Welcome to CHFWeb.com  The Christian Homeschool Fellowship on the WEB
Quick Start
[Support our Advertisers!] Getting Started on the Homeschooling BUS!
SheLaughed.com
CHFWeb Forum Area Articles of Significance on CHFWeb.com CHFWeb Mall --For all your resource needs! Library Area on CHFWeb.com Advertise Contact Us
CHFWeb Help!
[Support our Advertisers!] Contributions from our Members:   Priorities ... Ever notice how God's priorities aren't usually man's priorities? Man often is tempted to do things "outside in"--because he has to "maintain this appearance" (or what would others think?), but God tends to do things "inside out" by taking care of our hearts and attitudes and then having the rest fall in place. [Support our Advertisers!]
Home » CHFWeb Forum » HotTopics » Oregon / Citizens for Constinutional Freedom
Oregon / Citizens for Constinutional Freedom [message #815342] Mon, 04 January 2016 17:09 Go to next message
Jamie
Messages: 4138
Registered: April 2005
Senior Member
Can someone please explain to me what's going down in Oregon? What are their actual demands?


Peace
Re: Oregon / Citizens for Constinutional Freedom [message #815363 is a reply to message #815342 ] Wed, 06 January 2016 14:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jamie
Messages: 4138
Registered: April 2005
Senior Member
Was this too hot, or no one knows? I was hoping someone could help me put together some of the pieces I'm reading.


Peace
Re: Oregon / Citizens for Constinutional Freedom [message #815365 is a reply to message #815342 ] Wed, 06 January 2016 16:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Karen in TN  is currently offline Karen in TN
Messages: 1649
Registered: April 2005
Location: TN
Senior Member
I have not been keeping up with it and do not have television, so I only get what information I go seek out. we've all been sick. I have wondered also. Doesn't sound like anything that will end well though.


wife of 31 years to Richard, Mom to Matthew (26), Adra 24, Shelby 15, Samuel 13, and Ruby Grace 11. Homeschooling for 19 years.
Re: Oregon / Citizens for Constinutional Freedom [message #815369 is a reply to message #815342 ] Thu, 07 January 2016 06:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lisa R.  is currently offline Lisa R.
Messages: 14917
Registered: April 2005
Location: Georgia
Senior Member

I haven't heard of it, and haven't had online time to research the question.


Blessings,
Lisa R.
Re: Oregon / Citizens for Constinutional Freedom [message #815370 is a reply to message #815342 ] Thu, 07 January 2016 06:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lisa R.  is currently offline Lisa R.
Messages: 14917
Registered: April 2005
Location: Georgia
Senior Member

Well...I decided to take a minute and see. Looks like they believe the government has too much land, and they don't want to pay grazing fees, and have taken over part of a wildlife refuge. There doesn't seem to be much action.

There are a number of articles if you search for your subject line. Here's one that doesn't have all the pop-ups and adds and things: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-militia-names-themselves- citizens-for-constitutional-freedom/

(Note: I didn't read the whole article here)


Blessings,
Lisa R.
Re: Oregon / Citizens for Constinutional Freedom [message #815373 is a reply to message #815342 ] Thu, 07 January 2016 09:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Karen in TN  is currently offline Karen in TN
Messages: 1649
Registered: April 2005
Location: TN
Senior Member
From some things I read the root of this seems to go way back. Govt. was trying to buy up land and some farmers didn't want to sell. The govt. may have started applying pressure by changing rules on grazing, water, etc. Honestly, it seems pretty complicated.

Karen in tn


wife of 31 years to Richard, Mom to Matthew (26), Adra 24, Shelby 15, Samuel 13, and Ruby Grace 11. Homeschooling for 19 years.
Re: Oregon / Citizens for Constinutional Freedom [message #815375 is a reply to message #815373 ] Thu, 07 January 2016 11:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jamie
Messages: 4138
Registered: April 2005
Senior Member
I'm getting that the original cattle ranchers owned, rightfully the land, and then the government (after unsuccessful maneuvers in the court to take the rancher's property) then cut off their natural water source which caused a significant and far reaching hardship on the rancher. From there, things go downhill into harassment until the rancher (and his son?) end up in jail on a legal (?) but probably stretched issue. That part, I can't decide without digging further. Then, after serving all their time, somehow they are dragged back to jail because the powers that be (not sure "who" at this point...FBI? the land bureau? Fish and wild life?) decided that their penalty wasn't stiff enough. It's the dragging back to jail that I thought was being protested...but that this group is led by another fellow from a militia minded group (I've heard, but can't figure out if this is a "white" militia...or even what that means..if this is a supremacy group or simply a militia). The leader of this militia is the son of another man who did something similar a year or so ago (I think? I'm gathering on that as well.) But, I can't figure out if this fellow is just a crackpot who is taking advantage of the situation to grab the spotlight for his own philosophical issues, or if the cattle rancher and this group actually shared ties before the occupation.


