here, if your 'gangland' connection and comparison is being offered, I may see some weak kinship.

WE ARE NO LONGER A NATION OF LAWS

Here, again, I disagree 100%. If there were no laws and no compliance with these laws, in my opinion, we here in the USA would be a degraded, and exemplified as, I am sorry to say, political and financial mess as is Mexico. The US National Security Agency has offered that, along with Afghanistan, Mexico is one of the two most likely countries to collapse in political and financial turmoil. So, if the inner city turmoil is too much for anyone in the USA, one must take some firearms and money and go to Mexico or Afghanistan and set up shop and begin to rule the country. (is this or is this not what ISIS had accomplished?) That is what is going on there now. So, here in the USA, I disagree. Or, come to Texas, bring your money and guns, and tell us you are the government. If you do so, be sure you will be met with Texan armed resistance. We have resisted these objectionable behaviors here in San Antonio on previous occasion.

ENSLAVED ZOMBIES

Yesterday, I put my .45 TRB pistol in my shoulder holster, outside my shirt, and went to get food, gas, feed and clothing. I too bought some beer. I did this in the State of Texas after our elected legislature enacted LAWS that allowed me to do so. I voted for some of them. Some I did not. Some I voted for were elected, some were not. I wanted the law to allow me to carry my pistols outside my shirt. Today, I put a revolver on my hip holster and went and mailed some bills. I had to put the pistol in my truck while mailing letters in USA MAIL post office. I didn't like this, but, it is UNCLE SAM's law ...no guns in the post office...So, I complied, mailed my letters, then went to my favorite Mexican restaurant and ate my supper with my pistol strapped to my leg. So, the enslavement issue may have some weak credence here. I left my pistol in the truck while I walked into the post office. But...I could have left it in its holster and walked right in. Thus, I disagree with the enslavement issue here. Yes, I could have been arrested and spend a few years in the can, but, that would have been my 'choice'... so..no 'slavery' issue here in my opinion.
I am today writing here of my own free will and open mindset, so, I do not believe I am today a zombie. I have never met or been exposed to a zombie but believe your reference here is to a mindless, dolt, absent of freewill. Under this definition, I too, here in the US, have yet to meet a person such as this outside of a mental institution. We each have freewill. Not all of us wish to wisely use it.

WHATS LEFT TO REGULATE

Here sir, you have struck a very sensitive nerve for all freedom loving persons. (Americans).

I will take some liberty and attempt to paraphrase your proposition. "where should government start and where should it stop?"

This question it to be answered every four years in YOUR VOTE. Every time there is an election or taxing proposition, and you don't vote...well,,,, in my opinion...

'SHUT UP'

Nose Dive

Cheap, Fast, Good. Kindly pick two.

[MaryB]

Came from a recording of a phone call between Ammon Bundy and the Hammond's. I got it as part of the email blast from the Bundy's that I subscribe to. Text of what was said...

"Dear Friends,

Yesterday I received a phone call from Dwight Hammond (74). He said that he was very afraid for his life and for mine as well. He informed me that federal agents contacted his attorney. They told Dwight’s attorney that if Dwight and Susie did not end all communication with Ammon Bundy, that they “would detain the Hammond’s early for federal prison and that they would transfer pain to the Hammond family”. He further said, that he believed “they would bring misery to the whole family”.

Steven Hammond’s attorney also confirmed that federal agents contacted him and hinted a raid on the Hammonds home if they did not end all communication with Ammon Bundy.

On Thursday November 19th, Harney County Sheriff, David Ward, informed me that federal agents indicated to him that if the Hammond’s continued to speaking out, that they may raid the Hammond’s home and detain them early for federal prison. I informed the Sheriff that it was his duty to make sure that did not happen.

I do not have to explain how this is a violation of individual rights. Dwight, Steven and Susie have all told me that they are terrified of what will happen if they continue to communicate with me. In the last phone conversation between Susie and I, she told me that she loved me and was so thankful for what I have done to get the truth out. She then informed me that she feared that if we continued to talk, federal agents were going to put a bullet in her and Dwight’s heads, and possible mine. I attempted to instill courage in both Dwight and Susie, but fear had over come them.

This last Wednesday I spent a good part of the day in the Hammond’s home. We spoke for hours. Several times, I found the Hammond’s in tears when they explained the injustices that has destroyed their lives. They were hopeful that the American people were going to stand for them. And that, just maybe, they would be able to return to the life they once knew. In just a few short hours, federal agents again have dashed the Hammond’s hope and replaced it with fear.

