Assholes making trouble in Oregon

[TyroneSlothrop]

This is what happened to the Hammonds when they went to the Supreme Court after being sentenced to five years ...

 

[jc456]

Maybe this is what the protesters are there for.

The re sentencing to the five years minimum mandatory was upheld when the Supreme Court refused a writ of certiorari...that is the final step ...it went from what you posted to an appeal by the prosecutors to an eventual victory by the Prosecutors and the perpetrators are currently in the custody of the Federal prison system............

agree, and why the protesters are there as i stated.

 

[Camp]

Supreme Court turned down arson case at center of Oregon standoff

The ranchers whose criminal case sparked the armed standoff in Oregon were denied a chance to make their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, the National Law Journal reported.

In U.S. v. Hammond, father and son Dwight and Steven Hammond were prosecuted for arson on federal land. The Hammonds, whose cattle ranch abuts federal land where they have grazing rights, had set a fire in 2001 that prosecutors argued was intended to cover up evidence of poaching. Steven Hammond was also convicted of setting fires in 2006 to control wildfires created by lightning.
The Hammonds became a cause celebre among anti-government activists in part because of mandatory minimum sentencing. Originally, a federal district judge had given Dwight Hammond three months in prison and Steven Hammond one year and one day, saying the mandatory minimum of five years was “grossly disproportionate” and would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
However, the Justice Department successfully appealed those sentences to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2014, a panel of the court found the mandatory minimum was not disproportionate, given the seriousness of arson. It said the Supreme Court has upheld longer sentences for comparable or less serious crimes.
The Hammonds appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied certiorari without comment in March. Their attorney, Kendra Matthews of Portland’s Ransom Blackman, argued that this was a clear instance of mandatory minimum sentences violating the Eighth Amendment.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, opposing the petition, wrote that the Hammonds endangered firefighters and nearby campers and had gone to great lengths to cover up their actions.
After the case was turned down, a federal district judge resentenced both Hammonds to the five-year mandatory minimum. The Hammonds reported to prison Monday as required.

Hey found one, wow, that was a tough hunt. here is what I found:

FindLaw's United States Ninth Circuit case and opinions.

Excerpt:

"The government appeals the sentences of Steven and Dwight Hammond, whom a jury convicted of maliciously damaging the real property of the United States by fire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1). The convictions carried minimum sentences of five years of imprisonment, but citing Eighth Amendment concerns, the district court sentenced Steven to only twelve months and one day of imprisonment and Dwight to only three months of imprisonment. Because the sentences were illegal and the government did not waive its right to appeal them, we vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing. - See more at: FindLaw's United States Ninth Circuit case and opinions."

Maybe this is what the protesters are there for.

The traitor rebels are screaming they are protecting and supporting the Constitution, but not when it disagrees with their nutty concepts and ideas. They prefer to be selective on which parts of the Constitution are valid. The part that declares the public lands are the citizens and taxpayers legitimate property in totality and Supreme Court rulings are ignored by the criminals who covet our property.

 

[jc456]

Supreme Court turned down arson case at center of Oregon standoff

The ranchers whose criminal case sparked the armed standoff in Oregon were denied a chance to make their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, the National Law Journal reported.

In U.S. v. Hammond, father and son Dwight and Steven Hammond were prosecuted for arson on federal land. The Hammonds, whose cattle ranch abuts federal land where they have grazing rights, had set a fire in 2001 that prosecutors argued was intended to cover up evidence of poaching. Steven Hammond was also convicted of setting fires in 2006 to control wildfires created by lightning.
The Hammonds became a cause celebre among anti-government activists in part because of mandatory minimum sentencing. Originally, a federal district judge had given Dwight Hammond three months in prison and Steven Hammond one year and one day, saying the mandatory minimum of five years was “grossly disproportionate” and would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
However, the Justice Department successfully appealed those sentences to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2014, a panel of the court found the mandatory minimum was not disproportionate, given the seriousness of arson. It said the Supreme Court has upheld longer sentences for comparable or less serious crimes.
The Hammonds appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied certiorari without comment in March. Their attorney, Kendra Matthews of Portland’s Ransom Blackman, argued that this was a clear instance of mandatory minimum sentences violating the Eighth Amendment.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, opposing the petition, wrote that the Hammonds endangered firefighters and nearby campers and had gone to great lengths to cover up their actions.
After the case was turned down, a federal district judge resentenced both Hammonds to the five-year mandatory minimum. The Hammonds reported to prison Monday as required.

