It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: Armed militia occupies forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call ‘US patriots’ to arms

page: 6
87
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Punisher75
Interestingly enough Fox News has it on their website, however I don't have TV to know if it is being covered there or not.

www.foxnews.com...


Weird, I couldn't find anything about it on their main page. I even searched "Oregon" on the page and didn't see anything come up. *shrug*




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

You do know that the ranchers in question have nothing to do with this right?
I mean you do know they are not actually protesting anything and are infact willing to go back to prison and have not asked anyone to defend them?

Oh BTW in case you were not aware this will be the second time they will be getting sent to prison for a single offense, because the judge thought they got off to easy last time. Only this time they get to go back to the pokie for 5 years instead of the 1 and 3 they already served.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

The mystery of the interwebs I suppose.
At least they are being fair and balanced. LOL



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Punisher75

I'm sure the major networks will pick up on it if enough people talk about it on sites like ATS. It's not like reporters and journalists never visit sites like ours!



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

ABC news gave a weak-sauce attempt via Twitter.


Peaceful protest followed by Oregon wildlife refuge action: t.co...— ABC News (@ABC) January 3, 2016

Smh, what has become of journalism? Pathetic.

(the responses are twitter gold)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom
Without a doubt they will.
I figure it will see a lot of coverage right next to Obama's executive order on gun sales tomorrow.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

What you are referring to is in favor of the defendant, not the prosecutor



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:16 AM
link   
When the Tanks and Trained Killers rock up watch all the "Militia men" back down and cry "I want my Momma"! how many times does this play out ? the Government have the biggest guns so they get to decide what happens.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
A judge can modify a verdict post conviction to increase the time. The avenue for the affected is to file a writ of habeas corpus. It challenges the action of the court by arguing their action action is an illegal detention / imprisonment. The argument will go before a judge who determines if the argument is valid or dismiss if invalid.


A writ of habeas corpus is known as the "the great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement",[Note 1] being a remedy available to the meanest against the mightiest. It is a summons with the force of a court order; it is addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example) and demands that a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the prisone

Just thought you should know.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: mazzroth
When the Tanks and Trained Killers rock up watch all the "Militia men" back down and cry "I want my Momma"! how many times does this play out ? the Government have the biggest guns so they get to decide what happens.


Like I said in the last post you made, like Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the Bundy Ranch?



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Olivine
a reply to: MystikMushroom

ABC news gave a weak-sauce attempt via Twitter.


Peaceful protest followed by Oregon wildlife refuge action: t.co...— ABC News (@ABC) January 3, 2016

Smh, what has become of journalism? Pathetic.

(the responses are twitter gold)


Yeah, via the AP article, which may be what's circulated elsewhere, on ABC News: Militia Members Occupy



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Punisher75
a reply to: Abysha

You do know that the ranchers in question have nothing to do with this right?
I mean you do know they are not actually protesting anything and are infact willing to go back to prison and have not asked anyone to defend them?

Oh BTW in case you were not aware this will be the second time they will be getting sent to prison for a single offense, because the judge thought they got off to easy last time. Only this time they get to go back to the pokie for 5 years instead of the 1 and 3 they already served.


I don't agree with giving somebody a prison sentence for any crime that doesn't victimize another person but that's not the point. I admit I may be a bit biased, knowing the cultural climate in that area, but I think an armed occupation is a nasty thing to do.

Even if it were for a cause I was passionate about (like, say, somebody being thrown in prison for rescuing lab animals or something), I would still condemn an armed occupation by the activists.

I'm sure there is a line the government can cross where I would agree to this sort of reaction but this isn't it.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Punisher75
a reply to: Abysha

You do know that the ranchers in question have nothing to do with this right?
I mean you do know they are not actually protesting anything and are infact willing to go back to prison and have not asked anyone to defend them?

Oh BTW in case you were not aware this will be the second time they will be getting sent to prison for a single offense, because the judge thought they got off to easy last time. Only this time they get to go back to the pokie for 5 years instead of the 1 and 3 they already served.


I don't agree with giving somebody a prison sentence for any crime that doesn't victimize another person but that's not the point. I admit I may be a bit biased, knowing the cultural climate in that area, but I think an armed occupation is a nasty thing to do.

Even if it were for a cause I was passionate about (like, say, somebody being thrown in prison for rescuing lab animals or something), I would still condemn an armed occupation by the activists.

I'm sure there is a line the government can cross where I would agree to this sort of reaction but this isn't it.



