Quote from: Charliemyboy on January 04, 2016, 08:34:47 AM
The largest landowner in the US is the Federal Government and I believe that to be wrong.

Hmm...  Is that landowner or holder.

Interesting...

https://www.oathkeepers.org/the-hammond-family-does/

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON HAMMOND SITUATION:

I regret having to even make this statement, but I have no choice, since Ammon Bundy has not made it sufficiently clear to the patriot community that the Hammond family has declined physical armed help, and by all indications does NOT want any kind of armed stand off with the Federal government, and they do NOT want anyone to attempt to protect Dwight and Steven Hammond from being taken into Federal custody on Monday, January 4, 2016 when they are scheduled to turn themselves in to serve additional time for their felony convictions (which came after a jury found them guilty).   They intend to voluntarily turn themselves in and serve out the remainder of their sentence, under federal minimum sentencing statutes, after losing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on that issue.

Great write up on the history and the problems the govt has created.
Well worth the read, more at the link below.

HISTORY: (aa) The Harney Basin (were the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870's. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.

(ab) In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an "Indian reservation" around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it "as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds". Later this "Indian reservation" (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

(a) In 1964 the Hammonds purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.

(a1) By the 1970's nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond's ranch. Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.

(a2) During the 1970's the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told that, "grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced". 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.

(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentional diverted the water to bypassing the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede and now the once thriving privately owned Silvies pains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.

(a4) By the 1990's the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers that still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling fact about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study that was done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed that the "no use" policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed that the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced 4 times more ducks and geese than the refuge did. It also showed that the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.

(b) In the early 1990's the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out that the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive towards the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found that the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*

(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with "disturbing and interfering with" federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.

(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond's private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond's ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.

(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond's upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional "fence out state" Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds intended to still use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. "Those laws are for the people, not for them".

(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.

(g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sale their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later.

(h) The owner of the Hammond's original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.

(i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries.

(j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven's mother, Susan Hammond said: "The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home".

(j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff's office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined that the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.
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/

I would say something about Agenda 21... but then this would have to be tossed into the conspiracy forum.

Quote from: Solar on January 04, 2016, 10:29:40 AM
Great write up on the history and the problems the govt has created.
Well worth the read, more at the link below.

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/

Thank you for the link, I have read it, and it explains a lot. But, if the Hammonds don't want help, then the militia is just breaking into the federal government's property with no one to protect. What could they do there, what to demand?

Quote from: milos on January 04, 2016, 12:21:20 PM
Thank you for the link, I have read it, and it explains a lot. But, if the Hammonds don't want help, then the militia is just breaking into the federal government's property with no one to protect. What could they do there, what to demand?

I'm guessing it's not over, like maybe taking it to court and forcing the state to step up and uphold the law.

FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:
CLIVEN D. BUNDY
PO Box 7175
Bunkerville, NV  89007
702-346-5564
                                             January 1, 2016                                                         

With great concern and love and much consideration from prayer, I come to you Harney County Sheriff of Oregon David M. Ward, rancher Steven Dwight Hammond, and rancher Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr.,

I, Cliven D. Bundy, have been involved for several weeks in the background striving to understand and comprehend your dilemmas in Harney County, Oregon.  I understand that the grass that was burnt on each side of the fence was grazing rights that had been created through beneficial use, one side of the fence being private property and the other side of the fence being private property rights.  The fires that were set were for a good purpose and had good results.

The United States Justice Department has NO jurisdiction or authority within the State of Oregon, County of Harney over this type of ranch management.  These lands are not under U.S. treaties or commerce, they are not article 4 territories, and Congress does not have unlimited power.  These lands have been admitted into statehood and are part of the great State of Oregon and the citizens of Harney County enjoy the fullness of the protections of the U.S. Constitution.  The U.S. Constitution limits United States government.

http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2016/01/for-immediate-press-release-cliven-d.html

Quote from: Bowhntr on January 03, 2016, 10:19:10 AM
Or just an EXCELLENT excuse for Obummer to step in, declare martial law, and legally suspend the election!

That's the most frightening scenario I've read in some time. 

Great links, Sol.  And they get to the heart of the sentiments that are building against Harney County Sheriff, David Ward, who could've silently postponed bringing the Hammonds back-in.  Instead, he appoints himself avenger for the BLM (and EPA by proxy), then wonders why he's getting death-threats and why armed Constitutionalists are showing-up from all over.

"These men had alternative motives," Ward said, "to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States."

Overthrow the Government... and intriguing proposition.  Overthrow Harney County... ?  That's code for himself.  I'm sure he feel the boot of the taxpayers pretty darn soon.   

Quote from: kit saginaw on January 04, 2016, 03:19:20 PM
Great links, Sol.  And they get to the heart of the sentiments that are building against Harney County Sheriff, David Ward, who could've silently postponed bringing the Hammonds back-in.  Instead, he appoints himself avenger for the BLM (and EPA by proxy), then wonders why he's getting death-threats and why armed Constitutionalists are showing-up from all over.

"These men had alternative motives," Ward said, "to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States."

Overthrow the Government... and intriguing proposition.  Overthrow Harney County... ?  That's code for himself. I'm sure he feel the boot of the taxpayers pretty darn soon.

I was thinking the same thing the other day. I don't think they'll wait for an election, I see a recall in the works.

Listen to the Leftist media....ARMED MILITIA MEN....DOMESTIC TERRORISTS....GUN CONTROL.....AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

What are these people really doing....occupying some isolated wilderness miles from anybody? WHO CARES, the Sheriff sounds like an idiot....at least he has the good sense to leave these people alone, unless the Fed goon squad steps in. They should just ignore the whole situation and when the media stops panicking the Bundy's will go home.

Nobody went in to this type of panic when the occutard wall street did pretty much the same thing but they were more offensive and more of an impact on the citizenry than a bunch of guys out in the middle of some wilderness.

Why not just pay the Hammonds a fair price for the land and be done with it? As I read it, the land will not be turned over to a private developer. We had to sell the home I grew up in for a public university expansion and had no choice in the matter. We did get a fair price.

Something is just odd with this whole story....

Quote from: Wyatt5 on January 04, 2016, 04:45:34 PM
Why not just pay the Hammonds a fair price for the land and be done with it? As I read it, the land will not be turned over to a private developer. We had to sell the home I grew up in for a public university expansion and had no choice in the matter. We did get a fair price.

It'sd far more than just a house, it's a way of life.

Is the Fifth Amendment being infringed in this situation, where it states that no one can go to prison twice for the same crime?

"nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb"

Quote from: milos on January 04, 2016, 05:57:13 PM
Is the Fifth Amendment being infringed in this situation, where it states that no one can go to prison twice for the same crime?

"nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb"

Good point, milos.  I always thought the 5th just kept someone from being tried twice for the same crime.  But it isn't worded that way.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.