United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Full Story on What’s Going on In Oregon – Militia Take Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge In Protest to Hammond Family Persecution…
Source:
The Conservative Treehouse
URL Source: http://theconservativetreehouse.com ... to-hammond-family-persecution/
Published: Jan 3, 2016
Author: sundance
Post Date: 2016-01-03 16:31:29 by Roscoe
Keywords: None
Views: 5456
Comments: 41
The short summary is: in an effort to draw attention to a ridiculous arrest of a father and son pair of Oregon Ranchers (“Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46,) who are scheduled to begin five year prison sentences (turning themselves in tomorrow January 4th 2016), three brothers from the Cliven Bundy family and approximately 100/150 (and growing) heavily armed militia (former U.S. service members) have taken control of Malheur Wildlife Refuge Headquarters in the wildlife reserve. They are prepared to stay there indefinitely.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
The site provides a lengthy account of the history underlying the situation.
The day YOU provide a full story other than continued government claptrap or propaganda will be a day about sunshine.
“It wasn’t a jury of people from Eugene, it wasn’t a jury of people from Portland. It was a jury of people from Pendleton — your peers,” she said. Source: Judge sends Oregon ranchers back to prison Dumbass ranchers were convicted by a jury of their peers.... let 'em rot behind bars where they belong.
Aiken wasn't the trial judge.
How long ... before the republican nominees --- show up !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
So? The original trial judge is retired & Aiken now has the job. No big deal.
The original trial judge passed sentence before he retired.
It appears he let them off with a lighter sentence than the law allowed and the prosecutors won the full sentence on appeal. He let them off lighter than the law allowed, hoping it would stick. The original judge retired the day the day the case ended, including a retirement cake served in the courtroom.
The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals vacated the sentencing portion of the trial after the original sentences were completed. There was no retrial. How is that due process? For instance, in the original trial the federal judge could have issued a directed verdict of not guilty rather than resort to his equitable sentence. Without a retrial, the woman judge's resentencing rationalization stinks of justice-free pretext.
Apparently, the original judge pulled every unfair trick in the book to railroad them in his kangaroo court. After getting the conviction (with the judge behaving like a member of the prosecution team), he refused to give them the full sentence required. So they could all enjoy his retirement cake when he "let them off easy". Or maybe that old bastard was expecting exactly this result, that they would serve his lighter sentence, then be forced back into prison for much longer. This kind of stuff will never slow down until a real and discernible direct price is paid by judges and federal prosecutors who behave so corruptly.
Agreed. My take is that maintaining at least a semblance of due process is critical to justice. Not the "substantive due process" that has contaminated our federal courts, but actual regularity of process. This whole affair was wildly unorthodox, to say the least.
Retrial wasn't necessary. They merely restored the mandatory minimum sentences that the original trial judge didn't have the authority to ignore. The criminal ranchers weren't "resentenced." They simply had to return to prison to serve the remainder of the mandatory minimum. The anti-government ranchers oughta quit their squawking... 5 years is too lenient... They actually deserve to be retried and have another 20 years tacked on to their sentence.
Quote the law.
If the judge made a wrong decision then the ranchers should not have to pay for it . Arson can't be tolerated ,even on private lands. But if the judge ignored mandatory sentencing then why should they be held for his error ? Many cases are thrown out and reversed in favor of criminals over technicalities /mistakes by the authorities . Different debates can be made about this idea of mandatory sentencing ,and the reason why the Federal government owns so much of the land of the nation (especially in the Western states ) Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
It wasn't arson. It was a controlled burn and the Hammond's had permission. “They called and got permission to light the fire… We usually called the interagency fire outfit – a main dispatch – to be sure someone wasn’t in the way or that weather wouldn’t be a problem,” said Dwight’s wife Susan. In a post to their blog, the Bundy family explained that the Hammonds were merely engaging in prescribed burns to keep the land healthy and productive. And, they assert that the Bureau of Land Management also conducts these burns. The Hammonds lit a fire on their own property that spread to public land. No one was injured, no property was destroyed and the Hammond extinguished the fire themselves, according to the Bundys. The court even ruled that the fires actually had a positive impact on the land. “With no authority or justification to prosecute, eleven years after the fire, federal attorneys have obtained judgment that the Hammonds are terrorists and must be punished severely for their actions,” explains the Bundy Family. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Then presumably they had a written document authorizing the burn. I would not do it on some oral authority over the phone. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Witnesses say Steven Hammond and a hunting party illegally slaughtered deer on federal property in 2001, then started a fire to cover it up. The second arson conviction was for starting "back fires" in 2006 to save winter feed, despite a burn ban in effect because of high fire danger. katu.com/news/local/crimi...he-hammond-familys-arson- conviction Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
No special law is needed. Throw 'em back in prison where they belong. Case closed.
