Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters in Oregon

[Sean Renaud]

Exactly what evidence is it that you think it destroys? Be specific please.

The corpses and trails I would imagine. I know that is the accusation and I know fire is good at destroying stuff. I don't actually need to know the specifics it sounds plausible. But at the end of the day they weren't found guilty of poaching as far as I can tell so it ultimately makes no difference. Whether they weren't doing it at all or simply managed to destroy the evidence the did not get found guilty.

 

[Ishmael]

Those questions have been answered several times over.

Whether the grassland was burned to cover poaching or not it was not owned by the party burning it. That's illegal. On the second occasion where a Hammond started a fire they were specifically told not to. So yes, a jury of their peers decided that a crime had in fact been committed.

They have not served their sentence.

Glad I could answer these questions for you.

Really, under what statute?

And where is this evidence of 'specifically' told not to? Which fire?

They served the sentence they are committed to by a court of law. If the judge violated the law in handing down that sentence shouldn't he serve the remaining terms?

This is the governments press release. Hammond's

From a non-government source. Hammond's


Observe the dates of the articles and the time lines. The government is trying to cover it's ass. Period.

How do I know this? Deer, any deer (or Elk) are NOT grazers, they're browsers. You won't find either specie in a pasture better suited for livestock. As a matter of fact you won't find them intermingled with livestock. Further, as I stated before, a grass fire would cover up nothing. Had they shot up a herd of deer in a pasture and gutted and cleaned the deer there, the remains would, pardon the expression, remain. Had they carted the carcasses off for butchering there would be no evidence to cover up.

Further, the judges words in handing down the original sentences are at odds with the governments statements. The "Johnny come lately" utterances from the government are entirely based on an accusation of poaching, a charge never levied against the pair. But it is 'emotional' for the Bambi squeezing Central Park Regulars. (Not unlike all the untruths the government unleashed against Weaver and the Branch Davidians.)

Are we to allow our government to so define the word "terrorism" downwards so as to encompass any act? At least any act that doesn't comport to the current political point of view?

Ishmael


Ishmael

 

[VaticanAssassin]

The corpses and trails I would imagine. I know that is the accusation and I know fire is good at destroying stuff. I don't actually need to know the specifics it sounds plausible. But at the end of the day they weren't found guilty of poaching as far as I can tell so it ultimately makes no difference. Whether they weren't doing it at all or simply managed to destroy the evidence the did not get found guilty.

Actually it does matter. Very much so. Ranchers hold control burns all the time that end up burning Public land. BLM also hold prescribed burns that burn private land.

I have never seen arson charges in either case.

So to say it does not matter is naive at best?

The states arson and not prescribed burn bullshit hinged on poaching.
Poaching hinged on the testimony of a disgruntled family member.
Then you have to completely ignore the fact it would be ridiculous for anyone that owns over 6000 acres to poach.
Add to the fact that the BLM has been trying to take thei property for decades
The result is that anyone that doesn't at least question this BS is truly "drinking the kool aid"

Exactly what kind of trail would be evidence?

The body? You do understand a brush fire would not destroy a body?

 

[Ishmael]

Actually it does matter. Very much so. Ranchers hold control burns all the time that end up burning Public land. BLM also hold prescribed burns that burn private land.

I have never seen arson charges in either case.

So to say it does not matter is naive at best?

The states arson and not prescribed burn bullshit hinged on poaching.
Poaching hinged on the testimony of a disgruntled family member.
Then you have to completely ignore the fact it would be ridiculous for anyone that owns over 6000 acres to poach.
Add to the fact that the BLM has been trying to take thei property for decades
The result is that anyone that doesn't at least question this BS is truly "drinking the kool aid"

Exactly what kind of trail would be evidence?

The body? You do understand a brush fire would not destroy a body?

Nah, he's a Central Park Regular. He doesn't know shit.

Ishmael

 

[Disgustipated]

Ish is a self-proclaimed patent holder when the situation suits him. Now he's an expert rancher and master of the law, uncontrolled burns on land he's never walked and shit.

Barney is a self-proclaimed university educated corporate shill by day and big game hunter extraordinaire when the mood strikes.

The only people that agree with them in this thread are each other and occasionally the cross-dresser.

Most excellent job in keeping us entertained.

 

[chillywilly2]

Is it the law? Was it the law when they committed their crime? Yes or no, Barney?

Holy shit sean

There are laws and there are laws.

They burned less than 100 acres...cripes I own almost ten times that and its nothing.

There is a burning law and there is a terrorism law..They were sentenced to a couple months and then some dumb fuck noticed it was the terrorism law and they had to get 5 years.

Thats a back country judge being vindictive...

 

[Sean Renaud]

It doesn't need to destroy the body, merely the proof that it was poached instead of any other way that corpse could have come to be there. Again they weren't found guilty of poaching so that doesn't matter.

They were found guilty of arson, even if it was politically charged. I don't know enough about the local politics to hazard a guess. So they committed a crime and got busted. Why they were charged is kind of beside the point right now.

