OR - Militia members occupy federal building in Oregon after protest #1

[CARIIS]

argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional a

this angle confuses me

couldn't anyone do that about any crime and sentence? What is unconstutionial l about this - I am lost!

 

[Brightbird]

KZ,

This part of your outstanding post says it all.

Unfortunately all of the media and public attention is going to the Bundy's while the fact that our government took advantage of a poorly written law and misused it to confiscate an American citizen's land has been lost in the shuffle.

Well that's on the Bundys and their supporters. They have acted like fools. Is it any wonder that their cause is lost in the media? Not just MSM either, this is made for mockery on social media.

 

[LaborDayRN]

Labor Day RN,

That the Hammond's started the fire is not in dispute. However, as the first judge, Michael Hogan, put it:

Well, the damage was juniper trees and sagebrush, and there might have been a hundred dollars, but it doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t affect the guidelines, and I am not sure how much sagebrush a hundred dollars worth is. But I think this probably will be — I think mother nature’s probably taken care of any injury.
​

Regarding the five-year mandatory minimum for both defendants, Judge Hogan said:

I am not going to apply the mandatory minimum and because, to me, to do so under the Eighth Amendment would result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here.


With regard to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, this sort of conduct could not have been conduct intended under that statute.


When you say, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles where there are houses up those ravines? Might apply. Out in the wilderness here, I don’t think that’s what the Congress intended. And in addition, it just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality. I am not supposed to use the word “fairness” in criminal law. I know that I had a criminal law professor a long time ago yell at me for doing that. And I don’t do that. But this — it would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me.


​

Hogan sentenced the Hammonds to shorter times, three months for Dwight Hammond, the dad, and twelve months and a day for Steven Hammond, which they have served. The Ninth Circuit held that the minimum five-year sentence was not so disproportionate as to violate the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” clause. Now they have been re-sentenced to five years in prison, under the anti-terrorism law passed by Congress.

In my opinion, the second sentence should never have happened. Besides being quasi double-jeopardy, the punishment (in addition to the $400,000 for damages) is excessive for an act of maintenance and stewardship of land adjoining neglected government property.

Wow, that's some BIG font!!

The Supreme Court ruling in essence say's it isn't up to Judge Hogan to decide what the sentence should be. All parties had agreed to the mandated, by law minimum sentence of 5 years for arson of federally owned land. The law doesn't stipulate if the land is in Los Angeles or Oregon. Just stipulates federally owned land. It's the law. Whether you or I agree is another matter.

 

[CARIIS]

couple who delivered food to the refuge HQ estimated

i know i am being dramatic , but i am sorry we do not allow room service in the middle of a terroprist attack !

block the whole building off, turn off the water/electric and let them make there choice!

would there be a public outcry if they did that - if someone broke into your house and was using your water elec food would you not be "OK" for lack of a better word-to turn your stuff off casue you dont feel like paying for criminals to stay in your house

i ama missing something!!

 

[bluesneakers]

argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional a

this angle confuses me

couldn't anyone do that about any crime and sentence? What is unconstutionial l about this - I am lost!

Couldn't any judge do anything then? Is this what happened in the Affluenza Kid case?

 

[CARIIS]

No worries you are not alone! Its very confusing as to why the "details" seem to be mattering to the world. You dont go into public buildings with guns and take over - I dont care what ones beef is is! And they are letting room service make deliveries ---its obserd - your hungry go home -get out of our" property !!!

I'm nott Archangel but from what little I have researched so far, the Hammonds claim they were setting fires to kill some type of species or to prevent other fires. I donn't understand how all that works, startting fires to prevent it from spreading or whatever.

They also claim they were denied the land allotment for two years.

It sounds to me as though this whole thing is they don't tthink the FEDERAL governmet should be in charge of the statte's land. IDK. I'm still trying to figure it all out. It took me a bit just to differentiate between the Hammonds (who are supposed to be goinng back to jail) and the Bundys who have taken over this building.

Here's a link I was reading stuff. It is abviously more biased towards the Hammonnds.

http://www.tsln.com/news/17302049-113/story.html

MOO

 

[SpriteGal]

I am more confused than anything. How do these things usually end???

 

[LaborDayRN]

the other sensationalist "story" appears manufactured by a disaffected and estranged young family member who the feds went after. That story neither makes any sense nor is it consistent with the character of the Hammonds otherwise, which, from all accounts by their neighbors and community members is excellent. If they were willy nilly handing out matches and instructing people to burn indiscriminately much more than 140 acres would have been burned. And they would have endangered and perhaps ruined their own ranch. If it makes no sense I don't tend to believe it. Their actions were consistent with a successful back burn and a targeted burn.

And whatever their actions were I'm pretty darn sure they weren't "terrorism" and I think we should all look askance at the federal government using a "terrorism" charge in such a circumstance.

