While most of us were exchanging Christmas gifts and celebrating the start of a new year, Oregon Ranchers Dwight Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Hammond, 46, were preparing for a return to prison on January 4th, 2016.Among other things, the Hammonds were charged with various counts of Arson on federal property – punishable by a five-year mandatory minimum sentence according to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. On January 2nd, an estimated 300 Hammond family supporters – including Ammon Bundy, son of Cliven Bundy – held a peaceful protest against what they called the unconstitutional treatment of the ranchers.While the peaceful protest continued, Ammon Bundy and other armed individuals left, entering and occupying the Bureau of Land Management’s Malheur Wildlife Refuge headquarters, which had been closed for the holiday.Following the occupation, Ammon Bundy said the refuge’s creation was “an unconstitutional act,” and called for the release of the Hammonds and for the federal government to relinquish control of the area. “This is about the federal government controlling the land and resources, and putting whole counties and whole states in economic duress, this is about violations of human rights, about the federal government not even caring about what is in the Constitution.”
Hi everybody, this is Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
I hope you're doing well.
So as you've probably heard, there is currently a standoff in Oregon and we're going to give you the bare bones facts and information and backstory behind this so you can make an informed decision about what is actually going on.
So...
We talked about this in 2014.
Cliven Bundy and his family in April of 2014 were all at the center of an armed standoff with federal government agents surrounding his Nevada ranch.
This involved unpaid grazing fees and an attempted cattle confiscation by the United States Bureau of Land Management, or BLM. This armed standoff in 2014 was ultimately resolved peacefully and thrust the discussion of federal versus state government power into the national spotlight.
So, very briefly, the federal government, in fact, owns over a quarter of the land in the United States.
And this is not evened out by state.
In Oregon, it's 53.1%.
And in Nevada, it's 84.5% of the land is owned by the federal government.
The federal government is continually expanding its landholding, pushing up against the ranchers who are pushing back.
And this is the source of some of this conflict.
The Bureau of Land Management itself regulates and manages conservation efforts on over 247.3 million acres of land, which is equivalent to one-eighth of the total United States landmass.
So federal government has a quarter, a half of that is managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and they're continually expanding their ownership or custodianship.
So, the BLM, quote, protects vast swathes of land which many ranchers, such as the Bundy family, depend upon for their livelihood.
Now, Argonne is a no-fence state insofar as the tradition is that if you've got cattle roaming around, you don't have to fence in your entire property.
You simply let them roam around, and part of that is roaming around on public lands for which you pay grazing fees.
Now, conflicts between the Bureau of Land Management and established ranchers have been a regular occurrence over the last several decades, with increasing regulatory pressure being placed on local communities to turn over their land to the federal government.
Now, of course, you know, I moved around a lot when you were a kid, maybe you did too.
The idea that you're deeply, deeply rooted in the land, that you've been there for 100 or 200 years, your family is buried there, you've been there for centuries, that is something that is kind of, Unusual to those of us who live this sort of urban nomadic life, but these guys are really deeply invested in their land and they don't want to turn it over to the government.
Now, of course, while most of us were exchanging Christmas gifts and welcoming the start of a new year, Oregon rancher's Dwight Hammond Jr., 73 years old, and his son and father of three, Stephen Hammond, 46, were preparing for a return to prison on January 4th, 2015.
Now, among other things, the Hammonds were charged with various counts of arson on federal property, punishable by a five-year mandatory minimum sentence according to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, to which we may legitimately say, hmm?
Terrorism?
Arson?
Federal land?
Good heavens, what could be happening?
On January 2nd, an estimated 300 Hammond family supporters, including Ammon Bundy, the son of Cliven Bundy we mentioned before, held a peaceful protest against what they called the unconstitutional treatment of the ranchers.
While the peaceful protests continued, Ammon Bundy and other armed individuals left.
They entered and occupied the Bureau of Land Management's Malhur Wildlife Refuge Headquarters, which had been closed for the holidays.
