Friday, November 27, 2015

What the Hammonds need right now!


Please watch this short video, I need to explain what has happened to the Hammonds and what we need you do right now.

Please contact these representatives to help the Hammonds right now, we cannot wait.

State Representative Cliff Bentz (R)
900 Court St NE H-475
Salem, OR 97310
Phone: (503) 986-1460

State Senator Ted Ferrioli (R)
900 Court St NE S-323
Salem, OR 97310
Phone: (503) 986-1730

Thank you,
Ammon Bundy

Letter below prepared by a leader in Arizona. It is a clear explanation of the Sheriff's lack of understanding.

Link to Sheriff's response letter to Hammond Supporters:             

Thanks everyone for the quick support you have offered for the Hammonds. The Sheriff has received an overwhelming # of emails already in support of the Hammonds. Many of you emailed the Sheriff recently have received an email clarifying which side of the fence the sheriff is on. It appears he currently stands with the BLM and their unconstitutional jurisdiction of the land.

            The Burns county sheriff's email has brought up many questions in regard to what this fight is all about raising many questions about the Hammonds. From emails we have received from Ammon, it appeared this issue was clear cut and all about Rancher's vs BLM, personal property rights vs agenda 21 & the sustainability movement, states rights vs federal control etc. Then we received this transcript of the court proceedings and it appears to some now that it is not that clear cut. Well, I've read and reread the court proceeding transcript and it is clear to me that Ammon's emails were not misleading.

Link to Sheriff's response letter to Hammond Supporters:

            First let's acknowledge what was said in the court by the prosecutor that greatly effected the jury's decision and influenced many who just read the court proceedings. The concerning accusations brought against the Hammond's in this transcript that most had not heard about include poaching, starting a fire to burn the evidence, and endangering firefighters in the process. That sounds pretty bad. Who would stand behind such hardened criminals? No one. We definitely don't support such actions and would not want to be found supporting those who did such things right? Of course not.

The interesting thing though, they were not convicted of any of these accusations. They were accused of these actions but never convicted for lack of evidence. The evidence simply wasn't there. The Game and Fish found no evidence and anyone knows a grass fire could not burn a carcass. It may singe the hair off but it wouldn't even cook the meat medium well.

            After reading these accusations and the court proceedings, it is perfectly clear that the Hammond's were not convicted for anything other than what Ammon Bundy said they were convicted for - two fires - one permitted prescribed burn that got out of control onto BLM land before the Hammonds put it out, and for starting a back burn without BLM permission to save their own property from multiple naturally started lighting range fires.

            The federal judge said he would not be putting the Hammonds back in jail for 5 years if he had the discretion to put them in for less time. He said his hands are tied because of the law. I don't believe a judge would say that if he thought the Hammond's were really poachers and started a fire to burn the evidence. Clearly it was never proven in the mind of the judge. Even the prosecutor made it clear multiple times that he was not pushing for more than the minimum sentence for the Hammonds. I don't believe that would be the case if the prosecutor himself really believed the Hammond's were poachers as well as arsons and guilty of attempting to cover the evidence ect. with an even worse crime of arson. That doesn't even make sense.

"Now, some folks don't know it, but the U.S.
Probation Office is recommending the 70-month sentence,
which is longer than I am recommending of 60, for Steven
Hammond, and the probation office here, who looked at this
case, is asking for Dwight Hammond to serve three months
longer than 60 months, which I am not agreeing to."
"60 months is enough. It's the minimum that's
mandated by a statute that Congress passed, the President
signed, and the U.S. Attorney's Office is obligated to

"Again, we are a system of laws, system of laws,
and if we are given discretion, we will use it, but in this
instance I don't feel I have that discretion."

Both the Judge and the prosecutor on the other hand both admit the Hammonds are good people but feel they have to follow the law regardless.

"Now, back in October 2012, I stood up and said
good things about these men because you can tell by all the
folks in the courtroom, they have done wonderful things for
their community. They are hard-working people. 4-H. They
have done -- they have donated some of their beef. They
have had Oregon State folks come out. For most people in
Burns, they are spoken of highly, and I have spent a lot of
time in Burns. I also spent a lot of time above and on the

So what is this all about then? After reading the transcript and the judges summary it is clear that it is about exactly what Ammon said this was about. The unjust and unconstitutional federal law and BLM jurisdiction which the prosecutor even admits has done more harm than good to the land.

"Now, the Hammonds, especially
Steven, thinks that burning this land, and they even offered
the exhibit that shows that the BLM burns it to get rid of
invasive species. That's true. We didn't dispute that.
And there is a lot of folks that want to argue BLM
did a bad job burning that property when they are trying to
make it better, and they can argue that all they like.
Maybe they are right."