You don't believe a then 13 year old boy's account of the story? The boy was practically burned up in the blaze he was told to light. Then told to keep his mouth shut, which he did for years. We often read stories here on W.S. were people don't believe the injustices done to children. I can't think of one thing this kid, now man had to gain by talking. As for me, I believe him.

This is JMO using the information from the trial.

 

[LaborDayRN]

I think even more Americans don't like the idea of the government taking over private land and homes as in eminent domain. jmo

I'm okay with the federal government using land for national parks, reserves and refuges.

 

[LaborDayRN]

Fair enough. It's my understanding that there were additional witnesses besides the relative. I may be wrong though.

Since the Hammonds attempted to appeal to the Supreme Court and the court declined, I'm assuming the court didn't think the law under which they were convicted was an issue.

One thing I'm confused about is does the law under which they were convicted specifically mention terrorism, or does it merely mandate a minimum sentence of 5 years for arson on federal property and the only link to terrorism is that it was passed right after the OKC bombing?

Anyone know?

There were two firefighter who were also witness to the fire starting.

 

[LaborDayRN]

There were also other hunters there that day.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2660399-Statement-USattorney.html

At trial, jurors heard from a hunting guide, a hunter and the hunter's father, who saw the Hammonds illegally, slaughter a herd of deer on public land. At least seven deer were shot with others limping or running from the scene. Less than two hours later, the hunting guide and the hunter and his father, were forced to abandon their campsite because a fire was burning in the area where the deer had been shot. The hunting guide's testimony and photographs established fires were burning hours before Steven Hammond called the BLM and said he was going to do a burn of invasive species in the area.

I think it's pretty clear. Whatever dispute they had with the BLM doesn't give them a free pass to break the law.

 

[LaborDayRN]

KZ,

This part of your outstanding post says it all.

Unfortunately all of the media and public attention is going to the Bundy's while the fact that our government took advantage of a poorly written law and misused it to confiscate an American citizen's land has been lost in the shuffle.

Can you please share information on land that was confiscated from the Hammonds? Really, I haven't been able to find any information on that. All I've read is that the Hammonds land is interspersed through federal land.

 

[CARIIS]

the other sensationalist "story" appears manufactured by a disaffected and estranged young family member who the feds went after. That story neither makes any sense nor is it consistent with the character of the Hammonds otherwise, which, from all accounts by their neighbors and community members is excellent. If they were willy nilly handing out matches and instructing people to burn indiscriminately much more than 140 acres would have been burned. And they would have endangered and perhaps ruined their own ranch. If it makes no sense I don't tend to believe it. Their actions were consistent with a successful back burn and a targeted burn.

And whatever their actions were I'm pretty darn sure they weren't "terrorism" and I think we should all look askance at the federal government using a "terrorism" charge in such a circumstance.

I agree with your post. There are dozens of exonerated prisnors- etc the justice system is a mess. It, IMO, has nothing to do guilt or innoncense. Its li

Identical to a football game - defense attorney gets a better deal, he can bill more per hour. Prosectors get a no contest or guilty they get a point . it is like a lottery - its pleaing stuff out.

Unless one has money most will take a plea even if innocent-cause the "threat" of being incarcarated is always present - nothing to do with guilty or not- mo.

So, we can say , once again the justice system messed up and that is a drag - happens all the time. BUT, they cant just go around taking over public property- that is againist the law.

 

[Jolynna]

I'm okay with the federal government using land for national parks, reserves and refuges.

My stepmother-in-law owns the 70 acres that adjoin my property. The land is in a trust already deeded to the state to be used as a park after her death.

That being said, the right to own property is the foundation of freedom.

The way a law designed to counteract terrorism was deliberately and purposely misused to deprive an American citizen of his property is an abuse. Period.

My own opinion...

 

[bluesneakers]

My stepmother-in-law owns the 70 acres that adjoin my property. The land is in a trust already deeded to the state to be used as a park after her death.

That being said, the right to own property is the foundation of freedom.

The way a law designed to counteract terrorism was deliberately and purposely misused to deprive an American citizen of his property is an abuse. Period.

My own opinion...

Can you please link to a source that explains how they were deprived of their land? Are you saying they just confiscated land he owned, without paying him? What did they do with it? You don't have to answer, sorry, just a link is fine. Thanks.

 

[LaborDayRN]

My stepmother-in-law owns the 70 acres that adjoin my property. The land is in a trust already deeded to the state to be used as a park after her death.

That being said, the right to own property is the foundation of freedom.

The way a law designed to counteract terrorism was deliberately and purposely misused to deprive an American citizen of his property is an abuse. Period.

My own opinion...

Can you explain what you mean by that? Which law designed to counteract terrorism deprived someone of their land?

 

[bluesneakers]

I am more confused than anything. How do these things usually end???

I've been trying to figure this out too. Someone posted this earlier, and it talks about waiting it out and gives a few examples.

