The ranchers in Oregon are actually victims of malicious prosecution by the feds….they have a case..

[ogibillm]

When they win their wrongful imprisonment case, how much do you think they will get in damages? $1,000,000 each? $2,000,000 each?

They were tried and convicted. There is no wrongful imprisonment

Yeah. And served time and were sentenced again. Hasn't the fed heard of double jeapardy?

the original sentence was invalidated as illegal
they have not been tried or convicted of the same crime twice. you need to understand terms before trying to use them.

 

[ogibillm]

It's typically accepted to burn federal land to cover up poaching?

prosecutor's discretion comes into play for a lot of crimes - but if i'm not let off the hook for speeding if i'm taking my pregnant wife to the hospital then i don't get to use a different fee schedule. that punishment is mandated.

What poaching charge?

they burned the ground to cover up the evidence. that's the sworn testimony of friends and relatives.

No, it's not.

saying it doesn't make it true.

 

[Moonglow]

When they win their wrongful imprisonment case, how much do you think they will get in damages? $1,000,000 each? $2,000,000 each?

They were tried and convicted. There is no wrongful imprisonment

Yeah. And served time and were sentenced again. Hasn't the fed heard of double jeapardy?

Are you familiar with their case jurisprudence?

 

[BlueGin]

When they win their wrongful imprisonment case, how much do you think they will get in damages? $1,000,000 each? $2,000,000 each?

They were tried and convicted. There is no wrongful imprisonment

Yeah. And served time and were sentenced again. Hasn't the fed heard of double jeapardy?

the original sentence was invalidated as illegal
they have not been tried or convicted of the same crime twice. you need to understand terms before trying to use them.

^^Oh look. All of a sudden folks are okay with abuse of power.

 

[Moonglow]

When they win their wrongful imprisonment case, how much do you think they will get in damages? $1,000,000 each? $2,000,000 each?

They were tried and convicted. There is no wrongful imprisonment

Yeah. And served time and were sentenced again. Hasn't the fed heard of double jeapardy?

the original sentence was invalidated as illegal
they have not been tried or convicted of the same crime twice. you need to understand terms before trying to use them.

^^Oh look. All of a sudden folks are okay with abuse of power.

We are all subjected to it....

 

[ogibillm]

When they win their wrongful imprisonment case, how much do you think they will get in damages? $1,000,000 each? $2,000,000 each?

They were tried and convicted. There is no wrongful imprisonment

Yeah. And served time and were sentenced again. Hasn't the fed heard of double jeapardy?

the original sentence was invalidated as illegal
they have not been tried or convicted of the same crime twice. you need to understand terms before trying to use them.

^^Oh look. All of a sudden folks are okay with abuse of power.

The abuse of power happened when the sentencing judge ignored the law and handed down a sentence that did not meet the minimum mandated by law

Luckily that abuse was remedied.

 

[saveliberty]

The abuse of power happened when the sentencing judge ignored the law and handed down a sentence that did not meet the minimum mandated by law

Luckily that abuse was remedied.

Wrong it was a plea bargain for reduced time. If they are going to ignore that, then the plea should have been withdrawn and taken to trial. That is proper procedure, not changing the sentence.

No charges of poaching were made, you can't have it both ways moron.

 

[Skylar]

I heard about this article on the Dan and Amy show this morning…..the federal government has attacked these 2 ranchers without real cause……..whatever the response of the guys taking over empty government buildings…these 2 ranchers have actually been wronged…

The Case for Civil Disobedience in Oregon, by David French, National Review

The prosecution of the Hammonds revolved mainly around two burns, one in 2001 and another in 2006. The government alleged that the first was ignited to cover up evidence of poaching and placed a teenager in danger. The Hammonds claimed that they started it to clear an invasive species, as is their legal right. Whatever its intent, the fire spread from the Hammonds’ property and ultimately ignited 139 acres of public land. But the trial judge found that the teenager’s testimony was tainted by age and bias and that the fire had merely damaged “juniper trees and sagebrush” — damage that “might” total $100 in value.

The other burn was trifling. Here’s how the Ninth Circuit described it: In August 2006, a lightning storm kindled several fires near where the Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven responded by attempting back burns near the boundary of his land. Although a burn ban was in effect, Steven did not seek a waiver.

His fires burned about an acre of public land. In 2010 — almost nine years after the 2001 burn — the government filed a 19-count indictment against the Hammonds that included charges under the Federal Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which mandates a five-year prison term for anyone who “maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States.”