"Now, they may think BLM mismanaged them, and I
know Steven Hammond said that repeatedly, and they are
entitled to their opinion. But they are not entitled to
burn the property. It's not theirs. It's the public's.
And that's why they are here today.

These are very telling statements by the judge that clarify his anti personal property beliefs and strong belief in government ownership of all land.

"Now, there are decisions. The congress and the
legislature and the initiative process make a lot of
decisions and we are obligated to follow those. But when I
think back of what really this is all about is we hold all
these resources in trust for the next people to come after
us, and are we leaving them with as many opportunities as we
have all had?"

"So you don't celebrate by dropping matches
anywhere, if that's what happened. You don't just drop
matches everywhere. You know that. But more importantly,
you have respect when you have the privilege, the privilege
of using public lands to make a livelihood."

"But you don't have the right to make decisions on
public lands when it's not yours and there are processes and
laws in place that give you an opportunity to engage the
governmental bodies to preserve that land.
Now, I don't subscribe to the theory that we just
get to own everything. We hold it as people in public trust
for the next generations."

This is what the judge intends for the Hammonds learn from their long prison sentence. Become subjects and recognize your place in the new order of things.

"So I suspect you are going to make contributions
when you go back into the community that perhaps you will be
able to talk to people about making better choices and to be
respectful and to build relationships with those
organizations, those governmental agencies, those
individuals who are trying their best to do what's expected,
and that is be great stewards for the next generation of the

What is clear is the Courts make it nearly impossible for the Hammonds to keep the land so it will fall into the hands of the BLM forever.

"Upon release from confinement from the
institution, you will serve a three-year term of supervised
release. I am willing to take a look at that down the road.
Those terms and conditions are general and they
are set by probation.
The special conditions are as follows:
You shall disclose all assets and liabilities to
your probation officer and shall not transfer, give away, or
otherwise convey any asset with a fair market value in
excess of $500 without approval of the probation officer.
You shall not make application for loans, enter
into any credit arrangement, or enter into a residential or
business lease agreement without approval of your probation
You shall authorize to the U.S. Probation Office
any and all financial information by executing a release of
financial information form or by any other appropriate means
as directed by your probation officer."
Next, you shall have no contact with the Bureau of
Land Management employees in person, by telephone, through
correspondence or a third party or enter land owned by the
Bureau of Land Management without prior approval of your
probation officer. If you have a need, you certainly need
to make contact, and that will be, I am sure, afforded you
for the purpose requested.
Next, you are to abide by a civil
settlement with the Bureau of Land Management; in this case,
specifically payment of $400,000, the balance of which will
be paid in full -- is that --December of 2015."

I hope this helps to clarify what the judge and prosecutor believe this is all about.
We know what many of these ranchers are standing for - The Constitution and preserving freedom and liberty and the opportunities that we want to preserve for future generations. Keep up the good fight.

2 Timothy 4:7
7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:

Alma 43:45
45 Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.

Rusdon Ray
GER Drafting Services
2243 E. Claxton
Gilbert, AZ 85297
(480)988-2472 Office

The Defenders of Liberty

God - Religion - Freedom - Peace - Family

Sheriff's Ward letter in response to Hammond Supporters

November 20, 2015

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

I have received a huge response from American citizens regarding the resentencing of Dwight and Steven Hammond.  I am aware, as I have read it for myself, that there is a significant amount of misinformation being posted on internet sites.

The fact remains:

  1. The case was investigated by the sheriff at that time.
  2. The case was brought before a grand jury and the defendants were indicted in accordance with the law.
  3. The defendants were tried in federal court and found guilty by a jury of their peers.
  4. The charges of conviction carry a 60 month federal minimum sentence by law.  A law which was passed by congress and signed into law by the President.
  5. The defendant’s attorneys requested the 60 month minimum sentence for the crimes of conviction and the defendants accepted the sentence.
  6. The presiding judge violated the law and handed down a sentence of less than the mandatory minimum required by law.
  7. The prosecution filed an appeal to the decision which went to the 9th Circuit Court, where the court found that the 60 month minimum sentence had to be upheld.
  8. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, which elected not to hear the case.
  9. The defendants were resentenced to fulfill the remainder of the 60 month minimum sentence required by law.

It is my belief that the Hammonds are decent hard working citizens of Harney County and deserve my attention in this matter.  I have read and will continue to read and look into any injustice found in this matter. 

Please read the attached sentence order.  It is lengthy, but will clear up some of the misinformation being found on the internet.

Thank you for your concern and willingness to help in this matter.  If you have any further questions for me please feel free to respond and I will do my best to get back to you in a timely manner.  I have received many phone calls and emails in this matter and will respond to each one as best I can.

