Vol. 80/No. 29 August 8, 2016
Court violates trial rights of Oregon land protesters
The occupation began Jan. 2 to draw attention to the frame-up of father and son cattle ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond, and to what many working ranchers call federal “overreach” — that is rules, regulations and other bureaucratic obstacles to their use of federal land for grazing.
After serving their original prison terms on trumped-up charges of arson for setting controlled fires to protect their land, the Hammonds went back to prison Jan. 4, after a federal court ruled that the time served didn’t meet the minimum five-year sentence of the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, under which they had been charged.
The occupation ended after Oregon state troopers and the FBI ambushed and arrested participants in the protest who were on their way to a Jan. 26 community meeting. Robert “LaVoy” Finicum, another leader of the protest, was shot and killed after he tried to drive around a roadblock and make it to the meeting.
No one was fired at or injured by anyone participating in the occupation of the refuge. This was recognized in essence on June 10, when a U.S. District Court judge dismissed the accusation of “Use and Carry of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence,” the most serious of six counts against the Bundys and 24 other defendants. If found guilty they could have faced up to life in prison.
They are still charged with “Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States” and “theft” of government property. They face similar charges for their participation in a protest in Nevada in April 2014 against attempts by the Bureau of Land Management to confiscate and sell 400 cows that belong to their father, Cliven Bundy.
In the motion for their release pending trial, the Bundys’ lawyers note that more than 1,000 people visited the occupation at the Malheur refuge “without interference from the federal government, notice or arrest.” The Bundys, “making no secret of their travels,” regularly attended meetings with ranchers, workers and others all over the area, including speaking with police officials about their political views. The Bundys “have a strong desire to defend themselves and vindicate their principles,” the lawyers said.
The Bundys hope to use their trial to publicize their view that the federal government’s control of some 50 percent of the land west of the Mississippi River is unconstitutional.
In other rulings that undermine their constitutional rights and ability to defend themselves, the court denied the Bundys’ request for a change of venue; for a delay in the trial to have enough time to prepare; and to not be forced to stand trial in Oregon and Nevada simultaneously.
Working ranchers in Oregon had a range of views on the wisdom of the occupation. Even among those who thought it was not the right way to protest, there was sympathy with the demand to free the Hammonds. And many felt the occupation helped shine light on federal government policies that worsen the situation of ranchers.
Meanwhile, cattle ranchers are facing big challenges as the capitalist economic crisis deepens. The bubble that had built up in beef prices is in sharp decline.
More ranchers and working farmers across the country are going into debt for larger amounts. According to the most recent figures available from the Kansas City Federal Reserve, farm debt since the first quarter of 2014 has increased 20 percent, while farm income has dropped sharply. Delinquency rates on farm loans, which had been in decline since 2010, have begun to rise again.
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home