Hey found one, wow, that was a tough hunt. here is what I found:

FindLaw's United States Ninth Circuit case and opinions.

Excerpt:

"The government appeals the sentences of Steven and Dwight Hammond, whom a jury convicted of maliciously damaging the real property of the United States by fire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1). The convictions carried minimum sentences of five years of imprisonment, but citing Eighth Amendment concerns, the district court sentenced Steven to only twelve months and one day of imprisonment and Dwight to only three months of imprisonment. Because the sentences were illegal and the government did not waive its right to appeal them, we vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing. - See more at: FindLaw's United States Ninth Circuit case and opinions."

Maybe this is what the protesters are there for.

The traitor rebels are screaming they are protecting are protecting and supporting the Constitution, but not when it disagrees with their nutty concepts and ideas. They prefer to be selective on which parts of the Constitution are valid. The part that declares the public lands are the citizens and taxpayers legitimate property in totality and Supreme Court rulings are ignored by the criminals who covet out property.

perhaps you could refocus a bit, the fire that was set was on Hammonds property. Not on public land.

excerpt From my previous link

"But in September 2001, the Hammonds again set a fire on their property that spread to nearby public land. - "

Did the prosecutors make a deal in 2002 with the Hammonds or not? I haven't seen that answer. The decision was reversed in 2014.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Maybe this is what the protesters are there for.

The re sentencing to the five years minimum mandatory was upheld when the Supreme Court refused a writ of certiorari...that is the final step ...it went from what you posted to an appeal by the prosecutors to an eventual victory by the Prosecutors and the perpetrators are currently in the custody of the Federal prison system............

agree, and why the protesters are there as i stated.

And to think, it only took you 239 pages to get to where we all started from.

 

[Camp]

Supreme Court turned down arson case at center of Oregon standoff

The ranchers whose criminal case sparked the armed standoff in Oregon were denied a chance to make their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, the National Law Journal reported.

In U.S. v. Hammond, father and son Dwight and Steven Hammond were prosecuted for arson on federal land. The Hammonds, whose cattle ranch abuts federal land where they have grazing rights, had set a fire in 2001 that prosecutors argued was intended to cover up evidence of poaching. Steven Hammond was also convicted of setting fires in 2006 to control wildfires created by lightning.
The Hammonds became a cause celebre among anti-government activists in part because of mandatory minimum sentencing. Originally, a federal district judge had given Dwight Hammond three months in prison and Steven Hammond one year and one day, saying the mandatory minimum of five years was “grossly disproportionate” and would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
However, the Justice Department successfully appealed those sentences to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2014, a panel of the court found the mandatory minimum was not disproportionate, given the seriousness of arson. It said the Supreme Court has upheld longer sentences for comparable or less serious crimes.
The Hammonds appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied certiorari without comment in March. Their attorney, Kendra Matthews of Portland’s Ransom Blackman, argued that this was a clear instance of mandatory minimum sentences violating the Eighth Amendment.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, opposing the petition, wrote that the Hammonds endangered firefighters and nearby campers and had gone to great lengths to cover up their actions.
After the case was turned down, a federal district judge resentenced both Hammonds to the five-year mandatory minimum. The Hammonds reported to prison Monday as required.

Hey found one, wow, that was a tough hunt. here is what I found:

FindLaw's United States Ninth Circuit case and opinions.

Excerpt:

"The government appeals the sentences of Steven and Dwight Hammond, whom a jury convicted of maliciously damaging the real property of the United States by fire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1). The convictions carried minimum sentences of five years of imprisonment, but citing Eighth Amendment concerns, the district court sentenced Steven to only twelve months and one day of imprisonment and Dwight to only three months of imprisonment. Because the sentences were illegal and the government did not waive its right to appeal them, we vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing. - See more at: FindLaw's United States Ninth Circuit case and opinions."

Maybe this is what the protesters are there for.

