Hammonds / Sheriff Ward Letter of response, Rebuttle to Sheriffs Lack of understanding

 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.

1. 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.
2. The defendant’s attorneys requested the 60 month minimum sentence for the crimes of conviction and the defendants accepted the sentence.
3. The presiding judge violated the law and handed down a sentence of less than the mandatory minimum required by law.
4. The prosecution filed an appeal to the decision which went to the 9^th Circuit Court, where the court found that the 60 month minimum sentence had to be upheld.
5. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, which elected not to hear the case.
6. 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.

 

 

 

November 27, 2015

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: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/

            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.

Prosecutor:

"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

enforce."

Judge:

"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.

Prosecutor:

"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

land."

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.

Prosecutor:

"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."

Prosecutor:

"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.

Judge:

"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?"

Judge:

"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."

Judge:

"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.

Judge:

"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

lands."

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.

Judge:

"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

officer.

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

www.houseplansinaweek.com

The Defenders of Liberty

God - Religion - Freedom - Peace - Family