I hold my tongue against those that would inflict such pain upon these wonderful people. It reminds me of the scripture that reads: “Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn” (D&C 98:9). Everyone within the reach of my words must know that I will do everything in my power to make sure that justice is brought to the Hammond’s. I will not stop until the Hammond’s are home free, without fear. I do not fear for my life. I love the Hammonds, I love the Lord.

With Concern,

Ammon Bundy"



Where did you get this information?

[Nose Dive]

MaryB... thank you for this information. God Bless the Bundy family...God bless the Hammond Family.

In my heart, I believe the Bundy's and Hammod's have not be dealt with fairly. It does happen in these Unites States. These are only two examples.

I again refer all to the situations at RUBY RIDGE, WACO (Branch Davidians), and again, as a TEXAN, I am sorry to say, WACO, Twin Peaks issue.

My position still stands firm. "When Uncle Sam gets a belly full, he will stop it." Right or wrong, today, tomorrow. We all must be cognizant.

Nose Dive

Cheap, Fast, Good. Kindly pick two.

[MaryB]

I am following a live feed from the refuge they are at when it is online. Sheriff did come in and talk to them today about the constitution and how he failed to do his duty and protect the people of his county. If you want to see the archives they are under Pete Santelli on youtube. I won't post them here, Pete tends to use some NSFW language! Reason I am keeping a close eye on this is Obama's new waterway rules will be affecting EVERYONE who lives rural! I pay taxes on a drainage ditch 1/8 mile out that my property drains to. In spring I can have a shallow foot deep pond in one spot... under the new rules that is a waterway under EPA control!! Construction might have filled half of it in...

[dtknowles]

Mr. nagantguy.... sir... Your right... You (we) can make a long list of folks who misjudged the focus and desire of the US military's (US citizenry) might and desire to repel oppression, on US soil and abroad. The desire to persevere and succeed as AMERICANS cannot be denied. So, here sir, your 100% correct and I support your position that UNCLE SAM and 'his compatriots' will fight and succeed. This indeed is my point. I think here, we agree. Uncle Sam will persevere when his mind is made up to succeed. Again, I refer you to Mr. Koresh, Mr. Weaver, and about 100 fellas arrested and charged in WACO, Texas. These persons, some anyway, may or may have not decided to oppose Uncle Sam's position and law and order.

Who, in these cases in the USA are the WINNERS? Or, where does WIN start and where does LOOSE begin?

The parlance that US Military engagements overseas, against a foe most of us detest, in the past and now, is a suitable comparison with the fellas in Oregon versus the US BLM and US FBI is similar and like, is to me, short sighted and, well, not comparing 'apples to apples'. Here sir, I, as you, disagree 100%.

I'll offer my Dad had to farm cockroaches from latrines in North Korea and boil them is sea water with crickets, dandelions, worms, what ever, to survive as a POW. My Mother too had to scrape rubber off communications wire and boil the wire to make 'sutures' on Corregidor to sew up American wounded before she escaped on a submarine, the USS Spearfish. (I'll send you to the WWII history of the Pacific Theater) I too spent a few months in the central highlands in NAM and saw how UNCLE SAM's folks fight and behave. We agree Americans will be Americans. God I hope so.

So, now where are we? If we can, let's examine a few of your positions. And I will tell you, my 'well worded and thought out' posts are done as you read them. From my mind via my heart to my hands as best as I can make it happen. Arthritis and cataracts does promote edits.

INNER CITY WAR ZONES... DRUG WARS....NARCOTICS GANGS...

I only suggest here, that Messrs. Bundy and Hammond and families, have, in what I have read, little relation to inner city woes. I cannot see their connection in Nevada and Oregon with these issues. I do not believe either families were dealing in illegal drugs, promoted or participated in gang activity as you describe. They could be, but I have not seen any data to support that position. So, here, I disagree and dispel your position that these families should be considered as 'inner city' combatants who have been denied or afforded the ability to pursue their livelihood as persons living in government provided housing, using government provided health care, and subjected to drug and gang wars while living on government provided financial subsidies. I see no 'gangland' or 'drug world' connection. I may see however, where these families may have been subjected to denial of some due process issues and here, if your 'gangland' connection and comparison is being offered, I may see some weak kinship.

