Court resentences the Hammonds saying the original judge let them off easy — so easy it was against the law-
Back in 2010 to 2012 it was a big story, an Eastern Oregon ranch family, Dwight and Stephen Hammond were believed to have set fires to illegally burn public land, cover up poaching crimes, and perhaps more. Here are some of the stories we wrote about it.
Oregon ranchers indicted for arson wildfires and threats June 21, 2010.
Trial set for Oregon ranchers accused of multiple range fire arson June 4, 2012
“Striking testimony” in Oregon ranchers’ trial for rangeland arson June 13, 2012
East Oregon ranchers convicted of setting public lands afire June 22, 2012
Two years after they were indicted they were convicted by a jury in Pendleton, Oregon in 2012. They were expected to get the mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years each and fines. However, in a twist U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan gave them a light sentence and then he retired. Judge Hogan said that mandatory minimum five-year sentences were “grossly disproportionate” punishment for their crimes. Hogan’s actions were illegal under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The Hammonds had been charged under this domestic terrorism law.
The government appealed the light sentence and the 9th Circuit Court ruled that the minimum must be imposed. So now the ranchers are expected to go back to prison. They have already served their illegally light sentences and paid the government about $400,000.
The story in the Oregonian: Controversial Oregon ranchers in court Wednesday, likely headed back to prison in arson case
This might be the law to use to charge that rancher who summoned a mob when the BLM tried to impound his cattle after years of grazing with no permit. This assumes the government ever indicts him.
– – –
Added on Jan. 3, 2016. Here is the statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Federal District of Oregon on the conviction and resentencing of the Hammonds. It is significant because of the lack of information and rumors about the case and the resentencing.
Comments
According to some email discussion about the original judge, Judge Hogan of the light sentence, “who retired the day after openly flaunting the law for at least the 100th time, was the son of a right wing mill owner and previously a Portland bankruptcy judge. He was put on the bench as a joke on environmentalists by George HW Bush in 1995.”
I know the type, I have lived in two small western towns where cattle are “king cotton” and ranchers are salt of the earth who can do no wrong. Ranchers favored term for bird refuges was “duck farms”.
Congratulations Ralph, you and Jon Marvel have another evil food producer off the range. I though agreed with Judge Hogan’s sentence. The slap on the wrist would have worked for the message that was intended to be sent.
The glee environmentalists feel on this re-conviction is indicative of why I never want to be identified as an environmentalist even though, as you know Ralph, there are some things which we agree.
Because of people like you, a 73 year old hard working man is likely to die behind bars, fortifying the disdain many of us have for the environmental community.
It is an odd world when the president of the USA considers the slaughter at Fort Hood by a radicalized muslim, “Work Place Violence”, yet the federal appeals court finds this range fire set with “no ill intent” an effort to produce more food, as terrorism.
I am now terrorized by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Congratulations Daryl, you are now a felon/arsonist sympathizer. Suppose someone died fighting those fires…no big deal because they are “food producers”, right?
Twist my words as you will Jay, it is the appeals court decision I disagree with, not the original. They had ben warned about setting controlled burns.
Carry on with your happy dance that Dwight Hammond horse’s hoof will never tread on his beloved desert, and he will likely never never set his eyes on eastern Oregon as at his age he will likely die in prison, but be cognizant of why “environmentalist” is a dirty word to many.
You imply that Ralph and Jon Marvel are somehow contributing to or being responsible for getting Mr. Hammond put back in jail (“you and Jon Marvel have another evil food producer off the range”) because Ralph has a story on HIS blog, and you cry about me twisting your words? Priceless! Hypocrisy at its finest.
This is just part of the war against public grazing Jay, I know, as you do, where the lines are drawn. Most who read or write for this blog support the unjust re-sentencing and imprisonment of this public land rancher.
I guess if you want to sympathize with arsonists/felons and poachers, that’s your prerogative. I choose the side of the law.
Also, I’ve found “environmentalist” is only a dirty word by those who are no longer allowed to exploit it to the detriment of the general public.
Not true Jay, there are likely millions that self identify as conservationists instead of “environmentalist” because of the negative connotation “environmentalist” has become. From where you sit though, this perception is invisible to you.
“There are likely millions…”
If you’re going to make up numbers, go big–how ’bout billions?
OK Jay, you convinced me, there is no negative connotation to “environmentalist” lol!
I can think of a few words with much worse negative connotation: arsonist, felon, and poacher are a few that come to mind.
OK Daryl (and everyone), Here is the U.S. attorney’s office statement on the conviction of the Hammonds and resentencing. There seems to have been significant amount of arson.
http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison
it appears that Steven Hammond is little more than a self entitled punk who liked being the big fish in a small pond. Not sure what the mentality is that would defend a poaching lowlife like that.