 

[chillywilly2]

Is it the law? Was it the law when they committed their crime? Yes or no, Barney?

Hey, Sean...how do you get the same stupid post to keep double posting with different quotes

 

[chillywilly2]

It doesn't need to destroy the body, merely the proof that it was poached instead of any other way that corpse could have come to be there. Again they weren't found guilty of poaching so that doesn't matter.

They were found guilty of arson, even if it was politically charged. I don't know enough about the local politics to hazard a guess. So they committed a crime and got busted. Why they were charged is kind of beside the point right now.

You don't get 5 years for burning a hundred acres or killing a deer out of season...hell, even if you're black you don't get 5 years

This is a backwoods government control fight that needed to be made public.

Oh, they surrendered and said they will do the time...but the Bundys are still holed up

 

[phrodeau]

These are people who use sandpaper on tattoos. Using a fire to hide poaching evidence doesn't seem like a stretch.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX5Q_4eWMAEM2W0.png

 

[Sean Renaud]

You don't get 5 years for burning a hundred acres or killing a deer out of season...hell, even if you're black you don't get 5 years

This is a backwoods government control fight that needed to be made public.

Oh, they surrendered and said they will do the time...but the Bundys are still holed up

And if it's a government fight, then lets have it and see what we're really supposed to be talking about since you don't believe it's about poaching (I hadn't seen anybody show for certain it was deer but okay) or the fire but rather about something else entirely so what is the real issue?

 

[thør]

Enraged Birders To Retake Oregon Wildlife Refuge In Dawn Offensive


“The birders are angry, and they want blood.”

 

[putzpotus]

racism, allright!

Twitter Suspends Oregon Protester Ammon Bundy’s Account



Twitter has suspended Ammon Bundy’s account. What is interesting is the quickness, relatively, with which they yanked the account, compared to for example Black Lives Matter or ISIS accounts which have much more offensive things about them. But in looking at it, there doesn’t seem to be anything which would violate their Terms of Servic

 

[IrezumiKiss]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYBSyyaUMAApKp-.jpg:large

 

[putzpotus]

Just like Bundy Ranch, the Hammonds’ Ranch is Valuable to the BLM – Here’s just how Valuable

During the Bundy Ranch Siege of 2014, it was discovered the various connections of the Bureau of Land Management to Agenda 21. It was also uncovered that US Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) was also connected in that siege to a Chinese energy deal. In the process, Reid called patriots who stood against federal overreach “domestic terrorists” and added that if those people were patriots, “we’re in big trouble.” Indeed, Reid and company are in big trouble because with independent media surpassing even the media outlets that are supposed to be alternative and against the mainstream, they are being exposed for the corrupt, hypocritical lawless thugs they are. This is now the case concerning the Hammond’s ranch in Oregon, which sits on precious metals, minerals, uranium and other deposits that the criminal BLM desperately wants.

Kurt Nimmo reports the following:

A US Geological Survey Bulletin (1740-B) indicates there is a high potential for silver, gold, copper, mercury, uranium and molybdenum (a refractory metallic element used principally as an alloying agent in steel) and other resources in the area. There is also a moderate estimate for natural gas and oil.

The feds want to drive ranchers and private property owners off the land because on patented land (an exclusive private property land grant), which has passed into private ownership, a mining interest does not need to lease land or file a plan or notice with the federal government.

In regard to oil, the BLM “does not tell you that its share of total oil production has dropped dramatically due to substantial increases in oil production on private and state lands that are not subject to the onerous regulations and permitting delays of the federal government,” notes the Institute for Energy Research.

The Hammonds and other private property owners stand in the way of total federal monopolization of natural resources and that is why in part we are witnessing an unprecedented land grab in the West.

Intellihub adds the following videos regarding these resources:





According to the Property Rights Alliance, “Much of the land targeted for government takeover holds great oil and natural gas resources which could provide jobs in the energy industry and a flow of resources from our own American supply. Once those lands become ‘monuments’, access to those natural resources is limited and in the hands of the federal government.”

“The government offers little explanation for the land-grab frenzy, but there are plenty of reasons to oppose it,” the PRA added. “First and foremost, it is unconstitutional for the government to simply take land from states without compensation. Second, government-controlled land takes away opportunities for development, particularly when it comes to accessing much needed resources. The land designated as ‘monument’ space could have created dozens of employment opportunities—opportunities which will go wasted under the thumb of the federal government.”

Just like the value of the land of the Bundy Ranch, the Hammonds, along with other ranchers across several states is valuable to the very people who are attempting to get their hands on that land.

Ammon Bundy was exactly right when he pointed out the federal overreach and the crooked schemes of federal agencies and judges in their attempt to grab land that is constitutionally not theirs.

 

[Disgustipated]

If a few hillbillies takeover a federal building the size of a 7-11 in the woods, say they are willing to die for their cause and no one in government can be bothered -- does it make a sound?

 

[Ishmael]

It doesn't need to destroy the body, merely the proof that it was poached instead of any other way that corpse could have come to be there. Again they weren't found guilty of poaching so that doesn't matter.