WE ARE NO LONGER A NATION OF LAWS

Here, again, I disagree 100%. If there were no laws and no compliance with these laws, in my opinion, we here in the USA would be a degraded, and exemplified as, I am sorry to say, political and financial mess as is Mexico. The US National Security Agency has offered that, along with Afghanistan, Mexico is one of the two most likely countries to collapse in political and financial turmoil. So, if the inner city turmoil is too much for anyone in the USA, one must take some firearms and money and go to Mexico or Afghanistan and set up shop and begin to rule the country. (is this or is this not what ISIS had accomplished?) That is what is going on there now. So, here in the USA, I disagree. Or, come to Texas, bring your money and guns, and tell us you are the government. If you do so, be sure you will be met with Texan armed resistance. We have resisted these objectionable behaviors here in San Antonio on previous occasion.

ENSLAVED ZOMBIES

Yesterday, I put my .45 TRB pistol in my shoulder holster, outside my shirt, and went to get food, gas, feed and clothing. I too bought some beer. I did this in the State of Texas after our elected legislature enacted LAWS that allowed me to do so. I voted for some of them. Some I did not. Some I voted for were elected, some were not. I wanted the law to allow me to carry my pistols outside my shirt. Today, I put a revolver on my hip holster and went and mailed some bills. I had to put the pistol in my truck while mailing letters in USA MAIL post office. I didn't like this, but, it is UNCLE SAM's law ...no guns in the post office...So, I complied, mailed my letters, then went to my favorite Mexican restaurant and ate my supper with my pistol strapped to my leg. So, the enslavement issue may have some weak credence here. I left my pistol in the truck while I walked into the post office. But...I could have left it in its holster and walked right in. Thus, I disagree with the enslavement issue here. Yes, I could have been arrested and spend a few years in the can, but, that would have been my 'choice'... so..no 'slavery' issue here in my opinion.
I am today writing here of my own free will and open mindset, so, I do not believe I am today a zombie. I have never met or been exposed to a zombie but believe your reference here is to a mindless, dolt, absent of freewill. Under this definition, I too, here in the US, have yet to meet a person such as this outside of a mental institution. We each have freewill. Not all of us wish to wisely use it.

WHATS LEFT TO REGULATE

Here sir, you have struck a very sensitive nerve for all freedom loving persons. (Americans).

I will take some liberty and attempt to paraphrase your proposition. "where should government start and where should it stop?"

This question it to be answered every four years in YOUR VOTE. Every time there is an election or taxing proposition, and you don't vote...well,,,, in my opinion...

'SHUT UP'

Nose Dive

Cheap, Fast, Good. Kindly pick two.

I find merit and insight in what you wrote. Write on. Right on.

Tim

[dtknowles]

Came from a recording of a phone call between Ammon Bundy and the Hammond's. I got it as part of the email blast from the Bundy's that I subscribe to. Text of what was said...

"Dear Friends,

Yesterday I received a phone call from Dwight Hammond (74). He said that he was very afraid for his life and for mine as well. He informed me that federal agents contacted his attorney. They told Dwight’s attorney that if Dwight and Susie did not end all communication with Ammon Bundy, that they “would detain the Hammond’s early for federal prison and that they would transfer pain to the Hammond family”. He further said, that he believed “they would bring misery to the whole family”.

Steven Hammond’s attorney also confirmed that federal agents contacted him and hinted a raid on the Hammonds home if they did not end all communication with Ammon Bundy.

On Thursday November 19th, Harney County Sheriff, David Ward, informed me that federal agents indicated to him that if the Hammond’s continued to speaking out, that they may raid the Hammond’s home and detain them early for federal prison. I informed the Sheriff that it was his duty to make sure that did not happen.

I do not have to explain how this is a violation of individual rights. Dwight, Steven and Susie have all told me that they are terrified of what will happen if they continue to communicate with me. In the last phone conversation between Susie and I, she told me that she loved me and was so thankful for what I have done to get the truth out. She then informed me that she feared that if we continued to talk, federal agents were going to put a bullet in her and Dwight’s heads, and possible mine. I attempted to instill courage in both Dwight and Susie, but fear had over come them.

This last Wednesday I spent a good part of the day in the Hammond’s home. We spoke for hours. Several times, I found the Hammond’s in tears when they explained the injustices that has destroyed their lives. They were hopeful that the American people were going to stand for them. And that, just maybe, they would be able to return to the life they once knew. In just a few short hours, federal agents again have dashed the Hammond’s hope and replaced it with fear.

I hold my tongue against those that would inflict such pain upon these wonderful people. It reminds me of the scripture that reads: “Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn” (D&C 98:9). Everyone within the reach of my words must know that I will do everything in my power to make sure that justice is brought to the Hammond’s. I will not stop until the Hammond’s are home free, without fear. I do not fear for my life. I love the Hammonds, I love the Lord.