The traitor rebels are screaming they are protecting are protecting and supporting the Constitution, but not when it disagrees with their nutty concepts and ideas. They prefer to be selective on which parts of the Constitution are valid. The part that declares the public lands are the citizens and taxpayers legitimate property in totality and Supreme Court rulings are ignored by the criminals who covet out property.

perhaps you could refocus a bit, the fire that was set was on Hammonds property. Not on public land.

excerpt From my previous link

"But in September 2001, the Hammonds again set a fire on their property that spread to nearby public land. - "

Did the prosecutors make a deal in 2002 with the Hammonds or not? I haven't seen that answer. The decision was reversed in 2014.

How does that interpret into armed men dressed up like soldiers preventing law-abiding citizens from enjoying and using a Wildlife Refuge that has been invested into and maintained with taxpayer funds for 108 years?

 

[jc456]

Maybe this is what the protesters are there for.

The re sentencing to the five years minimum mandatory was upheld when the Supreme Court refused a writ of certiorari...that is the final step ...it went from what you posted to an appeal by the prosecutors to an eventual victory by the Prosecutors and the perpetrators are currently in the custody of the Federal prison system............

agree, and why the protesters are there as i stated.

And to think, it only took you 239 pages to get to where we all started from.

better late than never.

 

[jc456]

Supreme Court turned down arson case at center of Oregon standoff

The ranchers whose criminal case sparked the armed standoff in Oregon were denied a chance to make their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, the National Law Journal reported.

In U.S. v. Hammond, father and son Dwight and Steven Hammond were prosecuted for arson on federal land. The Hammonds, whose cattle ranch abuts federal land where they have grazing rights, had set a fire in 2001 that prosecutors argued was intended to cover up evidence of poaching. Steven Hammond was also convicted of setting fires in 2006 to control wildfires created by lightning.
The Hammonds became a cause celebre among anti-government activists in part because of mandatory minimum sentencing. Originally, a federal district judge had given Dwight Hammond three months in prison and Steven Hammond one year and one day, saying the mandatory minimum of five years was “grossly disproportionate” and would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
However, the Justice Department successfully appealed those sentences to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2014, a panel of the court found the mandatory minimum was not disproportionate, given the seriousness of arson. It said the Supreme Court has upheld longer sentences for comparable or less serious crimes.
The Hammonds appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied certiorari without comment in March. Their attorney, Kendra Matthews of Portland’s Ransom Blackman, argued that this was a clear instance of mandatory minimum sentences violating the Eighth Amendment.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, opposing the petition, wrote that the Hammonds endangered firefighters and nearby campers and had gone to great lengths to cover up their actions.
After the case was turned down, a federal district judge resentenced both Hammonds to the five-year mandatory minimum. The Hammonds reported to prison Monday as required.

Hey found one, wow, that was a tough hunt. here is what I found:

FindLaw's United States Ninth Circuit case and opinions.

Excerpt:

"The government appeals the sentences of Steven and Dwight Hammond, whom a jury convicted of maliciously damaging the real property of the United States by fire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1). The convictions carried minimum sentences of five years of imprisonment, but citing Eighth Amendment concerns, the district court sentenced Steven to only twelve months and one day of imprisonment and Dwight to only three months of imprisonment. Because the sentences were illegal and the government did not waive its right to appeal them, we vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing. - See more at: FindLaw's United States Ninth Circuit case and opinions."

Maybe this is what the protesters are there for.

The traitor rebels are screaming they are protecting are protecting and supporting the Constitution, but not when it disagrees with their nutty concepts and ideas. They prefer to be selective on which parts of the Constitution are valid. The part that declares the public lands are the citizens and taxpayers legitimate property in totality and Supreme Court rulings are ignored by the criminals who covet out property.

perhaps you could refocus a bit, the fire that was set was on Hammonds property. Not on public land.

excerpt From my previous link

"But in September 2001, the Hammonds again set a fire on their property that spread to nearby public land. - "

Did the prosecutors make a deal in 2002 with the Hammonds or not? I haven't seen that answer. The decision was reversed in 2014.

How does that interpret into armed men dressed up like soldiers preventing law-abiding citizens from enjoying and using a Wildlife Refuge that has been invested into and maintained with taxpayer funds for 108 years?

maybe it's how they travel.

