Claim: Oregon standoff due to rogue militia

In a situation that may be spiraling out of control for the family at the center of the Oregon militia standoff, the Hammonds have issued a statement that they do not want an armed standoff – and no one has the right to force one on them.

Organizers of the standoff include Ammon Bundy and two other sons of a Nevada rancher who battled the government in 2014. The protest was touched off by the upcoming imprisonment of Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who were prosecuted for a controlled burn of 130 acres of leased federal land. Each of the ranchers face five years in prison.

But Stewart Rhodes of Oathkeepers has no plans to join the protest out of respect for the family's wishes. He stated: "We cannot force ourselves or our protection on people who do not want it. Dwight and Steven Hammond have made it clear, through their attorney, that they just want to turn themselves in and serve out their sentence. And that clear statement of their intent should be the end of the discussion on this. No patriot group or individual has the right or the authority to force an armed stand off on this family, or around them, against their wishes. You cannot help someone who does not want your help, and who are not willing and ready to take a hard stand themselves."

TRENDING: Jordan to star witness Taylor: 'I've seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this'

Below is a copy of the letter from the Hammond family's attorney:

Oathkeepers maintains Ammon Bundy's call to action is unnecessary, stating:

"[D]espite Dwight and Steven Hammond's decision to voluntarily report to Federal custody, Ammon has issued a video titled 'BREAKING ALERT! URGENT CALL TO ACTION! ALL CALL FOR ALL PATRIOTS! MILITIAS! OATH-KEEPERS! FROM AMMON BUNDY RANCH!' In that video, posted on December 29, Ammon Bundy asks those who went to Bundy Ranch to now go to the town of Burns 'to make a stand' and he urges them to 'come to Burns and defend this family and defend this county.'"

Related: Armed U.S. militia take over federal building

A transcript of the last part of the video states:

"I'm asking you, and you know who you are, you that came, and you that felt to come, to the Bundy Ranch. I'm asking you to come to Burns on January 2, to make a stand. And I feel that this is every bit, and in many ways more important, than the Bundy Ranch. I feel – I know – that the abuses this family has endured is much greater than even the Bundy family. And this is something that cannot be ignored. It has to happen now. We cannot allow these violations to be so blatant and do nothing and expect that we will not be accountable for it. We will be accountable if we do not stand, and I'm asking you now, to come to Burns and defend this family and to defend this county, because it is not just the Hammonds that are being affected by this. They have put this whole county in depression. in the 80s, this county was a thriving county that the household income was higher than the national average, and the highest in the state of Oregon. Now, because of the federal control of the resources, now Harney County is in an economic depression. They are the lowest – they have the lowest income in the county (country) and it is $22,000.00 under the national average – $22,000.00 less than the national average. And it's because they have no access – very little access – to their natural resources. And it is time that we make a stand, and I'm asking you to do that. And I want to thank you for your time and thank you for listening, and I hope that you can feel the urgency of what I am asking you to do."

Related: How earlier Bundy standoff was resolved

Stewart Rhodes makes clear the differences between the Hammond situation and the Bundy Ranch incident:

In addition to the fact that the Hammonds have not requested our help, and intend to report to federal custody to serve out the additional sentences, there are also several other important differences between this situation and Bundy Ranch. As stated above, at Bundy Ranch, we saw a very clear and present danger of imminent unlawful and excessive force being used against the Bundy ranching family (whose family home is always full of children and grand-children). There were military trained sniper teams, Special Forces veteran "contractors" and video footage of BLM agents tazing Ammon Bundy, siccing attack dogs on him, and throwing his elderly aunt to the ground. The Feds also set up their absurd and disgusting "First Amendment Areas" and tried to confine protesters to them, and arrested one of the Bundy sons for being outside of the taped off designated protest area.

All indicators were that the Bundy's were at risk of being killed in a Ruby Ridge or Waco type incident. And that is why we went (along with many other groups and individuals), after the Bundy family directly asked for help. And because the whole Bundy family, and many of their cowboy friends and neighbors were willing to take a hard stand, with the support of veterans and patriots, they prevailed, the Feds blinked, and backed off.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America's independent news network.

But Rhodes released a statement clarifyng the Hammond's position:

"I regret having to even make this statement, but I have no choice, since Ammon Bundy has not made it sufficiently clear to the patriot community that the Hammond family has declined physical armed help, and by all indications does NOT want any kind of armed stand off with the Federal government, and they do NOT want anyone to attempt to protect Dwight and Steven Hammond from being taken into Federal custody on Monday, January 4, 2016 when they are scheduled to turn themselves in to serve additional time for their felony convictions (which came after a jury found them guilty). They intend to voluntarily turn themselves in and serve out the remainder of their sentence, under federal minimum sentencing statutes, after losing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on that issue."

Rhodes continues: "Yes, [the Hammonds] are apparently being coerced and threatened (told not to communicate with Ammon or face dire consequences), as is done to anyone who runs afoul of the Feds, but if they don't want their family in the middle of an armed stand off and have decided it is best to just go back to prison, no patriot group or individual has the right or the authority to force an armed stand off on the Hammond family, or around them, against their wishes. You cannot help someone who does not want your help, and who are not willing and ready to take a hard stand themselves."

Related: The story behind the Oregon armed standoff

Oathkeepers concludes with the statement: "Because the Hammond family does not want an armed standoff and they wish to turn themselves in, Oathkeepers will not take part in any attempt to create a standoff in Burns, Oregon."