With Concern,

Ammon Bundy"

Mary please compare the content of this post and your previous post. Can you see that the early post was different and more disturbing. With something this important we must be careful unless you are deliberately trying to inflame the situation by stretching the truth. Thinks are disturbing enough..

Tim

[jmort]

"Reason I am keeping a close eye on this is Obama's new waterway rules will be affecting EVERYONE who lives rural!"

The new EPA rules, i.e. "Water of the U.S." rule aka "WOTUS" will cover/control 99.7% of Missouri, effectively eliminating what any sane person would consider the right of quiet enjoyment of their private property. It deserves its own thread. The 6th Circuit has put a hold on it, but if it stands, there will be no "private property" here in Missouri. The law is written in the most vague and draconian way to take over control of most all land, one way or another.

[dtknowles]

Anyone want to discuss when it is appropriate for Federal Law Enforcement to use intimidation and threats and when it isn't.

Is it alright for the Fed to use intimidation and threats when you think the perps are bad but not ok when you think the perps are not bad. How far is too far for law enforcement to push the limits of their authority. Do all cop need to act like Sargent Friday?

I don't know the law but is it illegal for a Cop to threaten to exceed his authority even if it is just a bluff or an empty threat?

I believe that a Cop will lie to me and tell me lots of things that are not true and that he can do that without consequence. I will still believe that even if it is not legal. I believe that if they want to search my property bad enough they will with or without a warrant, they will take away whatever they want and I would have to get a lawyer to get my stuff back and it is unlikely that I will get it back because it might be hard for me to prove it was mine or what they took if they don't declare the seizure in some sort of report and put the material in an evidence locker.

The law is not fair and law enforcement often goes way past the limits of the law.

I can believe that the Hammonds have been railroaded. That it got to this point seems to indicate that many years ago they did not wise up or get the appropriate help. That is why I started the other thread about whether the Bundy actions were to late or too early. To late to avoid the problem, that would have required getting more attention back at the time of the first fire and arson charge. Bring to light the BLM intentions relating to expansion of public land. Or too early (premature) or just not the right tactic. Occupying the building will do nothing for the Hammonds and will create martyrs. Maybe it is just desperation on the part of Bundy because the cause is just not getting traction. If the BLM abuse is so wide spread why are there not thousands of ranchers give his cause more support. Maybe there are and the media and government are just squashing the coverage.

Tim

[starmac]

Tim, sure don't have any answers to your questions, but these cases have been going on for years.
Thebundys name goy out there because they sort of won a battle with the feds, but I doubt there war is anywhere close to over.
I also highly doubt that they would have won the standoff, if Reids intentions for some of the land had not come to light, that little bit of info, sort of put the govt in a bad light.

Look up the sage brush rebellion, it was a high profile case.
Before that there was another big high profile case with many involved in New mexico, another in Arizona, the names they were called escape me.
Our very own member Bill Wettle was, and had been in a ongoing battle to keep his property in New Mexico for a number of years, iirc it was more with epa and enviros than blm, but they work hand in hand.
Did it ever make you wonder why, when he left the forum, he requested every post he had ever made be removed off the sight.
It may just have been his wish, but I always had some suspicians myself.

[dtknowles]

It is a little hard to separate what might be general Federal policy and what might be local and regional Political interests like the Harry Reid issue. Might be sometimes they align. Clearly the environment groups are pushing for the end of the Northwest Timber harvest and politics did previously dictate how got timber rights. The whole grazing rights thing and the Feds trying to drive ranchers off the land and buy it for the public, I just don't get who wants that except for the Harry Reid thing. The Hammonds land and the land they grazed, why would the BLM and the Public want it? Can't other people hunt on the BLM land even if the Hammonds have grazing rights? Would the inclusion of the Hammond own land increase the size of the Wildlife Management area that much?

It seems like a lot of concern on the part of BLM for such a small issue.

Tim

[Nose Dive]

Gents: Please know that it is 100% legal and customary for law enforcement officials to lie to anyone at anytime. And, it is a 'normal and customary' practice during interrogations of purported law breakers. I forget the Supreme Court case that allows this but the Justices decided since we each have a 'right to remain silent', they thought it would be just fine to let enforcement officials to lie, posture, file problematic motions just to harass and mislead the citizenry. Or, 'tell me what I want to know or I will arrest you' is perfectly compliant with due process. The advice my attorney offers in these situations is to demand your legal representation. And, one should do so three times. Or, "I want my attorney, I want my attorney, I want my attorney". His advice is to never under any circumstances talk open and freely with any law enforcement official if one is being subjected to any form of investigation. Never.