Following the occupation, Hammond Bundy said the refuge's creation was, quote, an unconstitutional act and called for the release of the Hammonds and for the federal government to relinquish control.
Of the area.
Unconstitutional act.
Well, remember how when Donald Trump said about banning Muslim immigration, all of the reporters were wild about the unconstitutionality of it, as if the Constitution applies to foreigners.
But I'm sure that they're really digging in to what is meant by an unconstitutional act here.
We will see during the course of this little chat.
He said, this is about the federal government controlling the land and resources and putting whole counties and whole states In economic duress.
This is about violations of human rights.
About the federal government not even caring about what is in the Constitution.
Ammon Bundy said, The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds.
I feel, he said, we are in a situation where if we do not do something, if we do not take a hard stand, we'll be in a position where we will no longer be able to do so.
Ryan Bundy, Ammon's brother, said, the best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out of the area, then they will come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever, and the federal government will relinquish Such control.
What we're doing is not rebellious.
What we're doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
Now, just by the wildlife refuge, it actually has been shown by BLM's own studies that migratory birds are more likely to land on private lands than public lands, and other species are likely to do better.
So it's not like they're against taking care of wildlife.
In fact, those privately owned lands are far more hospitable to a lot of wildlife anyway.
Ryan Bundy continued to say, This refuge here is rightfully owned by the people, and we intend to use it, noting that they intend to assist those who want to use the land.
Quote, We will be here as a unified body of people that understand the principles of the Constitution.
Ammon Bundy says, We are not hurting anybody or damaging any property.
We would expect that the federal government understand that we have given them no reason To use lethal force upon us or any other force.
There were some reports that they had damaged property.
These appear to be false.
How did they get in to this building?
Well, they found a bunch of keys.
What have they done?
Put up a flag.
Also, they parked a track diagonally to block the driveway.
So that's about it.
Ammon Bundy said, we're planning on staying here for years.
This is not a decision we've made at the last minute.
Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward has said, A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution.
For the time being, please stay away from that area.
More information will be provided as it becomes available.
Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation.
A spokesman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service commented, 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.
We will continue to monitor the situation.
Hammond's lawyer, W. Alan Schroeder, reiterated that his clients plan to turn themselves into authorities—these are the people who've been sentenced to jail—and commented that, quote, neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group or organization speak for the Hammond family.
So the media, of course, is reporting that the Hammond family, the two guys who are going to jail, have repudiated and rejected the Bundys and what they're doing.
I wonder why.
Well, according to Ammon Bundy, the U.S. Attorney's Office ordered— The Hammond family to end communications with the Bundy family or they would, quote, detain the Hammonds early and they would put them in a less desirable prison and so the Hammonds backed completely off.
They felt that their lives were in danger.
They felt that my life was in danger.
They thought the U.S. government would raid their home and take them.
I'm not sure under what law you're allowed to tell people not to talk to other people.
Alan Bundy says, you have to keep this in perspective.
Dwight is 73 years old.
For him to go to a less desirable prison is certain death.
He would never get back out.
And then they are trying to prepare their family for them to be gone for five years because they have been charged with terrorism.
This reminds me of Erwin Schiff, Peter Schiff's father who died in prison.
Cliven Bundy has said, that's not exactly what I thought should happen, but I didn't know what to do.
You know, if the Hammonds wouldn't stand, if the sheriff didn't stand, then, you know, the people had to do something.
And I guess this is what they decide to do.
I wasn't in on that.
Maureen Pelletier, a 42-year-old disabled veteran, staff sergeant with the Washington Army National Guard on the ground nearby, said, They are calling for other American patriots to take this stand with them.
You don't have to be armed.
They want everything to be very peaceful.
They want the government to hear their grievances.
With estimates ranging from 15 to 150, Emin Bundy was asked how many militia members were occupying the refuge but refused to comment, citing operational security concerns.
Emin Bundy said, Of a very huge, egregious problem, but it's happening all across the United States.
We have the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, which is taking property away from American people, and they're restricting whole industries, putting whole states and counties into economic depressions.
