Posted on Jan 3, 2016
MAJ Bryan Zeski
27.7K
450
317
8
8
0
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html

The story:

Update at 9:15 p.m.: Statement from Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward: "After the peaceful rally was completed today, a group of outside militants drove to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they seized and occupied the refuge headquarters. 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."

The Bundy family of Nevada joined with hard-core militiamen Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 50 miles southeast of Burns for years.

The occupation came shortly after an estimated 300 marchers — militia and local citizens both — paraded through Burns to protest the prosecution of two Harney County ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday.

Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and two of his brothers. Militia members at the refuge claimed they had as many as 100 supporters with them. The refuge, federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was closed and unoccupied for the holiday weekend.

In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said.

"The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds," Ammon Bundy said.

"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," he added. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."

Neither man would say how many people are in the building or whether they are armed. Ryan Bundy said there were no hostages, but the group is demanding that the Hammonds be released and the federal government relinquish control of the Malheur National Forest.

He said many would be willing to fight — and die, if necessary — to defend what they see as constitutionally protected rights for states, counties and individuals to manage local lands.

"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," he said. "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."

Government sources told The Oregonian/OregonLive that the militia also was planning to occupy a closed wildland fire station near the town of Frenchglen. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management posts crews there during the fire season.

Law enforcement officials so far have not commented on the situation. Oregon State Police, the Harney County Sheriff's Office and the FBI were involved.

Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page calling on patriots from across the country to report to the refuge – with their weapons.

The dramatic turn came after other militia groups had tried to dampen community concerns they meant trouble.

Brandon Curtiss, a militia leader from Idaho, told The Oregonian/OregonLive he knew nothing about the occupation. He helped organize Saturday's protest and was at the Harney County Fairgrounds with dozens of other militia for a post-parade function. Another militia leader, BJ Soper, took to Facebook to denounce the occupation.

The occupation is being led by hard-core militia who adopted the Hammond cause as their own.

Ammon Bundy met with Dwight Hammond and his wife in November, seeking a way to keep the elderly rancher from having to surrender for prison. The Hammonds professed through their attorneys that they had no interest in ignoring the order to report for prison.

Ammon Bundy said the goal is to turn over federal land to local ranchers, loggers and miners. He said he met with 10 or so residents in Burns on Friday to try to recruit them, but they declined.

"We went to the local communities and presented it many times and to many different people," he said. "They were not strong enough to make the stand. So many individuals across the United States and in Oregon are making this stand. We hope they will grab onto this and realize that it's been happening."

Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move.

He has been a steady presence in Burns in recent weeks, questioning people who were critical of the militia's presence. He typically had a holstered sidearm as he moved around the community.

At a community meeting in Burns Friday, Payne disavowed any ill intent.

"The agenda is to uphold the Constitution. That's all," he said.

Cooper, another militia leader, said at that meeting he participated in the Bundy standoff in Nevada.

"I went there to defend Cliven with my life," Cooper said.

Ian K. Kullgren of The Oregonian/OregonLive contributed to this report.

-- Les Zaitz

What should the state, local and Federal authorities do about the situation?
Posted in these groups: Safe image.php TerrorismPatriotism logo Patriotism
Avatar feed
See Results
Responses: 42
Maj Matt Hylton
2
2
0
I picked "Crime", but the better option would be Sedition because:
18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

They have not committed treason, but are committing sedition.
(2)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MAJ Bryan Zeski
9 y
Col Joseph Lenertz - Sir, as CPT (Join to see) noted, the group's actions clearly fall under sedition as they are "opposing by force the authority" of the United States government. That is their stated intent.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
Col Joseph Lenertz
9 y
Maj Matt Hylton - OK, excellent background on the definition. And I am also not a lawyer, so I am talking out of turn. So, if "opposing by force the authority" is the one which will really stick...have they used force yet? Or is the threat of force sufficient under the law? It seems they are also using careful language. Being willing to die for your cause is not a threat, as their lawyer could argue they intended a hunger strike. And joining a "stance," or position on a subject is also careful language. It is not the same as saying "join our battle to take down the US". I am not a fan of their tactics, don't get me wrong. It's just the libertarian in me always questioning the motives and often over-reaching arm of the federal government. These guys should (and will) go to prison. I will bet you one dollar it will not be for sedition, unless they use force against federal authorities...in which case they will most likely go to the grave instead.
(0)
Reply
(0)
1SG Civil Affairs Specialist
1SG (Join to see)
9 y
Col Joseph Lenertz - I believe the elements for Treason (the only crime specifically defined by the Constitution) have not been met. I do believe that the elements for Sedition have been met. I think you're on shaky ground trying to apply anti-terrorism laws in this case, but reasonable people could come to that conclusion.
The thing about the Sedition charge is that the elements of that could be applied to an awful lot of recent events, and most prosecutors wouldn't go near that charge because it would complicate an otherwise airtight case of criminal trespass and terroristic threats (along with a slew of other lesser charges) with a Constitutional debate over 1st Amendment vs Sedition. It has been charged only a handful of times in US history and the examples I could find are nowhere near the circumstances in Oregon.
I don't think anybody in the activist realm - and they do tend to the left of the political spectrum - wants to see Sedition charges levied more often. That is a slippery slope nobody wants to slide on.

