It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: Armed militia occupies forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call ‘US patriots’ to arms

page: 22
87
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Turns out my lucky number, when it came up, was 364. Or 360..don't recall exactly. But it was indeed lucky.

edit on 1/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: freemanwalking
a reply to: Phage

Yes, there are reports that there are children there.

www.thefederalistpapers.org...


All the more reason to isolate them and wait them out. Whining children don't understand the "Constitutional" reasons, self serving as they are, and will speed the evacuation process.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Punisher75

No disrespect but, I thought one of the fires was caused by lightening.

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”


From what I have read the original charges "changed"...

In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges, they accused them of being “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death. Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over the news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”. Susan Hammond (Wife & Mother) said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me”.


What these "militia" people are doing IS illegal...but, I agree that they have been treated less than fair as well.
Sometimes people are just "pushed" whether they are or they perceive they are over the edge...


Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM, and her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank Papagni exemplifying further vindictive behavior by filing an appeal with the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight’s and Steven’s return to federal prison for the entire 5 years.*

(t) In October 2015, the 9th District Court “resentenced” Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years. Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children. Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74) to be alone after 55 years of marriage. If he survives, he will be 79 when he is released.

(u) During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.

(v) Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their re-sentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them.

To date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of this year (2015). If the Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution. (more citatio


LINK



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: Nyiah
Has anyone looked into the judge who originally sentenced them? As in, any connections? Judicial favoritism exists. Also, any indication of bribery or blackmail? Wouldn't shock me any if there was.

Considering everything I've read, they got too light a sentence & definitely need to serve the full length like anyone else would. Let the poaching firebugs rot for a few years.


They were charged with terrorism, for starting a fire on the back lot of their own property...
The fire spread outside their property...

in order to be a terrorist you kind of have to have intent. The fire fighters were in no more danger than the ranchers who set the backfires, the reason the ranchers set a fire was because the firefighters fire got out of control in the first place.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TNMockingbird



What these "militia" people are doing IS illegal...but, I agree that they have been treated less than fair as well.

The thing is, it is not the militia who are going back to prison. The militia are using the Hammonds.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

True...

you are right...



However, I can't imagine how this

During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.


could possibly be legal.
edit on 3-1-2016 by TNMockingbird because: more specific



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TNMockingbird

Indeed one of the fires was set by lightning...
the firefighters came out to set up a fireline...
the fireline got out of control...
the ranchers set up their own fireline to protect their ranch, from the firefighters mistake....
that fire bleed over into federal property.
no one was hurt.
the following day the ranchers were then told they were under arrest.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   
After reading through all the links and comments, there seems to be a few main points I gather.

1. The BLM/FWS is using Federal leverage to move forward with whatever it is they want in these areas. Some may argue it's for a good cause (wildlife, etc). However I do not like how these actions match other areas the Federal government seems to continually gain/creep authority over things.

2. The ranchers are not saints but they seem like regular people who got pushed too far. It appears they do not want to be associated with the guys at the refuge.

3. The transcript outlines how the 5 year sentence seemed almost a done deal as if the court had no choice. My concern is where the law comes from: an anti-terrorism law from 1996. So the court can make no distinction between a back fire and honest-to-goodness terrorism? Where does this end then?
media.oregonlive.com...

4. The guys at the refuge? Their intent seems to fit the history of the area but most Americans will never get that deep into the read. They will reflect their conditioning by calling them "white hillbilly wackos" and of course it will get reinforced in the MSM that way.

5. Are the guys at the refuge like Occupy or the Ferguson protesters? In the sense they feel there is injustice and they want to let whomever know they do not agree. Probably not a bad thing. Of course the arguments will get deep and wide nit-picking the differences which obviously exist. Until Americans can see past those differences and realize what is happening to their country, these "disagreements" with the government will be portrayed as individual issues until they fizzle out.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: TNMockingbird
I would like to see another point of view on that provision. But it is not an uncommon provision and there could well be stipulations which that source is...um...not aware of, to put nicely. I know of private contracts which make the same sort of stipulation.

edit on 1/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I understand what you are saying and yes, they are most likely biased...

Just happened to be what I was reading...




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ABNARTY
After reading through all the links and comments, there seems to be a few main points I gather.

1. The BLM/FWS is using Federal leverage to move forward with whatever it is they want in these areas. Some may argue it's for a good cause (wildlife, etc). However I do not like how these actions match other areas the Federal government seems to continually gain/creep authority over things.

2. The ranchers are not saints but they seem like regular people who got pushed too far. It appears they do not want to be associated with the guys at the refuge.

3. The transcript outlines how the 5 year sentence seemed almost a done deal as if the court had no choice. My concern is where the law comes from: an anti-terrorism law from 1996. So the court can make no distinction between a back fire and honest-to-goodness terrorism? Where does this end then?
media.oregonlive.com...

4. The guys at the refuge? Their intent seems to fit the history of the area but most Americans will never get that deep into the read. They will reflect their conditioning by calling them "white hillbilly wackos" and of course it will get reinforced in the MSM that way.