I for one American citizen follow this simple rule and always follow any instructions given me by any law enforcement officer. You don't have to 'say' anything to them, but you must follow their instructions for you safety and their safety, as, if they feel truly threatened, they can legally shoot you.

Live to fight another day.

Nose Dive.

Cheap, Fast, Good. Kindly pick two.

[starmac]

Yes you can hunt, camp, hike, prospect, whatever on it. Like I said, I have no answers, except I do know that there is a whole lot of folks in this country that doesn't belive anybody, anywhere should be able to profit from any public land, never mind that is how the land became accessable to start with.
While the Bundys were able to stop the feds, for the time being, it is notable that they were the very last family standing in Clark county, which covers a lot of ground.

As far as breaking or otherwise ruining the folks that currantly lease the land, like the Hammonds. Usually they own most or all sources of water by right of private deeded property in the areas they use, sometimes the land is not worth paying taxes on without what the ranchers own, so it must be aquired one way or other or the land is useless even for recreational purposes.

[Love Life]

Came from a recording of a phone call between Ammon Bundy and the Hammond's. I got it as part of the email blast from the Bundy's that I subscribe to. Text of what was said...

"Dear Friends,

Yesterday I received a phone call from Dwight Hammond (74). He said that he was very afraid for his life and for mine as well. He informed me that federal agents contacted his attorney. They told Dwight’s attorney that if Dwight and Susie did not end all communication with Ammon Bundy, that they “would detain the Hammond’s early for federal prison and that they would transfer pain to the Hammond family”. He further said, that he believed “they would bring misery to the whole family”.

Steven Hammond’s attorney also confirmed that federal agents contacted him and hinted a raid on the Hammonds home if they did not end all communication with Ammon Bundy.

On Thursday November 19th, Harney County Sheriff, David Ward, informed me that federal agents indicated to him that if the Hammond’s continued to speaking out, that they may raid the Hammond’s home and detain them early for federal prison. I informed the Sheriff that it was his duty to make sure that did not happen.

I do not have to explain how this is a violation of individual rights. Dwight, Steven and Susie have all told me that they are terrified of what will happen if they continue to communicate with me. In the last phone conversation between Susie and I, she told me that she loved me and was so thankful for what I have done to get the truth out. She then informed me that she feared that if we continued to talk, federal agents were going to put a bullet in her and Dwight’s heads, and possible mine. I attempted to instill courage in both Dwight and Susie, but fear had over come them.

This last Wednesday I spent a good part of the day in the Hammond’s home. We spoke for hours. Several times, I found the Hammond’s in tears when they explained the injustices that has destroyed their lives. They were hopeful that the American people were going to stand for them. And that, just maybe, they would be able to return to the life they once knew. In just a few short hours, federal agents again have dashed the Hammond’s hope and replaced it with fear.

I hold my tongue against those that would inflict such pain upon these wonderful people. It reminds me of the scripture that reads: “Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn” (D&C 98:9). Everyone within the reach of my words must know that I will do everything in my power to make sure that justice is brought to the Hammond’s. I will not stop until the Hammond’s are home free, without fear. I do not fear for my life. I love the Hammonds, I love the Lord.

With Concern,

Ammon Bundy"

This isn't even remotely close to what you posted about what the FBI threatened in post #80. My heart bleeds for the Hammonds, and I believe Bundy has a real beef with Uncle Sugar. However, I believe he picked the wrong person to rally on and that he is walking on the edge of a bad day.

When things are posted that are sensational, and about 90 degrees from what may or may not have been said in a recording talked about in an email...it makes all firearms owners look bad.

[dtknowles]

Yes you can hunt, camp, hike, prospect, whatever on it. Like I said, I have no answers, except I do know that there is a whole lot of folks in this country that doesn't belive anybody, anywhere should be able to profit from any public land, never mind that is how the land became accessable to start with.
While the Bundys were able to stop the feds, for the time being, it is notable that they were the very last family standing in Clark county, which covers a lot of ground.

As far as breaking or otherwise ruining the folks that currantly lease the land, like the Hammonds. Usually they own most or all sources of water by right of private deeded property in the areas they use, sometimes the land is not worth paying taxes on without what the ranchers own, so it must be aquired one way or other or the land is useless even for recreational purposes.

If BLM gets the land does the county lose the property tax receipts? I could see the BLM going after the water, those blood suckers. I don't know about land being useless for recreation without water. I often don't drink from natural sources when I hunt or camp or hike.

I understand how a few activists who don't want people to profit from using public land can affect Government decisions but you would think they could be overcome by a group that supports reasonable grazing, mining, timber rights. There have to be more people on the reasonable use side than on the no profit side.