 

[Intolerant]

I'm of a mixed mind about this. I can understand folks being fed up with Government, especially the over-reaching Federal Government. I have had just about enough myself. However, I do not believe that it has come to a point of armed conflict. We have an election coming up, I think energies and passions should be placed to get a change of administration, and in unarmed protests against Government excesses.

Not to many years ago the Tea Party was at it's height. The Tea Party was doing a great deal to make our voices heard, and then it all just faded away as everyone let the Liberal media, the Democratic Party and the Progressives in the Republican party marginalize the movement. And this when Conservatives were finally being heard.

We need that kind of movement again. But we need to take it further to include continuous massive demonstrations. And they need to be peaceful demonstrations until and unless the Government uses force against them. That is the way to draw attention to unfair and unwanted laws and regulations and let those in power know it will no longer be tolerated.

Occupying Federal Land under arms to protest against the Federal Government for enforcing Federal Laws on that land is not the best way to go IMHO. Have the laws changed. We have procedures in place to make that happen if it is the will of the majority of the people.

Will armed force against the Government ever be necessary? Well it was once and our Founding Fathers created America. It may happen again although I sincerely hope not. Would I be among the Patriots fighting for our freedom and way of life should it come to that? Most deffinently. I have spent a good portion of my life defending this Country and what it stands for, and I would do it again.

But as I said earlier, those folks staging an occupation of Federal Land under arms and making threats to fight to the death is not the way to go.

My two cents worth.

 

[Skylar]

I'm of a mixed mind about this. I can understand folks being fed up with Government, especially the over-reaching Federal Government. I have had just about enough myself. However, I do not believe that it has come to a point of armed conflict. We have an election coming up, I think energies and passions should be placed to get a change of administration, and in unarmed protests against Government excesses.

Not to many years ago the Tea Party was at it's height. The Tea Party was doing a great deal to make our voices heard, and then it all just faded away as everyone let the Liberal media, the Democratic Party and the Progressives in the Republican party marginalize the movement. And this when Conservatives were finally being heard.

We need that kind of movement again. But we need to take it further to include continuous massive demonstrations. And they need to be peaceful demonstrations until and unless the Government uses force against them. That is the way to draw attention to unfair and unwanted laws and regulations and let those in power know it will no longer be tolerated.

Occupying Federal Land under arms to protest against the Federal Government for enforcing Federal Laws on that land is not the best way to go IMHO. Have the laws changed. We have procedures in place to make that happen if it is the will of the majority of the people.

Will armed force against the Government ever be necessary? Well it was once and our Founding Fathers created America. It may happen again although I sincerely hope not. Would I be among the Patriots fighting for our freedom and way of life should it come to that? Most deffinently. I have spent a good portion of my life defending this Country and what it stands for, and I would do it again.

But as I said earlier, those folks staging an occupation of Federal Land under arms and making threats to fight to the death is not the way to go.

My two cents worth.

The problem with folks like Bundy is that they believe that they make the law. They've brought in their own police force. And just imported their own 'judge' to start 'trying' the locals. They've ignored the mayor, the sheriff, the governor, the law, the majority of the local folks, even the Hammonds that the claim to be fighting for.

With Ammon apparently appointing himself King of the bird sanctuary.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Bundy Gang can't use County Fairgrounds to gin up support for their "Cause."

Oregon standoff: Harney County won't host community meeting with Bundy as headliner

"We have a longstanding practice of allowing community groups to use county facilities," said Harney County commissioner Steven Grasty. "But we unfortunately now find ourselves in a place where the county must deny those facilities to any group that is supportive of, associated with, or on the behalf of the militants at the refuge."

Well finally someone gets it that giving these guys a platform to promulgate their nutbag theories about the Constitution is counter productive. Maybe their supporters should hold their dang meeting out at the Refuge and the Feds can move in and arrest the lot of them.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Whoudda Thunk It


Bundy-backing California man arrested after threatening cops and building bombs: police

Deputies executed a search warrant Saturday at 51-year-old Todd Sloan’s Johannesburg home, where investigators said they found improvised and commercial explosives and “booby traps” throughout the residence.

