Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sir Wearer of Hats

Gunmen occupy Federal building

765 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ShadowSot

My question now is, was the first sentence already served?

It doesn't matter, except that if so then time was taken off their sentence.

To go back to my ticket example.

I have a ticket for 166 dollars. If I pay it then appeal it, then lose the appeal I still have to pay the resultant fees even if I payed the initial ticket.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wickian

Wait, the sentence was already served????

Yeah, the original judge gave them a reduced sentence that they already served and were released due to some circumstances(I don't remember what they were).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

You all really should read the long story link I posted. Being tried for the fires in the first place was contrived and just another federal offense against these citizens that they've hounded for decades. It was an act of revenge against the Hammonds for exposing the BLM's own study that showed that the government handling of these lands they took over were detrimental to the wildlife they sought to preserve and that the land while cared for as private property was exponentially more efficient at benefiting the local wildlife than government ever was. Big surprise there huh?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

You all really should read the long story link I posted. Being tried for the fires in the first place was contrived and just another federal offense against these citizens that they've hounded for decades. It was an act of revenge against the Hammonds for exposing the BLM's own study that showed that the government handling of these lands they took over were detrimental to the wildlife they sought to preserve and that the land while cared for as private property was exponentially more efficient at benefiting the local wildlife than government ever was. Big surprise there huh?

The link you posted is not... Exactly what I'd call impartial. It also makes a lot of claims without and sort of backup material. It all comes back to the people who are the accused and are currently sitting around with guns at a wildlife reserve.

Who themselves are definitely going to be biased to their own narrative.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

It also looks like the people being protested for have distanced thselves from the protest and are voluntarily reporting to jail.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

It doesn't matter, except that if so then time was taken off their sentence.

To go back to my ticket example.

I have a ticket for 166 dollars. If I pay it then appeal it, then lose the appeal I still have to pay the resultant fees even if I payed the initial ticket.

It matters to me. If they were sentenced and their time was served, then anything that happened after that is BS. I'd probably want to take a hard dramatic stand too. That is injustice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

It also looks like the people being protested for have distanced thselves from the protest and are voluntarily reporting to jail.

And this is how a nation is divided, it all comes down to who do you trust?

The link you posted is not... Exactly what I'd call impartial. It also makes a lot of claims without and sort of backup material. It all comes back to the people who are the accused and are currently sitting around with guns at a wildlife reserve.

Who themselves are definitely going to be biased to their own narrative.

And this is how a nation becomes divided. It all comes down to who do you trust

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mbrn30000

you should google US vs Hammond Dwight and read the filings. First I do not see this was ever in State court. I think there is confusion for some about the Oregon District Court being the US District Court for Oregon. This was a federal case from the beginning. I read through the appeals, including the writ filed with the Supreme court that was denied in March. This is a strange case really. The problem is that Congress mandated a 5 year minimum sentence for the statute they convicted of violating. They were convicted of arson in an anti terror statute passed in 1996. The district court trial judge, a federal judge, deviated from the sentence requirement due to the nature of the offense, being burning basically federal scrub lands in several incidents. The first time they were warned by BLM was in 1999 but they were not charged. In 2001 they burned over a 100 acres of public land to eliminate invasive species, of what I do not know. Then again in 2006 there was a range fire, and they set a back fire on their land that burned federal land. I think the 2001 was more criminal of the two, but the feds kind of took the 2006 as the final straw. The defendants were found guilty of some of the counts and agreed to accept the partial verdict and not appeal any sentencing. THis is where their lawyer really messed up. He did not get the prosecutor to agree to no appeal of sentence in his plea deal. The district judge decided to ignore the statutory requirement of 5 years based on the nature of the crime not being terrorism and the prosecutor appealed. The prosecutor did make his objection at the time of the sentence preserving his appeal. The 9th district ordered resentencing since 5 years for arson is not cruel and unusual and a judge does not have the power to ignore Congress. The supreme court refused to hear the case this year. I would agree that the intent of congress was not to catch ranchers burning off brush or making a back fire. If you read the defense filings they sound like angels, the prosecutor filings make them sound like arrogant rebels...but the problem is the law as it is written and the failure of the defense to include no appeal by prosecutor in the deal. Really dropped the ball there. Maybe the appeal should be inadequacy of counsel. I did not see that in their appeal. I think this will unfortunately require a Presidential pardon or commutation. Another round of appeals will take longer than if they serve the time. Not sure where they are in the process. So the yahooos in the federal building are sending the wrong message. They should be getting non militia people to support a pardon not rallying for another rebellion.

Edited by mbrn30000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

It matters to me. If they were sentenced and their time was served, then anything that happened after that is BS. I'd probably want to take a hard dramatic stand too. That is injustice.

Cool, do you feel the same for gang bangers, bank fraud, armed robbery, and murder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Cool, do you feel the same for gang bangers, bank fraud, armed robbery, and murder?

I have no pity for those who hurt children. Aside from that I'd back anyone who was treated this way

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

It matters to me. If they were sentenced and their time was served, then anything that happened after that is BS. I'd probably want to take a hard dramatic stand too. That is injustice.

Also, they aren't taking a dramatic stance. They have distanced themselves from the protest and are reporting for jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

I have no pity for those who hurt children. Aside from that I'd back anyone who was treated this way

So a convicted murderer, as has happened, should be released to the public if there was an error in the trial?

If they did the appeal, they understood the risk and accepted it. As it seems they are willing to follow the law.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

So a convicted murderer, as has happened, should be released to the public if there was an error in the trial?

