Hammond
The family of Dwight Hammond have made a terrible mistake. They tried to ranch land someone in the federal government seems to want. Now it appears that both Hammond and his son Steve are being railroaded for something that is a non-criminal act that was not only good but could be called heroic.
What they actually did was openly and safely burned off dead grass after giving proper notice to the county. That is a practice done for hundreds years by BLM, ranchers and the Indians before them.
The second fire was started on their land to stop a lightening fire that was doing a great deal of damage. Their back fire worked and saved the rangeland.
The men were charged nearly a decade after the first fire and five years after the second.
What the people ion the Federal government have done according to an October 7, 2015 press release from the Department of Justice, is charge them as terrorists with malicious intent under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. 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.
This was interesting because they had already been sentenced in 2012 by now-retired U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan. Steven received one year and a day in prison for setting fires in 2001 and 2006. Dwight got 3 months for his 2001 involvement. Hogan did not believe the men had malicious intent to be labeled as terrorists under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. There were also hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines placed on this family for doing no damage to anyone including the land in question.
Under a great deal of emotional and financial pressures brought on by cruel and abusive individuals and an apathetic public the men agreed to a plea deal that they would not appeal the 2012 sentence in order to bring the case to a close.
Both men had served their sentences and were released. But now people in the federal government have come back to vindictively reopen the same case another time to impose the mandatory minimum five-year sentence imposed as prescribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 even though there was no malicious intent as required by the act.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has label the Hammonds as terrorists under the 1996 law in order to put them back in jail at the request of some people who also forced the Hammonds to sign an agreement that the BLM has the first right of refusal if they have to sell. Of course this vendictive abuse of the courts is forcing the family to sell their home, business and land and almost no one has the courage to stand for the Weightier matters of law, justice, and mercy much less faith..
Barry Bushue, the president of the Oregon Farm Bureau stated “I find it incredible that the government would want to try these ranchers as terrorists,” He went on to say, “Now is where the rubber meets the road. Right now is when the public should absolutely be incensed. And the public, I think, should be fearful.”
What you often get from either ignorant or immoral government employees is falls information that misleads the people like the DOJ’s acting US Attorney Billy Williams said:
- “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.”
- “Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison,” he added. “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.”
But in the Hammond case there was no malicious intent. They were engaged in open good management practices on their own land where a small amount of some BLM graze was burned before the Hammonds brought the fire under control. The only graze that was affected was the Hammond graze which they paid for and came back better than after after the burn. No firefighters were endangered and no property damage was actually caused. What they did is done every year all over the west. The BLM calls it fuel reduction and good management.
As you can see the BLM does not always do it safely like the Hammonds did. They come in at the wrong time of year and actually burn up ranch buildings fences, power power poles and even burn cows and their calves alive. They do this with impunity because America is no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave.
However, what was not communicated in all of this is that the BLM starts these kinds of fires quite often and it actually benefits the land, though many times the BLM’s fires get completely out of control. Second, the fires that were started were not arson.
According to the definition of arson, the term means, “At Common Law, the malicious burning or exploding of the dwelling house of another, or the burning of a building within the curtilage, the immediate surrounding space, of the dwelling of another.”
Notice the term “malicious.” The definition of malicious is “Involving malice; characterized by wicked or mischievous motives or intentions.”
There were no malicious, wicked or mischievous motives or intentions behind what the Hammonds were doing. In fact, as stated above, the BLM often engages in this activity and so do other ranchers.
Dwight’s wife, Susan, said, “They called and got permission to light the fire… We usually called the interagency fire outfit – a main dispatch – to be sure someone wasn’t in the way or that weather wouldn’t be a problem.”
According to the Bundy Family, they point out that the Hammonds were simply engaging in what is commonly known as prescribed fires.
“The Hammonds are a simple ranching family that for generations has cared for the land they live upon,” the family wrote on its website. “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.”
Note that the courts found that there was a positive impact on the land!
Tri-State Livestock News reports on that testimony, “In cross-examination of a prosecution witness, the court transcript also includes an admission from Mr. Ward, a range conservationist, that the 2001 fire improved the rangeland conditions on the BLM property.”
And why was that? According to Erin Maupin, a former BLM range technician and watershed specialist and rancher in the area who had been the neighbor of the Hammonds for years, said it was because researchers had determined that managing the invasive junipers, which steal water from grass and other cover was something necessary to increase the conditions on the land.
“Juniper encroachment had become an issue on the forefront and was starting to come to a head. We were trying to figure out how to deal with it on a large scale,” said Maupin.
So, we know there was no malicious intent, but rather normal ranch operations. Therefore, how could this be considered arson? It’s a part of ranching! If this is arson, then every person who has served on BLM and conducted the same kinds of fires should be immediately arrested, tried and if convicted treated as terrorists. But they won’t be.
The root problem in all of this is the federal government assuming it can own open land like this.
They cannot lawfully. Under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution (The Property Clause), we read:
Bundy Ranch - Hammonds Need to be Protected https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD_B2ylceiY