Active court orders also can be enforced against the Bundys at some point, Levin and others said.

They cite other standoffs that have lasted months and one in Texas that's lasted more than 15 years.

The Montana Freeman confrontation lasted 81 days, a 1997 standoff with a woman named Shirley Allen in Illinois who got support from anti-government militants was resolved after 39 days. An anti-government extremist named John Joe Gray has remained in his 15-acre fortified property in Trinidad, Texas, since May 2000 after failing to show up to court to face felony counts of assault against a police officer.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...ait-them-out_law_enfor.html#incart_river_home

 

[CARIIS]

Wonderful insightful post ty!!

I think they have valid issues also as I learn more. Its power control stuff as well. My hangup here is others are gonna start doing this type of thing for whatever they "feel" is right.

And the temperature in the usa these days is pretty hot.

This type of behavoir can move into black lives matter gay marriage, taxes on and on were a pretty disgruntled nation these days.

But we are supposedly civilized, and have some "regard" for order. What scares the heck out of me is I am sounding Rpeublician!! Ugh--

But they IMO need to be used as an example we cant go around , armed like the wild west and making our own individual rules and laws.

What they are doing is the same thing ISIS has been doing runniing around with firepower making there own rules, taking stuff that isn theirs, occuping land , buildings etc.

No difference. We are ,hypothetically, "suppossed" to not behave in that manner

imo

The grudge/ feud between the Hammond ranch and the government BLM officials goes farther back than the 2 fires. (Sorry-- I erroneously referred to the Hammonds as Hubbards in a previous post-- got the names mixed up.)

The Hammonds are the last "inholding" ranch in that wildlife preserve area. The feds want them gone and off the land. It wouldn't matter how nice or civil minded they are-- the feds want all the inholdings GONE. It makes their management issues easier once the inholdings die off, or are persuaded to leave.

BOTH the Hammonds and the government officials were antagonizing each other-- for decades. Yes, the government officials have a lot more power and ability to make the Hammond's lives miserable. No one "had" to charge the Hammonds with arson/ terrorism-- that was a choice made by prosecutors, as Boytwnmom eloquently pointed out. (I don't believe that story about poaching deer and making 13 year old Dusty set fires, either. It's kind of silly.) The back burner fire was a "gotcha" for the authorities-- finally they had something they could really use to make the Hammonds miserable, and persuade them to leave. IMO.

The Hammond's relatives actually re-directed waterways in the late 1800's that CREATED the nesting/ resting wild bird areas, that ultimately lead to the current situation. The wife did research into records in the 70's that proved that there were more wild birds on their inholding, than in the wildlife preserve-- using the government's own data. So, their family created the land conditions and waterways situation that produced the birds the feds wanted to protect, and for that, they are persecuted at every opportunity and heckled so they will give up their land.

The Hammonds have a lot to be upset about, IMO. They have been treated terribly and unfairly at every step of the way, for decades. Every time they deal with BLM about some aspect of their ranch and livelihood, they have come up with the short end of the deal, perpetually persecuted because they want to keep their land. Read about how the government intentionally diverted waterways to flood other ranchers, and force them off. Once the government officials make up their collective minds that they "want" a parcel, there is nothing-- NOTHING a citizen can do to save their property and/ or livelihood. The citizen ALWAYS loses the battle.

Read up on some of the land battles involving the newest National Park-- the Boundary Waters Canoe Area that borders the US and Canada in MN. It's heartbreaking to see what happens to citizens, and even more maddening to see what the government promises, then reneges on.

Here is just a small aspect of land use dispute:

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/03/11/bwca-land-swap

The Bundy's are glomming onto the personal struggle of the Hammonds, because the Bundy's understand what the issues are. And the Bundy's don't want them to do that.

Yes, the Bundy's are breaking the law. But far less than all of the urban social unrest we've seen in the past 2-3 years, and most of them got away with that criminal behavior because of the current attitudes of "political correctness" toward the criminals. It's absurd that this current situation is even on the news at all. It affects almost no one, relative to the social activists and their violent and disruptive "protests" that affects thousands.

But I doubt this will end peacefully. Testosterone, firearms, and big arrogant personalities that don't want to lose face, on BOTH sides, almost guarantee this will have a fiery ending. (and wall to wall coverage on every news network.)

Both sides want very much to shoot at each other, so I guess that is probably what will happen at some point. Groundhog Day.

 

[CARIIS]

Hi CARIIS!

hi blue ! crazy world huh!

 

[CARIIS]

I am more confused than anything. How do these things usually end???

me too and go back and forth get out

or just leave em alone they will go away

or are we feeding into what they want like the controversy over do we cover mass killers too much

and in this day andd age 24/7 CNN needs to fill lots of air- the attn any story gets in, a pretty big way determines what is or is not the big story of the news cycle

in the old days meaninful stories and events got covered without being influenced by what may happen in the enxt 6 minutes