David M Ward

Harney County Sheriff

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Hammonds Physically Threatened by Federal Agents for Speaking Out‏

 Dear Friends,

Yesterday I received a phone call from Dwight Hammond (74). He said that he was very afraid for his life and for mine as well. He informed me that federal agents contacted his attorney. They told Dwight's attorney that if Dwight and Susie did not end all communication with Ammon Bundy, that they "would detain the Hammond's early for federal prison and that they would transfer pain to the Hammond family". He further said, that he believed "they would bring misery to the whole family".

Steven Hammond's attorney also confirmed that federal agents contacted him and hinted a raid on the Hammonds home if they did not end all communication with Ammon Bundy.

On Thursday November 19th, Harney County Sheriff, David Ward, informed me that federal agents indicated to him that if the Hammond's continued to speaking out, that they may raid the Hammond's home and detain them early for federal prison. I informed the Sheriff that it was his duty to make sure that did not happen.

I do not have to explain how this is a violation of individual rights. Dwight, Steven and Susie have all told me that they are terrified of what will happen if they continue to communicate with me. In the last phone conversation between Susie and I, she told me that she loved me and was so thankful for what I have done to get the truth out. She then informed me that she feared that if we continued to talk, federal agents were going to put a bullet in her and Dwight's heads, and possible mine. I attempted to instill courage in both Dwight and Susie, but fear had over come them.

This last Wednesday I spent a good part of the day in the Hammond's home. We spoke for hours. Several times, I found the Hammond's in tears when they explained the injustices that has destroyed their lives. They were hopeful that the American people were going to stand for them. And that, just maybe, they would be able to return to the life they once knew. In just a few short hours, federal agents again have dashed the Hammond's hope and replaced it with fear.

I hold my tongue against those that would inflict such pain upon these wonderful people. It reminds me of the scripture that reads: "Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn" (D&C 98:9). 
Everyone within the reach of my words must know that I will do everything in my power to make sure that justice is brought to the Hammond's. I will not stop until the Hammond's are home free, without fear. I do not fear for my life. I love the Hammonds, I love the Lord.

With Concern,
Ammon Bundy

Why the Hammonds are being threatened and abused:

Friday, November 13, 2015


In an effort to make sure we had the facts correct, I drove to visit the Hammons in Burns Oregon. It did not take me long to see and feel that the Hammonds are truly the salt of the earth type of people. I spent two full days in Burns, most of it with the Hammonds. I visited different areas on the ranch and was given explanation to the events and facts. The abuses to this family are much greater than I originally explained to you. They have quietly suffered much more than even the Bundys can fully understand. They are near broken people. When I first came to them they had no hope. They have tried to do what is right for several years and it has cost them their liberties. In an effort to give them hope I explained to them how YOU the American people came to our defense when we were in a similar situation. I assured them that we would do all we could to get the local governments to preform their duty and protect them. I further assured them that if the local governments fail (as it did with the Bundys) I am sure the people will stand in their defense. 

I then went to the County Sheriff -Dave Ward to see if he was a man that understood that his duty was to protect the Hammonds from further abuse and punishment. He assured me that he loves this county and the people in it. As the new Sheriff he confirmed several times that he needed to meet the Hammonds and determine the truth. I promised him that I would do my best to assist in gathering the facts. Over the past week myself and others have exhaustively gathered all the facts we could and have verified them with two or more witnesses. I now share them with you and ask that you honestly review them and determine for yourself if the Hammonds are “Terrorists” and if they deserve the cruel and unusual punishment that has been forced upon them by Federal Employees. Please read all the documents in full including the Facts & Events, Letter to Sheriff Ward and the Conclusion. (See Links)

Thank you,

Ammon Bundy

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Facts & Events in the Hammond Case

Facts & Events

(aa) The Harney Basin (were the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 60,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.

(ab) In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.   

(a) In 1964 the Hammonds purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.

(a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.

(a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told that, “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”. 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.

(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentional diverted the water to bypassing the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede and now the once thriving privately owned Silvies pains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.

(a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers that still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling fact about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study that was done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed that the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed that the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced 4 times more ducks and geese than the refuge did. It also showed that the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge.  When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.

(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out that the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive towards the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court.  The court found that the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.* 

(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with "disturbing and interfering with" federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.

(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS. 

(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock.  The Hammonds intended to still use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.

(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.  

Dwight Hammond (Father) 
(g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sale their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later. 

(h) The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.

(i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries. 
(j) 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”. 

Steven Hammond (Son)
(k) A few days later an agent from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Burns) for coffee. Steven accepted. When he arrived he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff’s Department. Sheriff Dave Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and charged by the US Attorney’s Office for “Arsenal Terrorism”, under the Federal Antiterrorism and 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”.

