Conflict in Malheur

I suspect additional facts will surface in the next couple days.

I understand the prison sentences that the land owners got were related to a backfire they started that burned 140 acres of the wildlife preserve.
Most all wetland wildlife refuges use prescribed fires as a management tool. I wonder how much actual damage was done as a result of the fire?

On a survey related question, Does anybody have a parcel map showing their land as it relates to the wildlife refuge?

Convicted of being terrorists?! Truly almost unbelievable.

Truly almost unbelievable indeed! I hope some of the fellow surveyors from Oregon will chime in.

You can read the Actual Ninth Circuit opinion here:
http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Hammond_742_F3d_880_9th_Cir_2014_Court_Opinion?1451956657

[MEDIA=youtube]Aeeclad8G3E[/MEDIA]

At 2:18 a video starts documenting a BLM "controlled burn" that was started during the summer (July), 2 weeks after the Hammonds were sentenced for arson.
This fire is approx. 10 miles from the Hammond ranch.

It is difficult to determine how much of the torching was back firing in an attempt to save the houses and cattle vs. controlled burning.
It is clear that the cattle suffered and at least 1 home was burned. It is also clear that the ranchers were not very happy about what was going on.

I am wondering which employee was fined $400,000 and sentenced 5 years in prison for the escape of this controlled burn and the loss of property?

imaudigger, post: 351653, member: 7286 wrote: [MEDIA=youtube]Aeeclad8G3E[/MEDIA]

At 2:18 a video starts documenting a BLM "controlled burn" that was started during the summer (July), 2 weeks after the Hammonds were sentenced for arson.
This fire is approx. 10 miles from the Hammond ranch.

It is difficult to determine how much of the torching was back firing in an attempt to save the houses and cattle vs. controlled burning.
It is clear that the cattle suffered and at least 1 home was burned. It is also clear that the ranchers were not very happy about what was going on.

I am wondering which employee was fined $400,000 and sentenced 5 years in prison for the escape of this controlled burn and the loss of property?

They were convicted by a Jury.

Dave Karoly, post: 351650, member: 94 wrote: You can read the Actual Ninth Circuit opinion here:
http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Hammond_742_F3d_880_9th_Cir_2014_Court_Opinion?1451956657

I personally find it disgusting how the courts justified the 5 year sentences.

I'm still trying to find a comparable offense in their cited cases.

Makes you wonder what "grossly disproportionate to the offense" really is?

"[hl]Given the, seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not [**5] grossly disproportionate to the offense. The Supreme Court has upheld far tougher sentences for less serious or, at the very least, comparable offenses.[/hl] See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (upholding a sentence of fifty years to life under California's three-strikes law [*885] for stealing nine videotapes); Eiving v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (upholding a sentence of twenty-five years to life under California's three-strikes law for the theft of three golf clubs); Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 102 S.Ct. 703, 70 L.Ed.2d 556 (1982) (per curiam) (upholding a forty-year sentence for possession of nine ounces of marijuana with the intent to distribute); Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980) (upholding a life sentence under Texas's recidivist statute for obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses). [hl]And we and other courts have done the same.[/hl] See, e.g., United States v. Tolliver, 730 F.3d 1216, 1230-32 (10th Cir.2013) (upholding a 430-month sentence for using arson in the commission of a felony); United States v. Major, 676 F.3d 803, 812 (9th Cir.2012) (upholding a 750-year sentence for offenses under 18 U.S.C. å¤ 924(c)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 280, 184 L.Ed.2d 164 (2012); United States v. Memers, 485 F.3d 1211, 1212-13 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (upholding a fifteen-year sentence for advertising child pornography); United, States v. Uphoff, 232 F.3d 624, 625-26 (8th Cir.2000) (upholding a five-year sentence for arson of a building).
"

imaudigger, post: 351656, member: 7286 wrote: I personally find it disgusting how the courts justified the 5 year sentences.

I'm still trying to find a comparable offense in their cited cases.

Makes you wonder what "grossly disproportionate to the offense" really is?