 

[Skylar]

Bundy Gang can't use County Fairgrounds to gin up support for their "Cause."

Oregon standoff: Harney County won't host community meeting with Bundy as headliner

"We have a longstanding practice of allowing community groups to use county facilities," said Harney County commissioner Steven Grasty. "But we unfortunately now find ourselves in a place where the county must deny those facilities to any group that is supportive of, associated with, or on the behalf of the militants at the refuge."

Well finally someone gets it that giving these guys a platform to promulgate their nutbag theories about the Constitution is counter productive. Maybe their supporters should hold their dang meeting out at the Refuge and the Feds can move in and arrest the lot of them.

I suppose they could just seize the county fairgrounds too. I mean, they make up the law wherever they go anyway. And they've already brought in their own judge to start 'trying' the locals. So why not just start seizing county property too?

 

[Camp]

Bundy Gang can't use County Fairgrounds to gin up support for their "Cause."

Oregon standoff: Harney County won't host community meeting with Bundy as headliner

"We have a longstanding practice of allowing community groups to use county facilities," said Harney County commissioner Steven Grasty. "But we unfortunately now find ourselves in a place where the county must deny those facilities to any group that is supportive of, associated with, or on the behalf of the militants at the refuge."

Well finally someone gets it that giving these guys a platform to promulgate their nutbag theories about the Constitution is counter productive. Maybe their supporters should hold their dang meeting out at the Refuge and the Feds can move in and arrest the lot of them.

I suppose they could just seize the county fairgrounds too. I mean, they make up the law wherever they go anyway. And they've already brought in their own judge to start 'trying' the locals. So why not just start seizing county property too?

They are riding around in a stolen government truck hauling and using a CAT front end loader, over $50,000 worth of taxpayer property. Felony theft. Whatever they damage and destroy will be paid by the taxpayer.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

They are riding around in a stolen government truck hauling and using a CAT front end loader, over $50,000 worth of taxpayer property. Felony theft. Whatever they damage and destroy will be paid by the taxpayer.

They have forced the local Government taxing authorities that being State of Oregon Government, County Government and the Public school system to have to spend for emergencies and contingencies caused by the disturbance of domestic tranquility due to the activities of armed outsiders within the impacted community...schools have been shut down....activities canceled due to one giant tantrum by armed poltroons............

 

[Dot Com]

Whoudda Thunk It


Bundy-backing California man arrested after threatening cops and building bombs: police

Deputies executed a search warrant Saturday at 51-year-old Todd Sloan’s Johannesburg home, where investigators said they found improvised and commercial explosives and “booby traps” throughout the residence.

Very interesting A domestic rw terrorist. Whodathunkit?

 

[koshergrl]

So who holds feds accountable when they break the law?

 

[Dot Com]

So who holds feds accountable when they break the law?

the court? You're not very good at this allie.

 

[teddyearp]

I am starting to wonder if some of these folks sat back and applauded how the .gov handled Ruby ridge and Waco. Thrilled over the spilling of blood. Cheered the .gov on. Saddened that the .gov did not escalate the same way at the Bundy ranch, and other not so publicized events since. I really think that some of you folks like to see the .gov go and kill our own.

Most of them did. An FBI assassin murdering a woman as she held an infant is exactly the kind of world the left dreams of.

The basic premise of the left is that your life belongs to the state, thus the state can do anything they like with or to you.

Putz.... the FBI was run under a rightie president when that woman was shot. WTF is wrong with you?

Who and/or what party was in the White House was not part of this discussion. So nothing is wrong with either of us. What about you? Did you cheer the .gov's actions in Ruby Ridge and Waco?

 

[teddyearp]

Thanks, but despite the verbosity, you didn't actually answer my question.

Let's try a different approach..... you show the Hammonds started with 6,000 acres in 1964 .... how many acres do they have now...?

The reluctance of Teddy's response leads me to believe the answer must be zero. The government has taken none of the Hammond's land.

You are correct Faun, I did not specifically answer your question, so I guess you win, as I do not have a number to give you as to how many actual acres. However, let me go back and put in what I did write in my lengthy post so you can re-read it; albeit without a number figure:

(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive toward the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*

(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with "disturbing and interfering with" federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.

(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.