I would assume by that he's referring to something like the assault on the coal industry.
He said they have a slew of other federal agencies which are doing the exact same thing, and they're doing it by controlling the land and the resources, and the American people have to basically beg them for whatever they give them.
That is what this is about.
So let's just have a brief recap.
This is not a riot.
Nobody's burning down drugstores.
Nobody's setting fire to cars.
There's no violence, no destruction.
This is in the grand tradition of peaceful U.S. civil disobedience.
It's far less damaging, messy and violent than, say, what Occupy Wall Street turned into or what the riots in Ferguson or Los Angeles after the OJ acquittals and so on or the acquittals of the police.
So that's where things are at.
What on earth has been happening?
So, June 17th, 2010, the federal government charged Stephen Hammond and Dwight Hammond Jr.
in a 19-count indictment with conspiracy, arson and other charges involving numerous range fires occurring in a 24-year period from August 1982 to August 2006.
On May 17, 2012, after two years of litigation and less than 30 days before the trial, the government filed a superseding indictment alleging nine counts, focusing on four specific fires.
So after two years, right before the trial, the government changes the game on them.
So, here's an example.
In 1999, the Hammonds conducted a prescribed burn on their private land, which spread to government-owned land, and they were warned that they would face serious consequences if...
It happened again.
So, just so you know, on grazing land in particular, there are range fires.
Now, these are lit by both the government and by private ranchers, and they burn away undergrowth and so on, and they generally increase the land's value.
They drive away invasive species And make it a little bit easier for the cattle to graze.
And also the government and private ranchers light what are called backburns.
Now backburns are when you burn a specific section of land, usually in a strip, as a firebreak.
Between whatever fire may be raging and your property, you create a gap which the fire hopefully cannot cross.
It's designed to contain the uncontrolled spreading of wildfires.
In 2001, Stephen Hammond called the Bureau of Land Management to ask if burning was permitted and was told that there was no burn ban in effect.
Hammond informed the BLM that Dwight and himself would be setting a fire on their private land designed to burn off invasive species.
The fire spread to approximately 139 acres of adjacent government buildings.
139 acres.
Boy, that sounds like quite a bit.
It's important to keep this in perspective.
Hammond Ranch's Inc.
has always operated on a combination of private and public land.
As of 2006, it owned over 10,000 acres of private pasture and had a BLM permit authorizing it to graze cattle on tens of thousands of acres of public land.
So 20, 30,000 acres.
We've got 139 acres that was burnt by this...
The Hammonds had approximately 18 bulls and 374 cow-calf pairs annually.
So 139 acres were burned.
Sounds like terrorism to me.
Of course, it sounds like a bit of land, I suppose.
But a court later found that the damages of burning 139 acres were under $100.
This is not exactly downtown Manhattan, folks.
And it was limited to juniper trees and sagebrush.
Not the rarest plants in that neck of the woods.
The judge noted, quote, I think Mother Nature has probably taken care of any injury.
To make things even more preposterous, this...
Crime of arson.
The BLM independently determined that the fire had raised the value of the government land to which it had spread.
So, for instance, if you have a cottage in the woods and a tree falls and breaks the roof and then someone comes onto your property, lifts the tree and fixes your roof, you can then charge them with terrorist trespassing, according to this kind of logic, it would seem to me.
Regarding the 2006 fire, well, lightning had caused a massive fire, which threatened the Hammonds' property.
Stephen Hammonds started a range fire to protect his property.
Remember, the break between the fire and your property.
Ultimately, he saved his farm, but he did not get prior authorization from the BLM, and a burn ban was in effect.
So maybe it was after hours.
Maybe he just couldn't.
Maybe he got voicemail.
But this is sort of like if there's a ban on using hose water in California and your house is on fire...
And you put out the fire with your hose water, and then you get charged.
I think the house is slightly more important, but what do I know?
Now, during this 2006 fire, one single acre of government land was burned.
And again, it was found that this raised the value of the impacted land.
One acre of land value got increased.