(l) Shortly after the sentencing, Capital Press ran a story about the Hammonds. A person who identified as Greg Allum posted three comments on the article, calling the ranchers “clowns” who endangered firefighters and other people in the area while burning valuable rangeland. Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, soon called Capital Press to complain that he had not made those comments and request that they be taken down from the website. Capital Press removed the comments. A search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments revealed it is owned by the BLM’s office in Denver, Colorado. Allum said, he is friends with the Hammonds and was alerted to the comments by neighbors who knew he wouldn’t have written them. “I feel bad for them. They lost a lot and they’re going to lose more,” Allum said of the ranchers. “They’re not terrorists. There’s this hatred in the BLM for them, and I don’t get it,” The retired BLM employee said. Jody Weil, deputy state director for communications at BLM’s Oregon office, indicated to reporters that if one of their agents falsified the comments, they would keep it private and not inform the public.

(m) In September 2006, Dwight & Susan Hammond’s home was raided. The agents informed the Hammonds that they were looking for evidence that would connect them to the fires. The Hammonds later found out that a boot print and a tire tracks were found near one of the many fires. No matching boots or tires were found in the Hammonds home or on their property.  Susan Hammond (Wife) later said; " I have never felt so violated in my life. We are ranchers not criminals”.  Steven Hammond openly maintains his testimony that he started the backfire to save the winter grass from being destroyed and that the backfire ended up working so well it put out the fire entirely altogether.

(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail that would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for 6 days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Much of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury.  For example, Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings that the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.

(o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later).  At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years.  He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.

(p) Judge Michael Hogan & Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how the land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton everyday. Some drove more than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home. On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict. Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision.  Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual that has convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area, influenced by the prosecutors for 6 straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, made a verdict and went home.

 (q) June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were convicted as National Arsenal Terrorists. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. They were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Hogan overruling the minimum sentence, commenting that if the full five years were required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The day of the sentencing Judge Hogan retired as a federal judge. In his honor the staff served chocolate cake in the courtroom.

(r) On January 4,2013, Dwight and Steven reported to prison. They fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months). Dwight was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014.

(s) 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.* 

Hammond Family
(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 resentencing. 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.


S*  Rhonda Karges – Resource Field Manager for the BLM is the wife of Chad Karges Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife refuge.

Rhonda specifically deals with all the BLM issues relating to the area in and around Hammonds property including “grazing denial”. Her husband just happens to be the person in charge of all the issues surrounding the Hammonds ranch such as “water and access”.

b*   Soon after the water rights dispute the federal government influenced the State of Oregon to change their water law in favor of federal agencies. Wildlife is now considered in the State of Oregon as an accepted beneficial use for government agencies only. 

k*  Being convicted as Terrorist made the Hammonds felons. They have been striped of their right to have guns. The Hammond live 53 miles from the closets town and have no practical way of defending themselves or their cattle. Several times they have watched baby calves be eaten by predators and could do nothing to prevent it.


The abuses and corruptions affecting people like the Hammonds are symptoms of a more encompassing problem.  Government employees (fulltime & elected) have changed their culture from one of service to, and respect for the people, to the roll of being a masters. On the subject of the land, it is evident that government employees are no longer assisting the people in claiming, using and defending property. Instead, they have become the people’s competitor to the benefits of the land, and are willing to use force on those who they erroneously compete against.

The federal government adversely controls over 582,000,000 acres of the western lands, 51% of the entire western land mass. They also have recently begun claiming over 72% of western resources such as the sub-surface minerals, forestry and waters. This is in comparison to 4.29% federally controlled land in the east.

The impact of the federal government controlling the land and resources inside the western states is hard to calculate. The negative impact on the people can be seen economically, politically, and socially. In order for any people to survive, let alone prosper, it takes the land and resources to do it. Everything we eat, the clothing we wear, the homes we live in, the cars we drive, and so on, come from the earth. All physical comfort and prosperity originates from the earth. Individuals composing the federal government, understanding the origination of wealth, are reserving these resources for themselves and are willing to use force to retain them. The ramifications of their action are slowly forcing the people of the west into poverty.

Due to the fact that people cannot survive without land and resource, the federal government’s action in administering the lands for their own benefit will be the cause of public discontent and unrest until it is corrected.

The solution is very simple, the land and resources must be made available to its rightful owners, the people. This can be done peacefully if the states & counties would check and balance the federal government as designed. When this happens, the people will begin to prosper and much of the economical, political and social problem of the west will diminish. Prosperity, peace and tranquility will be the results.

Thank you,

Ammon Bundy