'Bring your guns and come': Militiamen including Cliven Bundy's three sons take over

Daily Mail ^ | 1/3/16 | Kelly Mclaughlin For Dailymail.com and Reuters and Associated Press Read more: http://www.dailymai

[Nachum]

A group of militiamen on Saturday occupied the headquarters of a national wildlife refuge in Oregon in support of two brothers who are slated to report to prison on Monday on arson charges - and the protesters don't plan on leaving any time soon, saying it's 'kill or be killed' time.

Militia members claimed to have as many as 150 supporters with them at the Malheur National Wildlife refuge building in Princeton, which is federal property managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service that was closed for the holiday weekend.

They later rescinded the number and said they would not disclose how many people were in the building, because of 'operational security'. Local reporters have said that there only appears to be a dozen cars outside of the building.

'We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely,' Ammon Bundy, one of the occupiers, told the Oregonian via telephone. ‘This is not a decision we've made at the last minute.'

Ammon Bundy and his brother Ryan, who is another occupier, are the sons of of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in a 2014 standoff with the government over grazing rights.

The occupation came shortly after 300 marchers paraded through Burns, Oregon, about 50 miles away, to protest at the prosecution of father and son Harney County ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr and Steven Hammond, who were ordered returned to prison by a federal court which ruled their original sentences were insufficient.

[sport]

Strange that you posted that, and as always, to me anyway, your perspective is always correct. About 10 minutes earlier, I got the idea that supposed the feds approached the Bundy boys and said, “We need you to do a favor for us. Do this and we will forget about what happened in the past and let bygones be bygones.” I am just watching and learning and commenting on something that is said once in a while.

[sport]

I agree.

[sport]

I think I let my imagination, then my mouth[fingers] run wild. I should have waited for your perspective. I learned a lesson.

[mass55th]

"But I'll have to say that I never heard of folks being sent back to jail for the reason that their sentences were not long enough."

You and me both. I've always been of the belief that when you're handed a sentence, and you complete that sentence fully, that you're free and clear. According to the article, the two men have said they will report to prison on January 4th, although I hope they've got an appeal going. They're getting screwed royally. On the other hand, a computer glitch in Washington State released thousands of prisoners early. If I'm correct, at least two of those released early have already committed murder. How convenient that they can blame software for that fiasco.

There's some facts missing here, like when did the Feds actually file an appeal of the original sentence? The father served a year for Christ's sake, and the son 3 months. You mean to tell me that they couldn't get an appeal heard in that time, especially on the father's sentence. Somebody in the government screwed this up royally, and I hope the Feds pay for it dearly.

[sport]

What I think he is saying is, don’t play the other man’s game. Or fight the other man’ fight. You pick the time and place.

[griswold3]

” I think these guys would have lawyers.”
Exactly, a good attorney would have this out in front of the public by the press. No better defense than public opinion (especially since we have no ‘rule of law’ any longer)

[kaila]

Ranchers who used BLM land for their livestock would intimidate hunters, stating they were on private land. The advent of GPS stopped that nonsense. We have a friend who was hunting on BLM land, a rancher told him to leave because it was private property. Our friend showed him his GPS, told him he was full of it and to call the sheriff. the rancher knew he lost that fight and left. I think these ranchers who use public land think it is theirs, however, it belongs to all of us.

[virgil]

What’s worse is, they’re being imprisoned a second time without even a trial, and they’re just going to comply? Something’s not right.

[Dusty Road]

Not the first time I’ve heard that story.

[mass55th]

Remembered a wildfire that was started by federal employees by what was supposed to be a controlled burn. Searched the internet, found nothing, then discovered a thread on FR from May 2011. Here's a link to the original article:

Federal Employees Started One of the biggest wildfires in Texas

Bet no Federal employee was sent to prison for that.

[combat_boots]

Thanks.

It’s been a long time since I was in Oregon. At that, it was the Western part.

[combat_boots]

Related:

News on the re-imprisoning
http://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/1826609-151/resentencing-ordered-of-harney-county-ranchers#

More details on the Hammmond case
http://pienpolitics.com/?p=23556 (The FAA took one Hammond’s pilot license away at approximately the same time as the indictment came down, per this article-2010).

UNITED STATES V. HAMMOND
http://r.duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.ca9.uscourts.gov%2Fdatastore%2Fopinions%2F2014%2F02%2F07%2F12-30337.pdf

[DoodleDawg]

There was invasive plants encroaching on the land - this tells us a couple of things: carrying capacity is reduced, the BLM did not do their job in maintaining the range.

That's the Hamilton's story. The BLM claims the fire was to disguise illegal hunting. Who know which is the truth?

[nomad]

Well as a Constitutionalist, it does depend all on the contractual wording and whether it was followed by both sides. As an aside, what concerns me is as Alex Jones pointed out, the dovetailing of this with the regime`s expected executive orders and possible false flags: http://www.infowars.com/live-now-civil-war-2016/

[nomad]

http://www.infowars.com/live-now-civil-war-2016/

[DoodleDawg]

BLM rarely does a good job of this and they are very quick to threaten the permit holders with fines, permit reductions or revocation - and it is a source of considerable friction.

Grazing rights and permits don't appear to be an issue in this case. Setting a grass fire is.

There has obviously been a great deal of friction for awhile in this case; there is no reporting about that - but some of us can figure out some of the reasons.

There doesn't seem to have been an friction at all until the Bundy's and their crew showed up. The Hamiltons don't want them there. The town people don't want them there. The Sheriff doesn't want them there. But yet they came.

[DoodleDawg]

That statement was made under threat by the Feds... So, take it for what iti is....

So Bundy claims. So yes, I'll take it for what it is...

[mass55th]

Quotes from your first link:

"The Hammonds' attorneys say the government didn't fight for stiffer sentences during sentencing and that the government waived its right to appeal in reaching a plea agreement."

WTF????? The dirty trail probably leads back to Holder. He was still AG then.

"The panel held that the district court illegally sentenced the defendants to terms of imprisonment less than the statutory minimum, acting appellate judge Stephen Murphy wrote in the panel's opinion."

Gee, I wonder when the Feds are going to indict the members of the district court who "illegally" sentenced them?

[mass55th]

"The BLM claims the fire was to disguise illegal hunting. "

Where's their proof of that? And if any existed, I wonder if it was ever entered into evidence?

[DoodleDawg]

Where's their proof of that? And if any existed, I wonder if it was ever entered into evidence?

Apparently that's what at teenage relative testified at the trial. He had started the 2001 fire at the request of Hammond, senior. That one got out of control and had spread to federal land, and almost trapped the teenager and forced him to take shelter in a creek.

This was not the first time for the Hammonds, who have leased federal grazing land for a long time. They started a fire in 1999 which spread to federal land, and the BLM gave them a warning and told them they couldn't set backfires without BLM permission. They set the fire in 2001, which almost killed their relative and which burned out 140 acres of federal land and took it out of production for two years. And they set the backfire in 2006 in spite of the fact that a burn ban was in effect. That's when the government charged them for the 2001 and the 2006 fires, and which got them in the pickle they're in.