"[hl]Given the, seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not [**5] grossly disproportionate to the offense. The Supreme Court has upheld far tougher sentences for less serious or, at the very least, comparable offenses.[/hl] See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (upholding a sentence of fifty years to life under California's three-strikes law [*885] for stealing nine videotapes); Eiving v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (upholding a sentence of twenty-five years to life under California's three-strikes law for the theft of three golf clubs); Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 102 S.Ct. 703, 70 L.Ed.2d 556 (1982) (per curiam) (upholding a forty-year sentence for possession of nine ounces of marijuana with the intent to distribute); Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980) (upholding a life sentence under Texas's recidivist statute for obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses). [hl]And we and other courts have done the same.[/hl] See, e.g., United States v. Tolliver, 730 F.3d 1216, 1230-32 (10th Cir.2013) (upholding a 430-month sentence for using arson in the commission of a felony); United States v. Major, 676 F.3d 803, 812 (9th Cir.2012) (upholding a 750-year sentence for offenses under 18 U.S.C. å¤ 924(c)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 280, 184 L.Ed.2d 164 (2012); United States v. Memers, 485 F.3d 1211, 1212-13 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (upholding a fifteen-year sentence for advertising child pornography); United, States v. Uphoff, 232 F.3d 624, 625-26 (8th Cir.2000) (upholding a five-year sentence for arson of a building).
"

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 1) the government did not waive their right of appeal per the plea agreement and 2) the District Court did not have the authority to go below the sentencing minimum set by Congress.

The paragraph you quote is the response to the District Court's 8th Amendment concerns.

The Hammonds can't appeal their convictions because they gave up that right in exchange for dismissal of several counts and a recommendation of minimum sentence which the prosecution told the Court was five years minimum, the Court did not have authority to do less.

Dave Karoly, post: 351658, member: 94 wrote: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 1) the government did not waive their right of appeal per the plea agreement and 2) the District Court did not have the authority to go below the sentencing minimum set by Congress.

[sarcasm]Well - I pray I don't ever find myself in their situation, with you on the jury.[/sarcasm]

It's my understanding at this point in time that they have..
1.) In 2001, notified BLM that they were going to burn and it was a burn day. The controlled burn escapes, resulting in 140 acres of federally managed sagebrush land being burned.
2.) In 2005, in an emergency situation, they back burn their own land to save their property, which resulted in a 350' radius of federally managed sagebrush being burned.

This results in a 5 year stint in federal prison.

BLM has a controlled burn that escapes, resulting in federally managed land being burned (not to mention private property).
BLM lights back fires in an attempt to save private property which results in federally managed land being burned.
Nobody at BLM is charged under the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996"

I really would like to see a parcel map of the lands that were burned (private vs. public)

imaudigger, post: 351662, member: 7286 wrote: [sarcasm]Well - I pray I don't ever find myself in their situation, with you on the jury.[/sarcasm]

It's my understanding at this point in time that they have..
1.) In 2001, notified BLM that they were going to burn and it was a burn day. The controlled burn escapes, resulting in 140 acres of federally managed sagebrush land being burned.
2.) In 2005, in an emergency situation, they back burn their own land to save their property, which resulted in a 350' radius of federally managed sagebrush being burned.

This results in a 5 year stint in federal prison.

BLM has a controlled burn that escapes, resulting in federally managed land being burned (not to mention private property).
BLM lights back fires in an attempt to save private property which results in federally managed land being burned.
Nobody at BLM is charged under the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996"

I really would like to see a parcel map of the lands that were burned (private vs. public)

I have served on a Jury, it's not an easy job. They receive a lot of evidence and instructions from the Judge. They convicted on some counts and deadlocked on others. Information from axe-to-grind websites is generally not relevant.

There's something in that Ninth Circuit opinion for us boundary surveyors: courts can make mistakes, even with their own rules.

Imaudigger: your avatar is perfect for the subject of this post.

RE: parcel maps, try digging on ORmap.net or the Harney County website.

As far as what the locals are saying, Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward stated:

‰ÛÏThese 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,‰Û Ward said in a statement on Sunday afternoon.

I've got a friend who used to be Harney County Sheriff in the late 1990s and now is a state cop. Another who retired last year after 30 with the Harney District Attorney's Office. All indications are Sheriff Ward is a stand-up, A+ guy. However, the Bundy Bunch, believing the County Sheriff is the highest elected official in the land, wanted Sheriff Ward to provide sanctuary for the Hammonds and deny the federal court order. He declined the Nevadans interpretation of what he can or should do in his official capacity in his County and his State.

