From The Daily Wire’s, Ben Shapiro:
You should have sympathy for the Hammond family.
You should have sympathy for Steven and Dwight Hammond because they are, by all accounts, decent and generous community members attempting to survive as ranchers in the face of a massive federal bureaucracy violating their rights. Here’s everything you need to know about the Hammond family and why they’re now at the center of a national firestorm.
The Federal Government Has Been Trying To Push The Hammonds Off Their Land. The federal government owns huge swaths of land in the western United States via the Bureau of Land Management …. The federal Fish and Wildlife Service has designs on the land owned by the Hammond family, and to that end, they bought up all the land surrounding the Hammonds, and then apparently began choking out the Hammonds’ access to water and grazing rights ….
Their “Arson” Was An Attempt to Protect Their Land Use. In 2001, the Hammonds initiated a burn on their property …. The fire expanded outside their property and burned 138 acres of federal land. The Hammonds put out the fire themselves; no federal firefighters were used. According to the Hammonds, they called BLM beforehand for permission.
Burns of this sort are common in the West on cattle grazing lands. Native Americans practiced grassland burning long before white men arrived on this continent, as a means to improve grazing for bison. Prescribed burning is a tool used by ranchers for brush management, and improving forage quality. From Oklahoma State University:
In 2006, the Hammonds initiated a backfire in order to prevent their property from being burned by lightning. One acre of federal land was apparently burned. The federal government charged the father-and-son duo under anti-terrorism laws, calling for a five-year mandatory minimum federal sentence.
I think the question here is why were they tried under “anti-terrorism” laws. How was that applicable? The other question is why, after they served their sentence, where they resentenced to additional jail time? The judge in the original trial clearly explained why he gave them a lighter sentence – that the minimum sentence would be disproportionate to the severity of the offenses, and that the offenses shouldn’t be considered conduct under that statute.
The Hammonds Are Good Members Of Their Community. The judge, in originally sentencing Steven and Dwight Hammond, stated, “With regard to character letters and that sort of thing, they were tremendous. These are people who have been a salt in their community and liked, and I appreciate that…I am not going to apply the mandatory minimum and because, to me, to do so under the Eighth Amendment would result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here. And with regard to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, this sort of conduct could not have been conduct intended under that statute.”
The Feds Want All Ranchers On Notice That They Rule The Roost. It’s not just the Hammonds. The Oregon Farm Bureau protested the Hammonds’ convictions, stating:
“This prosecution will have a chilling effect across the West among ranchers and others who rely on federal allotments and permits. It will harm the positive relationship many ranchers and organizations have worked to forge with the bureau, and the hard work that has been done on the range. It also is hypocritical given BLM’s own harm to the range, which goes without consequence. It is unjust. OFB worked quietly behind the scenes with BLM through the spring and summer. That diligent diplomatic effort was fruitless.”
The Hammonds Are Not Interested In Violence. Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in a similar dispute with the BLM in 2014, headed up to Oregon with armed citizens to take over an empty facility at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge …. The Hammond family says they don’t have anything to do with the Bundy group’s activities. They may want clemency from President Obama, but they’ll be unlikely to obtain it.
The media have chosen to focus on the Bundy move because it’s more spectacular in terms of the headlines. But the Hammonds’ story is a pure example of what an insanely powerful, unelected bureaucracy can achieve when it goes unchecked. And there’s no question that as the government expands, conflagrations like the Hammonds/Bundys will become more and more common.
I think the Bundy group is using the Hammond case as a way to obtain publicity for their grievances against government infringement of ranchers’ rights. While that is a noble cause, I wonder whether their interference is more helpful or harmful to the Hammond family. So far, it seems that most of the news coverage is negative, and the Hammond family is viewed in a negative light because of the Bundy group’s occupation. On the other hand, there is more coverage of what happened.
Stella's Place 
They were charged for a 2006 offense. Was the prosecution under GWB or Bronco Bama? If it was on Dubya’s watch it’s further proof of the heavy hand against the people. If the latter, proof of SOP. 👿
LikeLiked by 3 people
They were arrested in 2006, but charges were dismissed. The Federal case took place in 2011.