I understand you not having all the answers but you have been helpful to me to think this over.

Tim

[dtknowles]

This isn't even remotely close to what you posted about what the FBI threatened in post #80. My heart bleeds for the Hammonds, and I believe Bundy has a real beef with Uncle Sugar. However, I believe he picked the wrong person to rally on and that he is walking on the edge of a bad day.

When things are posted that are sensational, and about 90 degrees from what may or may not have been said in a recording talked about in an email...it makes all firearms owners look bad.

I am not sure this makes firearms owners look bad more like make Militia supports look kind of like an armed version of the Occupy movement. Right wing wack jobs instead of left wing wack jobs. If I was an uninformed noncommittal nonaligned citizen an armed group of right wing wack jobs would scare me more than a group of pot smoking long haired sign carrying handout accepting left wing wack jobs.

One group will take-over a building and when you come to make them leave they hold out their hands for the cuffs and make you carry them out the other points guns at you and to carry them out you put them in body bags.

When the stakes are that high you need to be sure you are right.

I am not saying the Bundy is a wack job, I don't know anything about him, really. So all that I have just said is speculation.

Tim

[Love Life]

Tim,

You either misunderstood, or I was unclear. What I meant was, MaryB's sensational statement based off of an email based off of a phone call that a lawyer said hinted at possible further legal troubles, is a very far cry from her posting that that the FBI threatened to shoot the Hammond family in the head.

It is those kinds of long stretch statements that make us gun owners/conservatives/blah blah blah look like a bunch of mouth breathers with cheetoh stains on our t-shirts.

[dtknowles]

Tim,

You either misunderstood, or I was unclear. What I meant was, MaryB's sensational statement based off of an email based off of a phone call that a lawyer said hinted at possible further legal troubles, is a very far cry from her posting that that the FBI threatened to shoot the Hammond family in the head.

It is those kinds of long stretch statements that make us gun owners/conservatives/blah blah blah look like a bunch of mouth breathers with cheetoh stains on our t-shirts.


If you look back I replied in post 88 to Mary with a similar comment but I did misunderstand part of what you said, sorry.

Tim

[Love Life]

No worries! If I was unclear then the mess up is on my part.

[starmac]

Tim, the water would not just be for you or hikers to drink. Much of the west would virtually have no, as in not even registered lizards, if it wasn't for the ranchers water sources.
Not saying the feds give two hoots about that though. I was working in Mt Raneir national park a few years ago. It hasd what looked to be a beautiful trout river running through it, not far from the job.
I bought some light tackle, my out of state license and picked up the washington fishing proclamation.
The trout limit in the park was 6 pounds, get that, you were limited to 6 pounds of fish, no number limit, no size limit.
I stopped at the parks headquarters, and ask how serious they were on checking us for 6 pounds, they laughed and told me not to worry. They would not hassle me if I caught 7 or 700 pounds, but in reality would be real suprised if I caught 6 ounces.
It turns out they had fish fences down river to stop all fish from getting into the park, to curb fishing.

[MaryB]

I did not save the audio recording of that phone call. I know what was said but that text is all I can find on the call online.


This isn't even remotely close to what you posted about what the FBI threatened in post #80. My heart bleeds for the Hammonds, and I believe Bundy has a real beef with Uncle Sugar. However, I believe he picked the wrong person to rally on and that he is walking on the edge of a bad day.

When things are posted that are sensational, and about 90 degrees from what may or may not have been said in a recording talked about in an email...it makes all firearms owners look bad.

[MaryB]

"
An arcane provision in the 1906 Antiquities Act allows presidents to bypass Congress and unilaterally designate areas of land as national monuments. A monument designation allows restrictions on activity like recreation, agriculture and energy development without the input of legislators or local communities that are most affected. As such, it is a tempting tool for environmentalists to stop affordable energy production.
With three new simultaneous designations in Nevada, Texas and California, totaling more than 1 million acres, the president nearly doubled the amount of land he has declared monuments. He has now used this authority 19 times, declaring more than 260 million acres monuments — more than any other president."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/19/rick-berman-the-federal-monument-land-grab-to-lock/

In Oregon where the protest is!
http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20151021/ranchers-oppose-malheur-county-monument-designation



I am not sure this makes firearms owners look bad more like make Militia supports look kind of like an armed version of the Occupy movement. Right wing wack jobs instead of left wing wack jobs. If I was an uninformed noncommittal nonaligned citizen an armed group of right wing wack jobs would scare me more than a group of pot smoking long haired sign carrying handout accepting left wing wack jobs.