If they did the appeal, they understood the risk and accepted it. As it seems they are willing to follow the law.

If they served the time required by the court sure. Besides, we aren't talking murder here. We are talking about spending hundreds of thousands to put people in a cage who not only didn't hurt anyone, but never intended to hurt anyone. I wouldn't support anyone serving 2 sentences for one crime. I'd for damn sure never support it when there wasn't even a victim

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

If they served the time required by the court sure. Besides, we aren't talking murder here. We are talking about spending hundreds of thousands to put people in a cage who not only didn't hurt anyone, but never intended to hurt anyone. I wouldn't support anyone serving 2 sentences for one crime. I'd for damn sure never support it when there wasn't even a victim

Depends on the crime. Setting fire to land very easily can get out of control and cause damage and death.

It is common, happened in my area twice over the last two years.

They aooealed their case, accepting that if they lost bringing it to the Federal level brings a minimum of five year sentence.

It is one thing is this was sprung on them, but if they did make an appeal they knew what the consequences would be and have accepted them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Also, they aren't taking a dramatic stance. They have distanced themselves from the protest and are reporting for jail.

Yeah, they probably figure at this point that bowing to injustice is better then death. Can't really say I blame them. May their chains rest lightly upon them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

That's worse. That's being tried twice for the same crime. How can the state try the case, then have the fed give the sentence? SMH

Like this?

http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/country-news/Axe-murderer-receives-longer-sentence-on-appeal_157697.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mbrn30000

Although the statute was not designed for ranchers burning brush, the statute says it includes burning real property or public lands. Imagine arson in a federal forest as an act of terror or even protest. They intentionally burned federal land in one instance for their own good. They claim one instance was unintentional. I think its clear they had contempt for the federal government, and probably think, like so many ranchers, they should not have to pay a penny for grazing. They were convicted by a law by congress, and they must pay the fees until congress says they don't have to. So their argument is not with local federal employees, employees doing our bidding, but with Congress.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Depends on the crime. Setting fire to land very easily can get out of control and cause damage and death.

It is common, happened in my area twice over the last two years.

They aooealed their case, accepting that if they lost bringing it to the Federal level brings a minimum of five year sentence.

It is one thing is this was sprung on them, but if they did make an appeal they knew what the consequences would be and have accepted them.

Clearing land by fire is a common thing though. Looking at the history between them and the BLM, this is clearly pay back.

Just a side note, why do we tolerate the fed owning land that's not for military at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Although the statute was not designed for ranchers burning brush, the statute says it includes burning real property or public lands. Imagine arson in a federal forest as an act of terror or even protest. They intentionally burned federal land in one instance for their own good. They claim one instance was unintentional. I think its clear they had contempt for the federal government, and probably think, like so many ranchers, they should not have to pay a penny for grazing. They were convicted by a law by congress, and they must pay the fees until congress says they don't have to. So their argument is not with local federal employees, employees doing our bidding, but with Congress.

I don't know about you, but I like beef. You really think if they had to pay to graze cattle that there would be any?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

I don't know about you, but I like beef. You really think if they had to pay to graze cattle that there would be any?

Do you remember the Dust bpwel? There is a reason why there is regulation of the cattle industry.

I say that as someone who eats steak, hamburger, and spaghetti with lots of ground beef as often as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Do you remember the Dust bpwel? There is a reason why there is regulation of the cattle industry.

I say that as someone who eats steak, hamburger, and spaghetti with lots of ground beef as often as possible.

Looking at what the fed tried to pull with the Bundies, there is a reason the fed backed off like the cowards they are. Cause they were wrong, and knew it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mbrn30000

I don't know about you, but I like beef. You really think if they had to pay to graze cattle that there would be any?

they do pay to graze cattle on federal land now, but they want to cheat us out of our fees.

Clearing land by fire is a common thing though. Looking at the history between them and the BLM, this is clearly pay back.

Just a side note, why do we tolerate the fed owning land that's not for military at all?

because not all of us are as nutty as you?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alaiodevalle

spoken like a jailhouse lawyer. you are reading one article of dubious pedigree. you like it because it fulfills your world view of paranoid anti government delusions. it is not double jeopardy because he was found guilty in his trial and resentencing or appealing a trial judge's sentence is very common. Ex-post facto means being held accountable for a law passed after the offense. paranoia runs deep. People need to follow the law or leave.

A jailhouse lawyer? What do you know about jailhouse? If I am paranoid of this government then I must have good standing reason to be. I believe you need to read up on your law there son.....double jeopardy and ex-post facto do play a part in that. Look up the supreme court cases supporting these two issues. Seeing is that is a federal case you need to look a little closer. The federal laws have changed since they were sentenced, look up the federal sentencing guidelines that have changed since then. There is no paranoia about it. People need to follow the law that is if.....THAT LAW DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITIUTION, if it does then it is null and void. No one is leaving so don't hold your breath. Don't let your over zealousness get the best of you because it just might bite you in the ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

they do pay to graze cattle on federal land now, but they want to cheat us out of our fees.

because not all of us are as nutty as you?

Mm you are mad at ranchers trying to cheat you outta money, yet have no problem with the monstrous spending machine that's puts us several hundred billion dollars in debt every year?

I'll take the insult as you conceding on my point the there is no ligit reason for the federal government to own land, not for military, that clearly belongs to the state it's in.

Edited by preacherman76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.