ADD: They were found guilty in June of 2012.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Figures. 🙄
LikeLiked by 3 people
Whole thing is a land grab (everywhere.) Remember Maximka wanting all the lands he could get under the feds’ jurisdiction.
http://www.propertyrightsalliance.org/obama-administration-makes-attempt-seize-millions-a2892
May not be the best article on the subject, but I remember the big flap over it and the BLM is swinging their mighty weight in more than this instance.
LikeLiked by 4 people
This is from the other thread ;
Exclusive : ‘Redress of grievance’ notice delivered to local Oregon officials on behalf of rancher and son believed to be wrongly sentenced
http://www.naturalnews.com/052325_Hammond_Ranch_redress_of_grievances_unlawful_actions.html#
Sheriff’s Letter
http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/sheriff-ward-letter-in-response-to.html
My take on the sheriff’s letter;
The Hammond’s were found guilty of arson in a federal court. The conviction carried a 60 month mandatory sentence. The judge who presided over the case legally reduced the sentence. The Feds didn’t like that the Hammond’s sentence was reduced and appealed to the 9th Circuit Court which allowed for a re-sentencing and the original judge’s vacating of the federal mandatory sentence. Vacating a conviction or adjusting a mandatory sentence is unusual but not unheard of. The original judge did not act unlawfully even though he was overridden by the 9th Circuit Court.
The Hammond’s appealed to the Supreme Court 🙄 The SCOTUS elected not to hear their case.
The original judge had the right to not give the mandatory sentence. IMO the 9th Circuit Court overstepped its bounds. A judge always has the right to vacate a verdict or adjust a sentence. Again it doesn’t happen often, but if there was ever case for it a rancher doing a controlled burn on his own land and federal land with private land rights attached to it would be a viable case.
Nothing but a land grab.
The Feds are hoping the fine and imprisonment bankrupts the Hammond’s as the BLM has a first buy rights to their land.
Ammon is right when he says;
Because we have allowed our Federal government to step outside the bounds of the Constitution they have come down upon the people and are prosecuting them now directly. they are coming down into the states and taking over the land and resources putting the people into duress, putting the people into poverty and putting entire counties and entire states into undue obedience.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Good gravy. Sorry about the bold. I know Nyet, I forgot my end tag 🙄
LikeLiked by 2 people
fify
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
I believe the problem is that they were found guilty of “terrorism” (another word for arson, apparently).
I agree with you. The judge was very clear why he assigned the lighter sentence.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yep the terrorism is a ridiculous charge. A charge that gives the nanny state the power to oppress.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And yet Major Hassan perpetrated “work place violence” rather than terrorism. Ever since the crash in 2008, we have stepped through the looking glass.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Elections have consequences 😐
LikeLiked by 3 people
I knew I recognized him. Jon Ritzheimer is the chap who organized the protests outside of a Phoenix mosque.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/6/jon-ritzheimer-armed-patriots-planning-anti-muslim/
Jon Ritzheimer, armed patriots planning anti-Muslim rallies across the country
He is the guy who wears the f* Islam t-shirt.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I probably give the Bundys more credit than many because I’ve sat around those tables discussing how to make people aware. The Bundys with the help of brave men and women did much more than our letter writing campaigns, articles in rancher/farmer magazines ever did.
With the way this country has such a short attention span, I can understand why the Bundys are doing what they are doing.
I also understand why the Hammonds are distancing themselves from the Bundys. These people are ruthless and they don’t just beat ranchers down in court, they terrorize them, threaten their lives and the lives of their families.
However, the Bundys are probably safer themselves because they keep themselves in the media.
The sad thing is there aren’t many of these ranchers left. It just shows to me though how stupid the left is. They rant and rave the most about BigAg and yet they rant and rave about the environment and animal rights and them and the government use each other to create more BigAg. But hey at least that “endangered” prairie chicken or tortoise or lizard or frog will have all that land to not use.
LikeLiked by 3 people