The Oregon Hammonds Standoff

Last night “someone” asked me what I thought about what’s going on in Oregon with the Hammond family having to report today, January 4th,  to complete the remainder of a FIVE YEAR prison sentence for a fire they set on their property that unintentionally spread from the Hammond property over to adjacent federal lands (which the Hammonds were leasing from BLM).  The Hammonds were originally sentenced under mandatory Federal TERRORISM guidelines, and then the 9th Circuit court invalidated  US District Judge Hogan having subsequently reduced the Hammond’s sentence to 1 year (max). However the 9th Circuit then insisted the federal terms must be applied, even though this was clearly not a relevant “terrorism” situation, under the 1996 Antiterrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act.  The Hammond’s fire clearly involved no such terrorist intent whatsoever by the Hammonds, certainly in no way rationally comparable to the Oklahoma City bombing of the federal building, which motivated the Act — thereby highlighting why this mandatory sentencing is blatant federal tyranny.

The contact asking my thoughts on the Hammond situation in Oregon  did so by providing a video discussion of the Oregon events made by one “Montagraph”.   I now focus on Montagraph’s video because  it really exhibits the common misunderstanding of too many Americans regarding legitimate Federal authority and the actual terms of the Constitution, even as currently amended.

Montagraph’s video commentary on Oregon situation:

Montagraph really doesn’t understand the fundamental facts of the case and this country, and shouldn’t be spouting off about the Oregon Ranch issues at all.   Montagraph is grossly uninformed, and Exhibit A as to why Americans have lost their Liberty.

Fundamentally the issues in Oregon are exactly the same as the previous Bundy Ranch standoff in Nevada.

However, for starters,  Montagraph does not even recognize that the federal government has no legitimate authority in the States under the Constitution, which is true for both the Bundy and Hammond situations.  There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to claim any lands as federal other than forts, arsenals, dockyards and other “needful buildings”,  per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.  There is no authority to write laws directly applicable to the people within the several States.  There is no authority to transfer private lands within a State to federal authority. There is no authority for federal laws above and beyond State laws.

If anyone questions these assertions, then review Article 1, Section 8 of the ConstitutionPollard Lessee vs Hagan (excerpted at bottom of this post), and the Equal Footing Doctrine.  It is standing constitutional principle that every State is to be sovereign over all the territory within its borders upon statehood, yet this ongoing principle is routinely disregarded by the federal government as it engages an illegitimate authority.

THEN Montagraph repeatedly references the currently “occupied” nature preserve area in Oregon as  being a “Honey Trap”. Well, this is thoroughly ignorant, and it’s evident he does not know even what the phrase “honey trap” means.   He says, “It’s my personal opinion that this is a honey trap, yeah, uh huh.”  Is this his rendition of Ernest P. Worrell, or what?  Montagraph doesn’t even explain why, in his view, it might be a honey trap.   There’s no “honey” in the wildlife preserve  that they’ve occupied, nothing there that powerfully attracted them to occupy that facility, so it cannot be any sort of “honey trap” situation.

If the reclamation of our enduring rights and liberties is some sort of “trap”, then by all means it is a trap in dire need of being faced and removed, or we can no longer legitimately  call ourselves free Americans.

Then Montagraph indicates the militia supporters have encroached on federal property, and by doing so those militia “occupiers” have thrown the Constitution “out the window.”  However the claimed existence of that federal land itself is the only actual violation of the Constitution!  THEN Montagraph references Posse Comitatus, and use of the military  in policing action against civilians, saying it is “in the Constitution”.  No, it’s not in the Constitution at all,  but rather came from the second session of Congress.

Someone needs to smack this Montagraph on the back of the head for each and every ignorant word he spouts in this video. Montagraph is “Exhibit A” as to why Americans have lost their freedoms, and have been reduced to only dutiful slaves to an illegitimate federal authority involving the dictate of every aspect of our lives.  Montagraph is too ignorant on the very substantial issues to even know how ignorant he is, imagining somehow that this video might have some fragment of rationality to it.

Reference: Anti-Terrorism & Effective Death Penalty ACT – 1996

I close with a very powerful and compelling video by KrisAnne Hall:


Pollard Lessee v Hagan (1845)

The Supreme Court itself has repeatedly affirmed the sovereignty of states, whether they were a part of the union initially, or brought into the union subsequent to the country’s formation.

The Court case Pollard Lessee involved conflicting claims by the United States and Alabama to ownership of certain partially inundated lands in Alabama.  Take note that this case tests the consideration in which the federal government might possibly have some legitimate authority over those “inundated lands”, given that those lands are vaguely associated with waterways that legitimately fall under stipulated constitutional federal authority.

The enabling act for Alabama had contained both a declaration of equal footing and a reservation to the United States of those lands. However rather than the Court considering this as an issue of mere land ownership, the Court saw the question as one concerning sovereignty and jurisdiction of the States overall.

Given that the original 13 States retained sovereignty and jurisdiction over even the navigable waters and the soil beneath them, provided they lay  within that State’s boundaries, the retention by the United States of either title to or jurisdiction over common lands in the new States would bring those States into the Union on a less-than-equal footing with the original States.

The Court resolved:

“To Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States; and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.”

“Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits … to maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states … to Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them.”

Notice that this excerpt from the decision involves not only a recognition of Alabama’s sovereignty, but as with “unalienable” rights, that state sovereignty is also unalienable, and cannot by changed even by agreement (“compact”) made freely by the state itself! This inherently reserved sovereignty is undiminished by the fact that Alabama was originally a territory, entirely subject to congressional control.

Given that “No compact that might be made between [any state] and the United States could diminish these rights”, then this State sovereignty remains undiminished even by entry into the union

In regard to the claim that “most states don’t have such a provision” affirming their sovereignty, as a function of the Pollard Lessee holding, the Court also indicated that each and every state that joined subsequent to the Revolution, has the same rights as the original states…. and that no state could have rights recognized that are not shared equally by other states.

*** NOTE: The Court’s recognition in the Pollard case is not limited to “partially inundated” lands, but also applies more broadly to any territory within a State which the federal government may even have purchased at some point, both prior to statehood, or after that statehood.    While the Federal government may have constitutional authority to write laws applicable to forts, and other specifically stipulated federal lands, even those lands remain within the sovereign territory of each State, upon statehood, with the federal government’s ownership of specifically stipulated portions being only as a sort of elevated tenant. “No Compact that might be made … can alter these rights <State sovereignty>”

This puts new light on not only the federal government’s act of supplying and fortifying Fort Sumter upon the secession of the South, with this fortification of Sumter at the mouth of Charleston bay actually itself being the original act of war in directly threatening to the citizens of Charleston, but also applying to the Bundy Ranch standoff, as well as the more recent standoff in Oregon involving the Hammonds Ranch.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s