Militia Takes Over Wildlife Refuge In Oregon

[IndyDave1776]

Depends. If it was the exact same situation, black ranchers and militia men headed to a cabin in the woods the woods? Response would probably be similar I'd reckon. I don't see why it wouldn't be...

Now that I have had time to think about it a bit, I doubt that there would be much difference. After all, they would be seen as 'uncle Toms' if they were of the fiber to survive ranch life.

 

[spec4]

I truly hope this won't be a version of Waco, but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[gunsisgood]

I truly hope this won't be a version of Waco, but it wouldn't surprise me.

If the feds do decide to go down this path I predict a MUCH different outcome.

 

[KG1]

While the idea of re-sentencing is repugnant to me, the idea of seizing a federal building is even more so.

This action cannot go unanswered, and will only stir the flames over a matter that should have been handled in a more diplomatic fashion. The collateral damage could be significant if bodies pile up on either side.

This will accomplish nothing and only give reasonable - yes, reasonable! - justification to undermine whatever legitimate argument they may have had.

Idiots!

Regards,

Doug

(The following quote was an edit of the previous post done by KG1 to reflect a different point of view)

The idea of re-sentencing is repugnant to me.

This action cannot go unanswered, and will only stir the flames over a matter that should have been handled in a more diplomatic fashion. The collateral damage could be significant if bodies pile up on either side.

This will accomplish nothing and only give reasonable - yes, reasonable! - justification to undermine whatever legitimate argument they may have had.

Idiots!

If you take away a few lines in your post you may be able to see it the way the aggrieved party does. I would say the government does plenty of flame fanning of their own.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yep, they sure picked the wrong time to occupy in my opinion. I agree that there's nothing in Oregon.

I will not stand here and allow you to discount: 1. microbreweries in Portland, 2. hot hippie chicks.

I say good day!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Lebowski]

This also reminds me of this quote:

"I was always willing to be reasonable until I had to be unreasonable. Sometimes reasonable men must do unreasonable things." by Marvin Heemeyer

 

[Thegeek]

Werent' they convicted by a jury? That means the prosecution had enough evidence, right? Not sure how to feel about that. All these claims then represent that the jury was corrupted. I have a hard time buying that.....

 

[Lebowski]

Werent' they convicted by a jury? That means the prosecution had enough evidence, right? Not sure how to feel about that. All these claims then represent that the jury was corrupted. I have a hard time buying that.....

• (n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail that would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for 6 days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Much of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury. For example, Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings that the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.
• (o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.
• (p) Judge Michael Hogan & Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how the land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton everyday. Some drove more than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home. On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict. Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision. Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual that has convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area, influenced by the prosecutors for 6 straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, made a verdict and went home.

 

[MuttX7]

That's about where I am with it. This double jeopardy thing is the .gov being childish, but if you're so inclined as to fight them it's just punk to do something like this when they're nickel and diming us, save it for when they really go off the rails. Oh, and OR is really lovely, at least the left half. It's a shame they've been californicated.

It isn't double jeopardy, it is a re-sentencing according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office press release:

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.

Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison | USAO-OR | Department of Justice

 

[K1LLB0XS373N]

5 years for 2 ranchers fighting for their land and what they believe is right....
Seen less time for worse crimes....
Let's hope for peaceful resolve.

 

[jamil]

I'm sitting in a Denny's in Portland reading this, eating some really good food, drinking some surprisingly good coffee, wondering if this Denny's is anomalously good or if the Indiana Denny's I've eaten at are anomalously bad, all while trying to surpress the urge to drive down and see what the deal is. Looking at the map app, I think I'm gonna pass. It's a pretty long drive.

 

[IndyDave1776]

5 years for 2 ranchers fighting for their land and what they believe is right....
Seen less time for worse crimes....
Let's hope for peaceful resolve.

There won't be. There is a long-running patter of the feds being hell-bent on steamrolling this aggregate of people and they will settle for no outcome other than either capitulation or smashing them.

It makes me feel like putting Kirk's observations to good use, going to Oregon, banging a few hot hippie chicks, and pickup up some micro-brew to take to the guys in the park.

 

[Caleb]

Interview with the Bundy's...

https://www.facebook.com/bundyranch/videos/938588846217924/

Changes my perspective a bit after watching the video...

 

[jamil]

There won't be. There is a long-running patter of the feds being hell-bent on steamrolling this aggregate of people and they will settle for no outcome other than either capitulation or smashing them.

It makes me feel like putting Kirk's observations to good use, going to Oregon, banging a few hot hippie chicks, and pickup up some micro-brew to take to the guys in the park.

Hippie chicks don't bath so they'd have to be really hot.

 

[level.eleven]

These guys are terrorists.

They flew their plane over the federal land in order to see where they wanted to burn, set multiple fires on several different occasions, burned a neighbor's property, set property on fire where they knew there were firefighters in the immediate vicinity and actually threatened a firefighter that they'd say he was the one who set the fires if he told law enforcement what they had done.

http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/Hammond_superseding-indictment%20May%2017%202012.pdf

 

[IndyDave1776]

Hippie chicks don't bath so they'd have to be really hot.

I could take the extra few minutes to run them through the shower!

 

[Rocket]

Tin foil hat activated!! Ok so we have seen the actions of the FDA shutting down and even destroying food that wasn't "approved". We have seen again the actions of the BLM to restrict ranchers ability to graze their cattle by any means avail to them. Maybe this is a greater plan to control the food source? Food for thought.
I am sure we do not have all the facts and I agree that taking over a federal building may not be the best recourse. But what is? How should these people fight for their rights? How do they stand up against the tax payer funded agencies? They have been out spent by their own tax dollars. At some point enough has to be enough. But where and what is the problem. It APPEARS that they have tried all they can do legally. And financially. They need a sworn official to stand up and protect their constitutional rights. Where are those oath sworn officials?

 

[Caleb]

Tin foil hat activated!! Ok so we have seen the actions of the FDA shutting down and even destroying food that wasn't "approved". We have seen again the actions of the BLM to restrict ranchers ability to graze their cattle by any means avail to them. Maybe this is a greater plan to control the food source? Food for thought.
I am sure we do not have all the facts and I agree that taking over a federal building may not be the best recourse. But what is? How should these people fight for their rights? How do they stand up against the tax payer funded agencies? They have been out spent by their own tax dollars. At some point enough has to be enough. But where and what is the problem. It APPEARS that they have tried all they can do legally. And financially. They need a sworn official to stand up and protect their constitutional rights. Where are those oath sworn officials?

Oath sworn officials are a urban legend...

 

[Kutnupe14]

These guys are terrorists.

They flew their plane over the federal land in order to see where they wanted to burn, set multiple fires on several different occasions, burned a neighbor's property, set property on fire where they knew there were firefighters in the immediate vicinity and actually threatened a firefighter that they'd say he was the one who set the fires if he told law enforcement what they had done.

http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/Hammond_superseding-indictment%20May%2017%202012.pdf

Oh Damn, that changes the ball game. I'm changing my opinion. They should go to jail.