One group will take-over a building and when you come to make them leave they hold out their hands for the cuffs and make you carry them out the other points guns at you and to carry them out you put them in body bags.

When the stakes are that high you need to be sure you are right.

I am not saying the Bundy is a wack job, I don't know anything about him, really. So all that I have just said is speculation.

Tim

[waksupi]

If BLM gets the land does the county lose the property tax receipts? I could see the BLM going after the water, those blood suckers. I don't know about land being useless for recreation without water. I often don't drink from natural sources when I hunt or camp or hike.

I understand how a few activists who don't want people to profit from using public land can affect Government decisions but you would think they could be overcome by a group that supports reasonable grazing, mining, timber rights. There have to be more people on the reasonable use side than on the no profit side.

I understand you not having all the answers but you have been helpful to me to think this over.

Tim

You underestimate how much money the greenies put in to politicians pockets.

[starmac]

You underestimate how much money the greenies put in to politicians pockets.

By a long shot, and they are well heeled and organized.
The first time I was ever in Yukon Territory, folks were livid. It seems our very own Sierra club greenies had donated something like 4 million bucks to fund a sierra club in Whitehorse.

[Nose Dive]

Good Issue...Government owned land

If BLM gets the land does the county lose the property tax receipts? I could see the BLM going after the water, those blood suckers. I don't know about land being useless for recreation without water. I often don't drink from natural sources when I hunt or camp or hike.


[COLOR=#333333][I]We don't have a great deal of BLM controlled land here in Texas. Thank God. There is some up on the northern boundary of the State with Oklahoma. Sure enough,,,,guess what... It is disputed and now have law suits up there with all that. With BLM not the OKIES....Go figure.

Here in Texas..when the STATE GOVERNMENT gets land, by any means..default, gifts, theft, whatever.... We get rid of it...yep...state sales it pronto. We have a Land Board and they put it up for auction and away she goes...WHY? (com'on...pull your head out)...TAXES HONEY!!! TAXES!!!

In Eastland county, years ago an old feller didn't believe in the USA, State of Texas, Eastland County, or School Board. NO! He owned the land, he farmed it..raised his food, pumped his own water, made his own whiskey and wine. Raised bees, rabbits, pigs, a cow or two. had honey, pumped water from a well he dug. So, when Eastland County Sheriff showed up with notes to pay him money,,,, he ran him off with rifle and pistol. No shots fired, but his intentions and position was very clear.

He was 60 when this happened and he died at 83. He died on that paltry piece of scrub oak and sandy loam. Old neighbor lady said she hadn't seen him on his place for a week or so, watering cows, feeding chickens so she went to the gate, hollered twice, went on the place and found him dead in his cabin. She feed all animals, put out water, went home and called the Sheriff.

He came out and declared the old man dead, posted 'condemned' note on the land and hauled off all living and dead animals. Old man too.

Live animals were sold at auction for back taxes and county took all that. Be known, all delinquent land in Texas by law, goes to the state. This was done in the 1800s to prevent black Americans from being run off their own land by mischievous methods and have the land end up in the hands of the...well...mischievous persons. It did indeed 'help'.... I have a few pages on this particular issue that I will share under another thread at the appropriate time and place. But, be known to all, some folks did indeed attempt, and in some cases, succeed here in Texas in removing 'rightful' owners of land from their property. Greed knows no religion, creed, race or political status.

So, once the land was transferred to the STATE, they place a minimum bid on it, publish it in the LAND BOARD BOOK, and over a year, all can bid on it in sealed bids. If no one meets the bid, they lower the price and the process begins again. Reason I know the history of the place I described, is I bid on it and bought it.

But lets us all reflect. The Sheriff(s)...all 5 of them during the old man's life, never went out to the place and confronted him. All lived, the old man left nothing but his memory.

So what is the point of the above 'heart felt and tearing soliloquy?'

My point, is here, one must NOT PROMOTE CONFRONTATION to proves ones righteousness.

In WACO, with Mr. Koresch, our government confronted some persons, religious or not, your opinion here is stronger than mine, and over 120 days or so, made an armed confrontation with the BRANCH DAVIDIANS. The result, at one million USD a day, was 86 dead women, men, and children.

God bless us all. 86 dead. Good Grief.

I draw issue here as there is an issue now in OREGON. Right or wrong...do not ask me. Do not.

But I know in WACO, Mr Koresch was seen many times in Waco, at a 'night club' drinking beer and listening to live, country music. I know this to be true as I often, back then, went to the same place and did as he did while attempting to entertain my current escort. I know the place existed. I know it was safe. I know it was just a place to crack back, drink some beer, listen to live local talent. (no..never saw Koresh)

My question to Janet Reno, the BLM, the FBI, the County Sheriff in WACO, is....