Quote it.
Because they were found GUILTY by a JURY, not the judge.
The one you won't quote.
Would you feel the same if some flaming lib judge, on the last day on the bench before he retired, and hearing a case where a pedophile had murdered 20 toddlers but ignored all sentencing requirements in the law and released the pedophile for time served? This judge served as a member of the prosecution during the trial to railroad these ranchers. Then on the day he retired, he gave out a light sentence he knew full well did not meet the 5-year minimum the law plainly required. Then everyone had cake. I think a mistrial should be declared and it should be retried. And, at most, they would get convicted of unauthorized fires on federal lands. A time served deal should be made. No one was terrorized by these extremely rural backfires they lit (which was the right thing to do). They had the permission of the local fire department to do this as it was a routine measure for firefighting throughout the region. The biggest error in all this was to ever have prosecuted them under a terrorism statute.
THERE.... I quoted it for you...
Or, not and. They were fined.
Do you suffer some kind of reading comprehension disorder?
I have problems with mandatory sentencing ;it may be the law ;but is it just ? There are alot of people populating our jails who are there longer than deserved because of mandatory sentencing . In my opinion a judge should be permitted to tailor sentencing to circumstances. The facts of this case beg for much more lenient sentencing than what the law prescribes . If this was a terrorism case then I would allow the judge to be harsher than what the mandatory sentence allows . Senator Mike Lee is taking the lead in introducing sentencing reform. His 'The Smarter Sentencing Act '(SB1410/HR3382) would address this Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
That's twice I've read that . If they have proof of this permission then they should not have been found guilty in the 1st place. Did they get written authorization ? That appears to be an unknown. What I read is that they claim they made a call . Who in the fire dept did they talk to ,and why wasn't that person a witness ? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
You shot your own position down in flames and now you're hysterical.
I don't see where a prescribed fire to burn weeds and underbrush applies here. Where's nolu?
Here's Donald Trump's ... opportunity to be --- the new Davey Crocket - Sam Houston ! If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
The public land that they burned was leased for commercial grazing purposes, and therefor "real property" used in interstate or foreign commerce.
Did they burn the public land intentionally?
They admitted deliberately setting a fire, but claimed it was a backfire.
I guess the jury must've thought it was intentional. That's good enough for me.
Thanks. 139 acres is nothing IMO.
Well that was one incident, and there were apparently other incidents and warnings that they ignored, etc. etc.
You should move to Canada ... nkorea --- would be better !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
I had a similar discussion yesterday when local folks were complaining about Ed's behavior recently. He's been drinking and drugging up a storm and acting abusive towards women friends of his. I asked them what was his problem? They claimed he was issued a subpoena to turn himself in to the high sheriff this week. He had a wreck recently and was drunk as a monkey and medevac'd to a big city hospital. I guess the blood tests indicated his BAC levels. So, he's acting out and afraid to pay the piper. Sounds like it is similar in this case. Desperate people do desperate things. I'm not following this situation closely. But I am keeping my eye on it.
You been hanging out too much with savagesusie... Da plane, boss... da plane!
Howz yer ... hoax - chains - yes we con --- working out for you ! you should ... be ready --- to change parties ! If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
No thanks... I doubt if savagesusie knows how to shake her booty.
#2. To: Roscoe (#1)
Full Story
#3. To: Roscoe (#0)
Aiken said she would use discretion in sentencing the Hammonds if she could, but that wasn’t a possibility given the mandatory minimums and the jury’s decision to convict them of arson.
#4. To: Willie Green (#3)
Aiken said she would use discretion
#5. To: Roscoe (#0)
#6. To: Roscoe (#4)
Aiken wasn't the trial judge.
#7. To: Willie Green (#6)
The original trial judge is retired
#8. To: Roscoe (#7)
The original trial judge passed sentence before he retired.