Peace
Re: Oregon / Citizens for Constinutional Freedom [message #815397 is a reply to message #815375 ] Sat, 09 January 2016 07:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
carolinec
Messages: 625
Registered: April 2005
Senior Member
Jamie wrote on Thu, 07 January 2016 10:08

I'm getting that the original cattle ranchers owned, rightfully the land, and then the government (after unsuccessful maneuvers in the court to take the rancher's property) then cut off their natural water source which caused a significant and far reaching hardship on the rancher. From there, things go downhill into harassment until the rancher (and his son?) end up in jail on a legal (?) but probably stretched issue. That part, I can't decide without digging further. Then, after serving all their time, somehow they are dragged back to jail because the powers that be (not sure "who" at this point...FBI? the land bureau? Fish and wild life?) decided that their penalty wasn't stiff enough. It's the dragging back to jail that I thought was being protested...but that this group is led by another fellow from a militia minded group (I've heard, but can't figure out if this is a "white" militia...or even what that means..if this is a supremacy group or simply a militia). The leader of this militia is the son of another man who did something similar a year or so ago (I think? I'm gathering on that as well.) But, I can't figure out if this fellow is just a crackpot who is taking advantage of the situation to grab the spotlight for his own philosophical issues, or if the cattle rancher and this group actually shared ties before the occupation.


Smile I think the version really depends on what you read. I'll try a what seems to me to be a no spin accounting, but it reads really different to the above, Jamie.

The Hammond family is the ranching family you're talking about Jamie. They were charged over two fires - One was in 2006, one in 2001.

the 2006 one went something like this: in 2004 the BLM had given the Hammond family permission to graze on the land, subject to enviro clearance. The BLM argued that they were lit because the family believed the BLM was taking too long to complete the environmental study on the land, which was required before they could graze. The family argued they were back burning and the fire spread. The damage was only about $1,000 worth of damage, but burned about 139 acres. The fires had been lit during a fire ban period.

2001: Witnesses (including a family relative) said that the fire was set on federal land after the Hammond's shot deer, and the fire was lit to hide the evidence of this happening. The family again argued that they had started fires on their own land, to destroy weeds and backburn/reduce fuel, and once the fire was lit, it spread to federal land.

Ok. So the father and the son were charge with a range of offences - all related to arson. the father was convicted of one count of arson, and the son two. Now, the pair were charged under an anti-terrorism act - the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (it covers, amongst other things, arson on federal land). They were both found guilty. The law they were convicted under had a five year minimum sentence. At the time of their sentencing they argued the 5 year minimum was unconstitutional. The original judge said the sentences were manifestly unreasonable, and gave the farther three months, and the son two one year sentences to be served consecutively.

Ok. So at this point the feds appeal the sentences. They are totally allowed to do this - it happens all the time. The 9th circuit agreed with the feds - the sentences were required by law. The Hammonds appealed to the Supreme Court: they applied for certiorari (to stop the appeal by the feds): this was rejected in March of 2015. The appeals court basically said - even though the first judge thought the sentence was unreasonable, it doesn't matter. the legislation - written by Congress - said they had to go to jail for 5 years, and that the judge didn't have the power to send them to jail for any shorter period of time.

So the men had to go back to jail, even though they had already served their original sentences.

Now: is this is basis of the occupation? It's sure claimed that it is. But like you point out Jamie - this other family that's leading the occupation - the Brady's - were that family that faced off with the BLM a few years ago with an armed militia, when the Feds arrived to intervene about unpaid grazing fees. They basically faced off with the Feds, and they backed up. They also claim a particular form of ownership (fwiw, and spin coming up: the "rightful ownership" arguments are made by some lawyers, but they have no general purchase; Someone claiming ownership doesn't make them the owner. No court recognises these claims. here ends my spin on that part of the story)

The two sons of the Brady family are leading the occupation in Oregon. They're all up in the sovereign citizen movement. They claim the occupation is because of the Hammond's. The Hammond's say the occupiers don't act for them. (If I were the Hammond's I'd want to have nothing to do with any of this - their situation is bad enough.)

Clear as mud?

Smile

FWIW spin and option: I am really anti-mandatory sentences: you get ridiculous sentences like these. Ridiculous but not unlawful. See also: these anti-terror laws - there is a reason civil liberties people are all up in arms about them. Should these people have been tried under anti-terror laws? Probably not. But that incremental creep... it happens, when draconian laws are introduced when we're scared. This stuff can be used against the bad guys, sure. But it can also be used to give a 73 yo rancher in oregon a 5 year sentence for something that.. doesn't need a 5 year sentence. by any shake of the stick.

I really hope this doesn't end badly. And please God, no one decides to move women and children into the occupied area.

[Updated on: Sat, 09 January 2016 07:50]

Re: Oregon / Citizens for Constinutional Freedom [message #815402 is a reply to message #815397 ] Sat, 09 January 2016 13:59 Go to previous message
Hyzenthlay
Messages: 769
Registered: April 2009
Location: NEPA
Senior Member
Thank you for taking the time to sum this up carolinec , it's also what I have read from several news sources.
Becky
Previous Topic:Concealed carry permit - your thoughts
Next Topic:I read an article about jimmy carter...
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Dec 18 15:23:30 EST 2017

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.08827 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

"Need Encouragement" ... One member, who is just getting ready to start homeschooling, shares her concern about homeschooling after hearing some "horror stories" ("it costs too much" , "it makes the kids social rejects", etc.) from a non-homeschooler. Seeking encouragement she says, "It makes me wonder if I'm doing the right thing. I just want to do what's best for my son."

CHFWeb.com Interactive is Powered by: FUDforum 2.6.12.
Copyright ©2001-2004 FUD Forum Bulletin Board Software