At trial, the jury found the Hammonds guilty of maliciously setting fire to public property worth less than $1,000, acquitted them of other charges, and deadlocked on the government’s conspiracy claims. While the jury continued to deliberate, the Hammonds and the prosecution reached a plea agreement in which the Hammonds agreed to waive their appeal rights and accept the jury’s verdict.

It was their understanding that the plea agreement would end the case. At sentencing, the trial court refused to apply the mandatory-minimum sentence, holding that five years in prison would be “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses” and that the Hammonds’ fires “could not have been conduct intended [to be covered] under” the Anti-terrorism act: 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. . . . It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me. Thus, he found that the mandatory-minimum sentence would — under the facts of this case — violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” He sentenced Steven Hammond to two concurrent prison terms of twelve months and one day and Dwight Hammond to one prison term of three months. The Hammonds served their sentences without incident or controversy.

Read more at: The Case for Civil Disobedience in Oregon, by David French, National Review

Armed seizure of a federal building with calls to use for to 'defend ourselves' isn't civil disobedience. Its seditious conspiracy.

I'm down with opposition to the Hammond's sentence. I'm down with protests. I'm even down with a sit in. Its the guns, the threats to use of force to 'defend themselves' the calls for Hammond to 'die here with us' where the line is crossed.

And these men have most definitely crossed that line.

 

[saveliberty]

Armed seizure of a federal building with calls to use for to 'defend ourselves' isn't civil disobedience. Its seditious conspiracy.

I'm down with opposition to the Hammond's sentence. I'm down with protests. I'm even down with a sit in. Its the guns, the threats to use of force to 'defend themselves' the calls for Hammond to 'die here with us' where the line is crossed.

And these men have most definitely crossed that line.

That sounds reasonable Skylar.

 

[ogibillm]

The abuse of power happened when the sentencing judge ignored the law and handed down a sentence that did not meet the minimum mandated by law

Luckily that abuse was remedied.

Wrong it was a plea bargain for reduced time. If they are going to ignore that, then the plea should have been withdrawn and taken to trial. That is proper procedure, not changing the sentence.

No charges of poaching were made, you can't have it both ways moron.

the jury returned a guilty verdict. there was no plea bargain.

 

[koshergrl]

When they win their wrongful imprisonment case, how much do you think they will get in damages? $1,000,000 each? $2,000,000 each?

They were tried and convicted. There is no wrongful imprisonment

Yeah. And served time and were sentenced again. Hasn't the fed heard of double jeapardy?

the original sentence was invalidated as illegal
they have not been tried or convicted of the same crime twice. you need to understand terms before trying to use them.

It doesn't matter, once sentence is passed, you can't "re-sentence". At least, not legally. You can't be punished 2x for the same crime.

 

[koshergrl]

The abuse of power happened when the sentencing judge ignored the law and handed down a sentence that did not meet the minimum mandated by law

Luckily that abuse was remedied.

Wrong it was a plea bargain for reduced time. If they are going to ignore that, then the plea should have been withdrawn and taken to trial. That is proper procedure, not changing the sentence.

No charges of poaching were made, you can't have it both ways moron.

the jury returned a guilty verdict. there was no plea bargain.

You liar, no, the jury was OUT and while they were OUT, the prosecutor and the Hammonds reached a deal.

 

[hangover]

Just like the protesters in Baltimore and Ferguson, that committed crimes, burning businesses and cars as a response to misdeeds of law enforcement, the Oregon protesters are committing crimes in response to what might be...MIGHT BE...government over reach.

Committing crimes will not solve anything. It's unjustifiable. It's thuggery.

And like the "Black lives Matter" movement, the rancher movement only is shaming its cause, because of the crimes committed.

And the worst of it, is the rancher protesters are not even Oregon residents. They're outsiders that are disrupting Oregon schools and businesses, in their efforts to overthrow the U.S. government.

ISIS likes it.

 

[Skylar]

When they win their wrongful imprisonment case, how much do you think they will get in damages? $1,000,000 each? $2,000,000 each?

They were tried and convicted. There is no wrongful imprisonment

Yeah. And served time and were sentenced again. Hasn't the fed heard of double jeapardy?

the original sentence was invalidated as illegal
they have not been tried or convicted of the same crime twice. you need to understand terms before trying to use them.

It doesn't matter, once sentence is passed, you can't "re-sentence". At least, not legally. You can't be punished 2x for the same crime.