That didn't sit right with some folks in other states:

"Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward said he received death threat emails from people in other states after he told militia organizers he would not create a safe haven for the Hammonds to stay in Harney County."
Source: http://www.opb.org/news/article/burns-oregon-standoff-militia/

And the Bundy Bunch apparently has other, more devine motivation beyond Sheriff Ward's assessment of the situation:

Bundy also confirmed to OPB that the family‰Ûªs motivation in this occupation is rooted in belief that their action is the modern-day equivalent of Captain Moroni‰Ûªs ‰ÛÏtitle of liberty.‰Û ‰ÛÏThis is just like that,‰Û Bundy said. ‰ÛÏMy Mormonism* plays a large part in what I do ‰Û? the biggest part.‰Û
Source: http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/bundy-well-leave-occupied-buildings-if-community-wants-us-to/

This post is probably not going to be very long lived, so for what it's worth I used to work in Burns and still know a lot of folks over there and this taking over the national refuge wasn't something formenting under the surface of the local psyche. For the most part they think the Hammonds got a bum deal, but aren't all that happy that these out of staters swooped into Oregon with this bait and switch.

(*Please note that Bundy's Mormonism differs quite a bit from that of my friends and family who are Mormons)

Ignoring the militia issue for the moment - the background story about the actions of the Hammond's might change some of the opinions here.

The Oregonian

[INDENT=1]The first fire came in 2001: a simple prescribed burn, intended to take out invasive juniper, by Steve and Dwight Hammond's account. But federal prosecutors said the men's real motive for starting the blaze, which consumed 139 acres and forestalled grazing for two seasons, was to cover up evidence of an illegal slaughter of deer. The government presented evidence that Steven Hammond called an emergency dispatcher to ask if it was OK to burn -- roughly two hours after they already lit the fire. His attorney said in court that Hammond called the land bureau beforehand.[/INDENT]

[INDENT=1]The government acknowledged that the next fire, in 2006, was intended as a defensive move. Steve Hammond set backfires to keep a lightning-caused fire from burning onto the Hammonds' ranch and hitting their winter feed. But the government said Steve Hammond lit up on the flanks of a butte, despite a countywide burn ban and the knowledge that young part-time firefighters were camped up higher. Their crew boss spotted the fires, which were set at night, and moved the crew.[/INDENT]

I am continually greatful that I survey in a Metes and Bounds state and have no involvement with the BLM. There's still a modicum of accountability at the local level.

Five years in a federal prison is an extreme punishment for any crime where the damage is of questionable permanence.

Murphy, post: 351691, member: 9787 wrote: ...Five years in a federal prison is an extreme punishment for any crime where the damage is of questionable permanence.

The rigidity of some federal laws has been questioned several times. One judge was quoted (on the subject of Congress's free range ability to make mandatory sentencing laws) as saying, "It is entirely possible for Congress to pass a law requiring a life-sentence for an overtime parking violation."

There is also an unlucky gentleman that is serving 15 years for possession of 7 shotgun shells. They were found in a drawer amongst things when he had agreed to help a widowed neighbor sell her deceased husband's belongings. He owned no guns. A previous (20 years prior) burglary charge helped seal his fate. Although the judge found his sentencing to be accurate "by the letter of the law", its sanity was questioned as to 'how a man that had some aging ammunition could be held just as accountable (under federal law) as a person possessing an automatic weapon with a silencer'.

15 years for shotgun shells in a drawer

On a cautionary note: If you were surveying and accidentally trespassed onto "public lands" with a firearm (22 cal. snake pistol, unloaded and stored in the back) in your truck you could very well (and probably would be) prosecuted under various federal 'Domestic Terrorism' charges. Be careful out there kids. It's a cold, cruel world.

Paden's example of having a 22 and wandering onto the WRONG property reminded me of my days with a contractor servicing the US Army. Picture roughly 15,000 acres where most of the perimeter is barbed wire fence. About 80 percent of the perimeter was not along roads, simply "over the fence". Nevertheless, the penalty for simply being on the property, gun or no gun, was major because of the sensitivity of what was being produced and stored on the property. Three stories come to mind.

Back in the days when many people walked the railroads as a part of their way of life (hint: hobo) one poor fellow wandered in on a dark night not noticing the open railroad gates that were normally closed. He was found asleep in a storage building. He got to sleep in a much better place for quite awhile at taxpayer expense.

A married couple were having a terrible fight. She ran out of the house, jumped in her car and fled the scene. He did the same to chase her down. About 30 minutes later she drove through one of the guard gates providing access to the Federal facility with him in close pursuit. Shortly thereafter both were apprehended and hauled to jail. Major fines were assessed.

A local fellow who knew he was risking major penalties went coon hunting anyway. He had mules that were trained to jump fences to provide transportation. He was discovered on about his 50th hunting trip. Smart mule with a dumbass of an owner. Trespassing plus at least one gun rewarded him with Government lodging for awhile plus major fines.

FWS map: http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_1/NWRS/Zone_2/Malheur/Documents/General_Map.pdf#a

Refuge Headquarters is 32 miles from Burns, Oregon.