"Why didn't you guys just cool your heels and wait for David to show up to drink a few beers and grab him there?" Sure, bust his head wide open...kick a few of the other 'followers' in the balls,,,cuff them all and throw them all in the Waco drunk tank and 86 'Christians' would be alive today. Why plan a 'John Wayne' assault on his home (where it was KNOWN they were armed and ready) and get two FBI agents heads blown off and start a national embarrassment for no darn good reason and have women and children die?

What the heck is the BLM's or FBI's nickname for "STAKE OUT"?,,,,

I apologize to all who read this. I guess I should delete it and not show my disgust, frustration and fear. But dead CHILDREN, burned alive, is to me NOT WHAT I WANT in federal law enforcement. One of my classmates at TCU who lived in WACO told me he once say KORESCH in Sears buying tires. Why send 30 armed SWAT agents to a home where women and children live and kick down the doors and try to climb through the windows? Why?

I applaud the Sheriff's approach up there in Oregon...to end things,,,end things now. 'Please fellas, just come on out...go home...no issues. We here in Oregon won't cause you any issues'. Good Man Sheriff. It didn't work, but to me, it showed 'balls' on his part and his bravery and desire to avoid a mess.

Well,,,must finish this and get to bed as have hay to move in AM.

Must we have another 'children die' issue elsewhere in these United States?

Again, I apologize to all... I just get upset when our government forces issues and children,,,children die because of it.

Nose Dive.

Cheap, Fast, Good. Kindly pick two.

[dtknowles]

No worries! If I was unclear then the mess up is on my part.

No you post was clear when I reread it I just was having another thought that got into the mix.

Tim

[dtknowles]

Tim, the water would not just be for you or hikers to drink. Much of the west would virtually have no, as in not even registered lizards, if it wasn't for the ranchers water sources.
Not saying the feds give two hoots about that though. I was working in Mt Raneir national park a few years ago. It hasd what looked to be a beautiful trout river running through it, not far from the job.
I bought some light tackle, my out of state license and picked up the washington fishing proclamation.
The trout limit in the park was 6 pounds, get that, you were limited to 6 pounds of fish, no number limit, no size limit.
I stopped at the parks headquarters, and ask how serious they were on checking us for 6 pounds, they laughed and told me not to worry. They would not hassle me if I caught 7 or 700 pounds, but in reality would be real suprised if I caught 6 ounces.
It turns out they had fish fences down river to stop all fish from getting into the park, to curb fishing.

They don't want fishing in the park, why, don't like fishermen?

Tim

[dtknowles]

You underestimate how much money the greenies put in to politicians pockets.

Looks like Ranchers aren't making large enough political contributions. If your opponents out spend you it is a good chance you will lose. Money talks, it always has and always will.

Tim

[MaryB]

County has taken control of the refuge, renamed it Harney County Resource Center. Oregon III% are on the scene acting as a buffer between the feds and the people of the county and the protesters at the refuge. FBI and III% met to discuss things and it was friendly. III% said they are not there to fight, they are there as security for the citizens. Many ranchers are now stepping up to speak about the BLM abuses too.

So things are somewhat defused but could still turn bad if the FBI gets trigger happy. III% are also vetting anyone entering the refuge to make sure the FBI agitators like the one they booted yesterday do not sneak in.

[starmac]

Looks like Ranchers aren't making large enough political contributions. If your opponents out spend you it is a good chance you will lose. Money talks, it always has and always will.

Tim

Ranching is more a way of life, not really what is thought of in big money circles, with tons of cash laying around to be used as bribe money. lol
Many ranch families are several generations old, it is a good life depending on what matters to a person, but the odds of getting wealthy are probably better off with a lottery ticket.

[Windwalker 45acp]

sigh.

I don't recognize my country anymore.

I firmly believe our fore-fathers would have already done a great more than we have.

The worst part is things are so mucked up it's hard to even get to the truth of things anymore.

All I can say is, God Bless America and I fervently pray that we can restore the Republic to it's original, founding principles.

[Artful]

Go to the link and watch the Video

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/shocking-video-casts-doubt-on-fbis-account-of-death-of-anti-government-rancher-in-oregon (http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/shocking-video-casts-doubt-on-fbis-account-of-death-of-anti-government-rancher-in-oregon)

Do you trust your .Gov? Looks like the Video says you shouldn't - then again after the FBI says we can't prosecute Hillary Clinton for her admitted and found criminal acts, it told me NOT to trust the FBI.