They were found guilty of arson, even if it was politically charged. I don't know enough about the local politics to hazard a guess. So they committed a crime and got busted. Why they were charged is kind of beside the point right now.

You are pretty damn dense, aren't you? Poachers get caught in commission or in possession. Forget about your 'burning land' cover-up.

Ishmael

 

[Pookie]

Let's look at some of what's available regarding the trial ...

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/e...convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

...

A jury sitting in Pendleton, Oregon found the Hammonds guilty of the arsons after a two-week trial in June 2012. The trial involved allegations that the Hammonds, owners of Hammond Ranches, Inc., ignited a series of fires on lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on which the Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them for their cattle operation.

The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.

The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.

By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.” The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced “in compliance with the law.” In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.

...

(Emphasis added)

First, there were separate arson charges for separate events. They were found guilty of both. As for the event with the alleged poaching, there were multiple witnesses to the specific event covering up the alleged poaching.

 

[Pookie]

To clarify things further on how the trial went:

https://popehat.com/2016/01/04/what-happened-in-the-hammond-sentencing-in-oregon-a-lawsplainer/

...

A jury convicted the Hammonds of the Section 844 charge, acquitted them on other charges, and failed to reach a verdict on additional charges. While the jury continued to deliberate on the remaining charges, the Hammonds and the government reached a deal: the Hammonds would not appeal the verdict and the government would recommend that the Hammonds could stay out on bail pending sentencing and that the government would recommend that their Section 844 sentences be served concurrently — that is, that though the Hammonds were convicted of multiple counts of Section 844, each carrying a mandatory minimum five-year sentence, the government would recommend that those five-year terms not "stack," but result in just one five-year sentence.

...

...

The government appealed the sentence, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and sent the case back, instructing the trial court to impose the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. The Court found — rather convincingly, given the precedent — that a five-year sentence for arson does not violate the Eighth Amendment:

“
Given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense. The Supreme Court has upheld far tougher sentences for less serious or, at the very least, comparable offenses. See Lockyer v. Andrade,
538 U.S. 63 (2003) (upholding a sentence of fifty years to life under California’s three-strikes law for stealing nine
videotapes); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (upholding a sentence of twenty-five years to life under California’s three-strikes law for the theft of three golf clubs); Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 (1982) (per curiam) (upholding a forty-year sentence for possession of nine ounces of marijuana with the intent to distribute); Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (upholding a life sentence under Texas’s recidivist statute for obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses). And we and other courts have done the same. See, e.g., United States v. Tolliver, 730 F.3d 1216, 1230–32 (10th Cir. 2013) (upholding a 430-month sentence for using arson in the commission of a felony); United States v. Major, 676 F.3d 803, 812 (9th Cir. 2012) (upholding a 750-year sentence for offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 280; United States v. Meiners, 485 F.3d 1211, 1212–13 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (upholding a fifteen-year sentence for advertising child pornography); United States v. Uphoff, 232 F.3d 624, 625–26 (8th Cir. 2000) (upholding a five-year sentence for arson of a building).

So the district court resentenced the Hammonds. The government asked for the five-year mandatory minimum but kept its deal to recommend concurrent sentences (rather than stacking two counts of Section 844 to form a ten-year sentence), and the court agreed and imposed that sentence. The Hammonds will necessarily serve 85% of that sentence, less the time they've already served.

...

 

[Pookie]

Also to clarify things (from the links above), the poaching was not proved, nor was it relied upon by the Government for the arson conviction related to the 2001 event.

 

[zipman]

Let's look at some of what's available regarding the trial ...

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/e...convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison



(Emphasis added)

First, there were separate arson charges for separate events. They were found guilty of both. As for the event with the alleged poaching, there were multiple witnesses to the specific event covering up the alleged poaching.

To clarify things further on how the trial went:

https://popehat.com/2016/01/04/what-happened-in-the-hammond-sentencing-in-oregon-a-lawsplainer/

So Vatass and Ishmael1 Bundy got it wrong?

I'll tell you what this Central Park Ranger knows - that those two armchair patriots are hurting from the spanking you just gave them.

 

[Adre]

This is almost as interesting as the Duck Dynasty thread that had these cuckoo birds so riled up a few months back. Not quite, but almost.

 

[zipman]

Not true. Far too many examples otherwise. The Hammond's were sentenced and served their time. Now they're on their way back to prison for the same crime. Just how is that justice? Or even legal?

Ishmael

Who gets to decide which laws get followed and which ones don't?

Who gets to decide when it's okay for people to arm themselves, take over a public building and not leave because they disagree with the outcome of a case tried in a US court?

Why you and Vatass have made that collection of complete morons your cause is beyond me. But insulting everyone else for your own stupidity isn't helping you any. Just sayin'

 

[Disgustipated]

"ShuckNJive" Care didn't catch on so the old dipshit is trying to coin "Central Park Ranger".

How quaint.

I bet his myspace peeps are impressed.