So, in summary, no individuals were harmed during any of the fires, and the damage was all limited to bushes, which raised the value of the government property, according to the Bureau of Land Management.
Boy, that's some pretty gentle and benevolent terrorism, I've just got to tell you that right up front.
In June 2012, Judge Michael R. Hogan and the United States District Court of Oregon presided over a two-week trial.
Of the Hammond boys, where some jurors incredibly had to travel up to 180 miles every single day in order to serve on the jury.
Why not put them up locally?
I don't know.
One possibility is that you want the trial to be as inconvenient as possible so they come to as quick a decision as possible, which is usually not very helpful to the defendants.
Just a possibility.
After hours of jury deliberations, the jury initially returned a partial verdict, only finding the Hammonds guilty of the fires they openly admitted to setting.
Other counts were acquitted, but the jury was unable to reach a verdict Dwight Hammond Attorney
Frank Pabani, representing the United States government, quote,"...the defendants have submitted numerous letters from community members attesting to their high character." I have read all the letters.
I have no doubt whatsoever to doubt or no doubt of their sincerity of the citizens who wrote them.
It is true, and it can't be contested.
I have spent a lot of time in Burns that the Hammonds both, that you are to sentence both, have done wonderful things for their community, and those deeds are recognized in these letters.
I think you get a lot of those for the San Bernardino killers.
I'm just guessing.
Judge Michael R. Hogan said, He also said, And I can understand that.
The objection is denied.
The last of these events happened in 2006, and I am so familiar with all the facts here and the situation that it would be not appropriate to burden some other judge with handling the sentencing here.
The government had sought the five-year mandatory minimum sentences outlined in the FIRE aspect of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
The section targeting arsonists, not ranchers, read thusly, quote, whoever maliciously damages or destroys or attempts to damage or destroy by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by or leased vehicle or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by or leased to the United States or any department or agency thereof or any institution or organization receiving federal financial assistance shall be
and not more than 20 years.
Find!
So, arsonist.
I think that's more Timothy McVeigh than I'm trying to save my house from a wildfire.
Returning to Judge Michael R. Hogan, he said...
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 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, this sort of conduct could not have been conduct intended under that statute.
The Eighth Amendment to the United States, of course, this is the Constitution, provides, quote, excessive bail shall not be required, no excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Now, this is, of course, what a lot of libertarians and other people said was going to be the danger of these anti-terrorism acts, that they would not be applied to terrorists always, but would target people who were disobeying or disagreeing with the government, which is to some degree at least the case here, as we'll get into in the next presentation.
So basically, they never intended to burn government property.
They were just trying to do a burn.
It kind of got out of control.
You know, any way the wind blows, it can happen.
So, apparently, no improving the value of government property or jail time is yours, you terrorist!
Judge Michael R. Hogan said, When you say, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles where there are houses up those ravines?
Might apply.
Out in the wilderness here, I don't think that's what the Congress intended.
And in addition, it would just not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality...
I'm not supposed to use the word fairness in criminal law.
I know that I had a criminal law professor a long time ago yell at me for doing that, and I don't do that.
But this, it would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me.
By the way, I just really want to appreciate all of those law professors out there who are yelling at people, who even imagine that the word fairness could be applied to criminal law.
Good job, everyone.
Legal system obeying the law professors.
So Dwight Hammond was sentenced to three months and Stephen Hammond to 12 months and one day.
Both were given the following probation terms.
Upon release, the defendant shall serve a three-year term of supervised release subject to the standard conditions and the following special conditions.
The defendant shall cooperate in the collection of DNA as directed by probation.
The defendant shall disclose all assets and liabilities to probation and not transfer, sell, give away, or otherwise convey any asset with a fair market value in excess of $500 without approval of probation.
The defendant shall not make application for any loan or credit arrangement or lease without approval of probation.
And the defendant shall authorize release of to probation a financial information by appropriate means no fine is ordered.
So while the Hammonds were ready to serve their time and put this chapter of their lives behind them, the government remained unhappy with the sentences handed out by the judge.