#9. To: TooConservative (#8)
It appears he let them off with a lighter sentence than the law allowed and the prosecutors won the full sentence on appeal.
#10. To: Roscoe (#9)
(Edited)
There was no retrial. How is that due process? For instance, in the original trial the federal judge could have issued a directed verdict of not guilty rather than resort to his equitable sentence. Without a retrial, the woman judge's resentencing rationalization stinks of justice-free pretext.
No double-jeopardy can attach to it this way.
#11. To: TooConservative (#10)
#12. To: Roscoe (#9)
The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals vacated the sentencing portion of the trial after the original sentences were completed. There was no retrial. How is that due process?
#13. To: Willie Green (#12)
They merely restored the mandatory minimum sentences that the original trial judge didn't have the authority to ignore.
#14. To: Willie Green, TooConservative, Roscoe (#12)
#15. To: tomder55 (#14)
Arson can't be tolerated ,even on private lands.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#16. To: Deckard (#15)
It was a controlled burn and the Hammond's had permission.
#17. To: Deckard (#15)
#18. To: Roscoe (#13)
Quote the law.
The original trial judge is the one who strayed from the law. He ignored the mandatory minimum sentence and the Appeals Court overruled him. But it was the jury who found them guilty so the mandatory minimum sentence still applies.
#19. To: Willie Green (#18)
the mandatory minimum sentence
#20. To: tomder55 (#14)
But if the judge ignored mandatory sentencing then why should they be held for his error ?
What don't you understand about GUILTY?
The MANDATORY minimum applies, not a lame slap-on-the-wrist granted by some wimp-ass retired judge.
Lock 'em up, make 'em serve their MANDATORY full sentences. They were found GUILTY by a JURY.
#21. To: Willie Green (#20)
MANDATORY minimum applies
#22. To: tomder55 (#14)
If the judge made a wrong decision then the ranchers should not have to pay for it . Arson can't be tolerated ,even on private lands. But if the judge ignored mandatory sentencing then why should they be held for his error ? Many cases are thrown out and reversed in favor of criminals over technicalities /mistakes by the authorities .
#23. To: Roscoe (#21)
The one you won't quote.
Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both; and if personal injury results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be imprisoned for not less than 7 years and not more than 40 years, fined under this title, or both; and if death results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall also be subject to imprisonment for any term of years, or to the death penalty or to life imprisonment.
#24. To: Willie Green (#23)
shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both;
#25. To: Roscoe (#24)
fined under this title, or both;
Or are you simply dumb as a rock?
#26. To: Willie Green (#20)
(Edited)
Because they were found GUILTY by a JURY, not the judge. What don't you understand about GUILTY? The MANDATORY minimum applies, not a lame slap-on-the-wrist granted by some wimp-ass retired judge. Lock 'em up, make 'em serve their MANDATORY full sentences. They were found GUILTY by a JURY.
#27. To: TooConservative (#22)
They had the permission of the local fire department
#28. To: Willie Green (#25)
#29. To: Willie Green (#23)
Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce...
#30. To: All (#5)
How long ... before the republican nominees --- show up !
#31. To: Fred Mertz (#29)
I don't see where a prescribed fire to burn weeds and underbrush applies here.
#32. To: Willie Green (#31)
#33. To: Fred Mertz (#32)
#34. To: Fred Mertz (#32)
Although the Hammonds claimed that the fire was designed to burn off invasive species on their property, a teenage relative of theirs testified that Steven had instructed him to drop lit matches on the ground so as to “light up the whole country on fire.” And the teenager did just that. The resulting flames, which were eight to ten feet high, spread quickly and forced the teenager to shelter in a creek. The fire ultimately consumed 139 acres of public land and took the acreage out of production for two growing seasons.
#35. To: Willie Green (#34)
#36. To: Fred Mertz (#35)
I figure the jury waded through all those details, so I ain't gonna worry about it just because the convicts are whining.
The jury found 'em guilty and the Appelate Court overruled an excessively lenient judge. Case closed.
#37. To: Willie Green (#36)
#38. To: Willie Green (#36)
#39. To: BorisY (#37)
You should move to Canada ... nkorea --- would be better !
#40. To: Willie Green (#39)
#41. To: BorisY (#40)
you should ... be ready --- to change parties !
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]