Sure you can. Plea deals are thrown out all the time on appeal.

You can't *retry* someone for the same crime. But once convicted, their sentence is most definitely a matter of appeal. Up or down.

The Hammonds themselves requested that the Supreme Court change the sentence length. Something they wouldn't and couldn't do if your assumptions were valid. The USSC declined to do so.

 

[ogibillm]

The abuse of power happened when the sentencing judge ignored the law and handed down a sentence that did not meet the minimum mandated by law

Luckily that abuse was remedied.

Wrong it was a plea bargain for reduced time. If they are going to ignore that, then the plea should have been withdrawn and taken to trial. That is proper procedure, not changing the sentence.

No charges of poaching were made, you can't have it both ways moron.

the jury returned a guilty verdict. there was no plea bargain.

You liar, no, the jury was OUT and while they were OUT, the prosecutor and the Hammonds reached a deal.

and then the jury came back with guikty verdicts.

the 'deal' was to end prosecution in exchange for the hammonds not appealing the sentence

guilt or innocence had nothing to do with it, and rest assured, they are guilty

 

[koshergrl]

Just like the protesters in Baltimore and Ferguson, that committed crimes, burning businesses and cars as a response to misdeeds of law enforcement, the Oregon protesters are committing crimes in response to what might be...MIGHT BE...government over reach.

Committing crimes will not solve anything. It's unjustifiable. It's thuggery.

And like the "Black lives Matter" movement, the rancher movement only is shaming its cause, because of the crimes committed.

And the worst of it, is the rancher protesters are not even Oregon residents. They're outsiders that are disrupting Oregon schools and businesses, in their efforts to overthrow the U.S. government.

ISIS likes it.

The Hammonds didn't damage any property at all. They burned some weeds.

 

[koshergrl]

It's typically accepted to burn federal land to cover up poaching?

prosecutor's discretion comes into play for a lot of crimes - but if i'm not let off the hook for speeding if i'm taking my pregnant wife to the hospital then i don't get to use a different fee schedule. that punishment is mandated.

What poaching charge?

they burned the ground to cover up the evidence. that's the sworn testimony of friends and relatives.

No, it's not.

saying it doesn't make it true.

Exactly. You have proof that they poached anything? No, you do not. Even though the claim made later was that they did it to hide evidence, the fact is...a fire won't eliminate that sort of evidence. Didn't happen.

 

[Skylar]

It's typically accepted to burn federal land to cover up poaching?

prosecutor's discretion comes into play for a lot of crimes - but if i'm not let off the hook for speeding if i'm taking my pregnant wife to the hospital then i don't get to use a different fee schedule. that punishment is mandated.

What poaching charge?

they burned the ground to cover up the evidence. that's the sworn testimony of friends and relatives.

No, it's not.

saying it doesn't make it true.

Exactly. You have proof that they poached anything? No, you do not. Even though the claim made later was that they did it to hide evidence, the fact is...a fire won't eliminate that sort of evidence. Didn't happen.

The prosecutor did: testimony from family members.

And who says that 'fire won't eliminate that sort of evidence'? The same person who just gave us the nonsensical claim that a person can't have their sentence changed?

 

[ogibillm]

It's typically accepted to burn federal land to cover up poaching?

prosecutor's discretion comes into play for a lot of crimes - but if i'm not let off the hook for speeding if i'm taking my pregnant wife to the hospital then i don't get to use a different fee schedule. that punishment is mandated.

What poaching charge?

they burned the ground to cover up the evidence. that's the sworn testimony of friends and relatives.

No, it's not.

saying it doesn't make it true.

Exactly. You have proof that they poached anything? No, you do not. Even though the claim made later was that they did it to hide evidence, the fact is...a fire won't eliminate that sort of evidence. Didn't happen.

no evidence but the sworn testimony of witnesses, including relatives

 

[ogibillm]

What poaching charge?

they burned the ground to cover up the evidence. that's the sworn testimony of friends and relatives.

No, it's not.

saying it doesn't make it true.

Exactly. You have proof that they poached anything? No, you do not. Even though the claim made later was that they did it to hide evidence, the fact is...a fire won't eliminate that sort of evidence. Didn't happen.

The prosecutor did: testimony from family members.

And who says that 'fire won't eliminate that sort of evidence'? The same person who just gave us the nonsensical claim that a person can't have their sentence changed?

whether or not fire could or would cover up evidence of poaching (it could definitely) doesn't matter. all that matters is they set the fires