Even though the oral agreement may have given the impression that the government was waiving its right to any appeal, as the Hammonds were serving their jail time, the government did in fact appeal the sentences imposed by the court, demanding the five-year minimum for both men.
On December 3rd, 2013, the Ninth Circuit, Court of Appeals made a ruling in the United States of America v.
Stephen Hammond and Dwight Hammond Jr.
case.
Quote, On appeals by the government, the panel vacated sentences for maliciously damaging the real property of the United States by fire in violation of Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and remanded for resentencing in cases in which the defendants set fires on their ranch land that spread to public land.
The panel rejected the defendants' contention that the government waived its right to appeal the sentences in the plea agreements or otherwise failed to preserve its objection to the sentences.
The panel explained that the principles governing the formation and interpretation of plea agreements leave no room for implied waivers.
So just because you took a plea deal doesn't mean that they can't come back and try again.
The Hammonds agreed with the government's summary of the plea agreement.
Their attorneys also added that the Hammonds wanted the case to be over and hoped to bring the matter to a close.
According to the defense, the idea of the plea agreement was that the case would be done with at the sentencing and that the parties would accept the sentence that's imposed.
The district court then accepted the plea agreement and dismissed the remaining charges.
You know, except the sentence that's imposed.
That's the deal.
Continuing, observing that Congress probably had not intended for the sentence to cover fires in the wilderness, Judge Hogan reasoned that five-year sentences would be grossly disproportionate to the severity of the Hammonds' offenses.
Congress has broad authority to determine the appropriate sentence for a crime and may justifiably consider arson, regardless of where it occurs, to be a serious crime.
Even a fire in a remote area has the potential to spread to more populated areas, threaten local property and residents, or endanger the firefighters called to battle the blaze.
The September 2001 fire here which nearly burned a teenager and damaged grazing land illustrates this very point.
Okay, so any fire you set could spread to populated areas.
You have a cookout on your raft in the middle of the ocean.
But of course, this would apply to all of the fires set by the BLM, by ranchers.
Every single fire could spread to more populated areas, threaten local property, endanger the firefighters.
Now, nearly burned a teenager.
I just wanted to mention this.
So, this was testimony provided by a nephew...
Who was 13 years old at the time of the fire.
The testimony was provided more than 10 years later.
He really disliked the Hammond family.
He was estranged from them all.
And during the trial, his testimony was thrown out because it was contradicted by witnesses and physical evidence.
So make of that what you will.
They said, given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.
See, an acre was burned, or 127 acres were burned, and it raised the value of property.
Ooh, that's evil.
They said, the Supreme Court has upheld far tougher sentences for less serious, or at the very least, comparable offenses.
See?
Two wrongs do make a right.
See Lockyer versus Andrake, upholding a sentence of 50 years to life under California's three-strikes law for stealing nine videotapes.
Ewing versus California, upholding a sentence of 25 years to life under California's three-strikes law for the theft of three golf clubs.
Hutto versus Davis, upholding a 40-year sentence for possession of nine ounces of marijuana with the intent to distribute it.
Rommel v.
Estelle upholding a life sentence under Texas' recidivist statute for obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses.
They said, because the district court erred by sentencing the Hammonds to terms of imprisonment less than the statutory minimum, we vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing in compliance with the law.
The Hammonds, of course, were resentenced to five years in prison in order to turn themselves in.
On Monday, January 4th, 2016.
This is the constitutional aspect of the case.
Is it a violation of the Eighth Amendment?
Well, one judge said yes.
So, let's just say there are a few questions as to the constitutionality of this sentencing.
Is it cruel and unusual punishment to throw...
A father of three and a grandfather in jail for five years because a fire got out of control in the middle of nowhere.
Well, I'll leave you to ponder that one.
I just wanted to do the facts in this one.
The question is, why is all of this occurring?
What is the motivation for the BLM and or the government?
Do they have perhaps a thirst for the Hammond's land?
Are they trying to drive them off their land to expand the empty waste of their pretend wildlife refuge?
We shall see in the next gripping installment of Hey!