5. Are the guys at the refuge like Occupy or the Ferguson protesters? In the sense they feel there is injustice and they want to let whomever know they do not agree. Probably not a bad thing. Of course the arguments will get deep and wide nit-picking the differences which obviously exist. Until Americans can see past those differences and realize what is happening to their country, these "disagreements" with the government will be portrayed as individual issues until they fizzle out.


Well we do know that the Federal Government has in addition to the time they will be in prison fined them $400,000 that had to be payed before the end of 2015 or they would have to sell their ranch to the BLM (and to the BLM specifically) or face further prosecution.

In short, the BLM wants the land.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ABNARTY

3. The transcript outlines how the 5 year sentence seemed almost a done deal as if the court had no choice. My concern is where the law comes from: an anti-terrorism law from 1996. So the court can make no distinction between a back fire and honest-to-goodness terrorism? Where does this end then?
It ends with the laws which are on the books. A law is a law. But since many are complaining that they were convicted as domestic terrorists, it needs to be pointed out again, that they were not. They were convicted of arson.


4. The guys at the refuge? Their intent seems to fit the history of the area but most Americans will never get that deep into the read. They will reflect their conditioning by calling them "white hillbilly wackos" and of course it will get reinforced in the MSM that way.
Really, there is a history of tresspassing? So what? I don't think they are wackos. I think they are assholes who are using the Hammonds.


5. Are the guys at the refuge like Occupy or the Ferguson protesters? In the sense they feel there is injustice and they want to let whomever know they do not agree. Probably not a bad thing. Of course the arguments will get deep and wide nit-picking the differences which obviously exist. Until Americans can see past those differences and realize what is happening to their country, these "disagreements" with the government will be portrayed as individual issues until they fizzle out.
They are like Ferguson in the sense that they are using a controversial legal issue to promote their own agenda. They are like Ferguson because they are disregarding the wishes of the actual "victims". Occupy was about nothing other than a vague feeling of injustice, so they are nothing like that. These "disagreements" have been going on since the beginning of the country. Have any of the illegal actions changed anything?

edit on 1/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: freemanwalking

Great link. Thanks for sharing it...as a mom I cannot wrap my mind around bringing CHILDREN to this "event."

My initial thoughts on the occupation was "this brings light to the excesses of the Bureau of Land Management." My logic, remote locale, media will eventually cover, public attention will be captured SLOWLY...and then the consistent media statement as this was initially reported "occupying a federal building" (hardly a courthouse or office building--remote lodges and a gift shop) but the talking points make it sound like there could be hostages and a disruption of "federal"'services for the entire state of Oregon.

Now add into the mix Obama doing a "Townhall" Thursday night (on gun control) and I can see something "occurring" on Wednesday for discussion the very next day...and now children are there too.

I fear this won't end well.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: liveandlearn
This whole thing is a bit shady, it comes down to who do you trust the federal gov and there charges, or the family in saying they did it to help stave off or cut off the fire from reaching there feed stores and etc.

Either way I don't see what a militia would be needed in such a case. Sorry but both the Federal gov and this family story are just a bit iffy, and both sound like they are butting heads over who is holding the red stamp. Why don't they rework the trial on this whole case, so everybody can get on over it. Maybe there right and maybe not, or maybe there bull#ting, or most likely like all cases there all lets say exaggerating on there innocence or guilt, or who knows maybe they had little faith that the firefighters would quench the fire. Either way, its a bit dramatic on both parts.

And now it just got more dramatic, what with the militia involvement, and likely will get more so, like to rams about to but heads over a square inch of pasture. though I do believe the federal government has more at there disposal to back up that little head butting contest in this little spat.

Either way, just sounds like a headache.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Just caught this story; FBI to deal with militia group at Malheur Wildlife Refuge


On Sunday, Sheriff Ward issued a longer statement that said, in part:
"These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt to over throw the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States."

Dwight Hammond has said he and his son plan to peacefully report to prison Monday as ordered by the judge.


The militants are using the Hammond's story for the own reasons.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
NO new news. The feds are quiet. Nothing but crickets. The latest updates by the MSM all have new "baited" titles, but the same content. .


mobile.nytimes.com...://www.google.com/

It's humorous at best. The big bad militia boys are acting as thought there is a " cause " for us all to follow.... they are legends In thier own minds....

God, please make the rumors of kiddos present just a rumor

edit on 3-1-2016 by ReadLeader because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

And that is just the reason I have said they are not terroristic yet, but potentially could become. The door is wide open



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TechniXcality

Roger that. If I know one thing, it is the fact that in numbers, right wing armed red necks can be v e r y dangerous. ... so far so good. Again, IMHO, it will not end well.

It will take one slight action by one of the members. And history will be made....




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: Blindmancc
Either we have a country or we don't....Trump is right about that.





a reply to: daaskapital



"Well that's just the way it is."
"Maybe you shouldn't get a speeding ticket."
"These ranchers should have went to college to get a better job."

And the government should treat them like rock stars?

"Whiny, entitled, hand-out generation!"


You mean like all those who voted for Obama twice? I agree with that sentiment. But not in the case of these ranchers who are a part of some bizarre twist of overbearing justice.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
The Bundy people are on sacred Native American land.

usuncut.com...




top topics



 
87
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join