I will eat my hat and post a picture of it on this thread if these guys are convicted of sedition.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
Col Joseph Lenertz
9 y
F5cf5f9a
1SG (Join to see) - Appreciate the great background, and I applaud you being willing to eat your hat. :) Certainly more than I was willing to do with a 1 dollar bet. It would take me a long time to eat my hat.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
CAPT Kevin B.
2
2
0
I get a bit torqued at Rambo wannabe's that are so skewed, they break some well established laws to do what their spokesman says "We're occupying the People's Place". Who the hell are they to decide some family can't go see a visitor center on a particular day because they're more entitled. They give ammo to the uberliberals who want to take a number of rights away. So in the end, they serve no real purpose in keeping our country free and are a distraction to the real conversations that should be occurring.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Program Control Manager
2
2
0
It's an insurrection and it needs to be put down. Yes it's criminal, I don't believe it's risen to the level of treason yet, I don't believe it's terrorism yet either... it's definitely not patriotism. Declaring your own interpretation of the Constitution to be more valid than that of the Supreme Court and then bearing arms to enforce that interpretation isn't patriotism, it's treachery.
(2)
Comment
(0)
CPT Operations Oic
CPT (Join to see)
9 y
Exactly what would you require for it to be terrorism? Would the threat of lethal force that they threatened when they broke into a federal building have to terrorize someone? I'm a little terrorized by it. There, terrorism.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SSG Program Control Manager
SSG (Join to see)
9 y
Most definitions of terrorism are subjective, and I have no problem seeing how someone might interpret this as terrorism... however since their threat is to respond to violence with violence against armed combatants as opposed to unarmed civilians, I don't see their threat as terrorism. Terrorists doesn't attack armed combatants, they make their point on unarmed civilians.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Capt Tom Brown
2
2
0
Another option might be 'political' in that the gvt will probably do everything in their power to make sure this does not become an 'major incident' which could cause political issues for the administration. Much as the Bundy affair when the gvt apparently backed down and de-escalated the situation before it got out of hand and provoked an armed response of some sort. Then demonstrators went away and Bundy could claim victory over the gvt. One incident like Waco is enough for the country.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Sgt Kelli Mays
1
1
0
How about the first three for sure, but sure the heck not Patriotism.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PO2 Peter Klein
1
1
0
They are just common criminals.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
COL Charles Williams
1
1
0
Crime...
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
MSG Customer Care Representative
1
1
0
Edited 9 y ago
I would say it's Crime. If they're in there talking about actually overthrowing the government or betraying us to our enemies, add in Treason as well. Unless or until they start attacking people, particularly innocents, to make their political point, it's not Terrorism. The people they ostensibly came to support and most of that community don't seem to want them doing this. I don't see the Patriotism in it at all, it seems to me that they mainly want control of federal land transferred for selfish reasons that will benefit their own narrow interests. Provoking a possible armed confrontation for the sake of control of land that they never owned so they can profit off of it is in no way Patriotism.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
LTC Bink Romanick
1
1
0
6029d09
MAJ Bryan Zeski When these armed felons occupied the bird sanctuary, it was a direct result of the governments weak kneed (and cowardly) lack of response to the situation at the Bundy Ranch when militia thugs drew down on law enforcement officers.

This lack of action emboldened these thugs and again the government seems to be passive in the face of this challenge. Force is necessary with these people. Lack of force is just a precursor to another takeover.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Capt Seid Waddell
9 y
LTC Bink Romanick, how so? The black rioters attacked the police and the police were told to stand down - let them continue to riot.

CPT L S said that if non-whites even threatened the law they would end up dead. Clearly, that did not happen in Baltimore, or even the first night in Ferguson for that matter. The police were told that if they reacted it would make the problem worse, so they let the cities burn.

This is far different from CPT L S's statement - which was my point. His generalization is not true.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/baltimore-police-told-not-engage-protesters-riots-article-1.2277411
(1)
Reply
(0)
LTC Bink Romanick
LTC Bink Romanick
9 y
Capt Seid Waddell And what does that have to do witty Tia takeover?
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SSG Gerhard S.
9 y
LTC Bink Romanick - I think I can help with your question regardingCapt Seid Waddell's link. though It looks to me like he already explained his reason for posting it...... anyway. I BELIEVE he is addressing CPT L S 's contention that black protesters get shot and killed by GOP controlled LEO's, and that it's racist that the (GOP controlled) Feds haven't gone after, shot and killed these white guys. The point being the police took little, to no action against the protesters rioting in Baltimore who injured at least 15 LEO's, with rocks and bricks, breaking bones, and causing serious head injuries.

If I'm off base on this, I apologize Capt Waddell. This is the impression I'm getting regarding this link, and some of the posts above.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Capt Seid Waddell
9 y
SSG Gerhard S., you got it exactly right. I'm not certain how it can be made any clearer for LTC Bink Romanick to understand.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
PO3 Sherry Thornburg
1
1
0
I've been following this. There is a lot going on with this. Much of it sounds illegal and done to harass locals off their properties. Taking over a wildlife refuge office is a way to bring these things to light, but I think they could have done it without all the threatening rhetoric and bluster. Yes, its a crime to invade and occupy federal property, but it is also a crime to fence off private property and deny the owner access. Since when is fighting a fire on your own land a criminal offense?
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MAJ Bryan Zeski
9 y
I suspect you are talking about the original issue with the Bundy Ranch. And as I remember the case there, the government's position was that the Bundy's intentionally set fire to Federal forests in order to cover up evidence of their illegal poaching on Federal lands.
(1)
Reply
(0)
PO3 Sherry Thornburg
PO3 Sherry Thornburg
9 y
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close