I think the bigger point is not that they went to prison but they are going 2 times for the same offense because the judge just did not think they went long enough the first time. In short they are serving two sentences for a single crime.
It would be like getting locked up for shoplifting serving your time, then getting a letter from the judge saying... "eh I think you should go back."
edit on 3-1-2016 by Punisher75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Punisher75
a reply to: Abysha

You do know that the ranchers in question have nothing to do with this right?
I mean you do know they are not actually protesting anything and are infact willing to go back to prison and have not asked anyone to defend them?

Oh BTW in case you were not aware this will be the second time they will be getting sent to prison for a single offense, because the judge thought they got off to easy last time. Only this time they get to go back to the pokie for 5 years instead of the 1 and 3 they already served.


I don't agree with giving somebody a prison sentence for any crime that doesn't victimize another person but that's not the point. I admit I may be a bit biased, knowing the cultural climate in that area, but I think an armed occupation is a nasty thing to do.

Even if it were for a cause I was passionate about (like, say, somebody being thrown in prison for rescuing lab animals or something), I would still condemn an armed occupation by the activists.

I'm sure there is a line the government can cross where I would agree to this sort of reaction but this isn't it.



I think the bigger point is not that they went to prison but they are going 2 times for the same offense because the judge just did not think they went long enough the first time.

Which isn't legal. If they hadn't started and/or served any of the sentence, the sentence can be increased. They served the sentence for the convicted crimes. Double jeopardy DOES cover this aspect.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: StoutBroux
a reply to: liveandlearn

But then there's this:


Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison




EUGENE, Ore. – Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon in Harney County, were sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for arsons they committed on federal lands.

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.

www.justice.gov...


If true, they need to go to prison.

This is lifted directly from the source material most on this thread seem to not have read.. Putting firefighters in danger is a very big deal and people get charged with arson for it all of the time..



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:25 AM
link   


Which isn't legal. If they hadn't started and/or served any of the sentence, the sentence can be increased. They served the sentence for the convicted crimes. Double jeopardy DOES cover this aspect.


I totally agree with you.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Punisher75
a reply to: Abysha

You do know that the ranchers in question have nothing to do with this right?
I mean you do know they are not actually protesting anything and are infact willing to go back to prison and have not asked anyone to defend them?

Oh BTW in case you were not aware this will be the second time they will be getting sent to prison for a single offense, because the judge thought they got off to easy last time. Only this time they get to go back to the pokie for 5 years instead of the 1 and 3 they already served.


I don't agree with giving somebody a prison sentence for any crime that doesn't victimize another person but that's not the point. I admit I may be a bit biased, knowing the cultural climate in that area, but I think an armed occupation is a nasty thing to do.

Even if it were for a cause I was passionate about (like, say, somebody being thrown in prison for rescuing lab animals or something), I would still condemn an armed occupation by the activists.

I'm sure there is a line the government can cross where I would agree to this sort of reaction but this isn't it.



I think the bigger point is not that they went to prison but they are going 2 times for the same offense because the judge just did not think they went long enough the first time.


I see that as a separate issue worthy of the protest they have already put on, not an armed militia acting as an occupying force.

Why is it that when cities protest over one of the countless police shootings of unarmed people, ATS say they are overreacting yet they condone an organized armed response over a case of crappy justice?
edit on 3-1-2016 by Abysha because: Clarity



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: clay2 baraka

Really? I put it on the first page.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Punisher75
a reply to: Abysha

You do know that the ranchers in question have nothing to do with this right?
I mean you do know they are not actually protesting anything and are infact willing to go back to prison and have not asked anyone to defend them?

Oh BTW in case you were not aware this will be the second time they will be getting sent to prison for a single offense, because the judge thought they got off to easy last time. Only this time they get to go back to the pokie for 5 years instead of the 1 and 3 they already served.


I don't agree with giving somebody a prison sentence for any crime that doesn't victimize another person but that's not the point. I admit I may be a bit biased, knowing the cultural climate in that area, but I think an armed occupation is a nasty thing to do.

Even if it were for a cause I was passionate about (like, say, somebody being thrown in prison for rescuing lab animals or something), I would still condemn an armed occupation by the activists.

I'm sure there is a line the government can cross where I would agree to this sort of reaction but this isn't it.



I think the bigger point is not that they went to prison but they are going 2 times for the same offense because the judge just did not think they went long enough the first time.


I see that as a separate issue worthy of the protest they have already put on, not an armed militia acting as an occupying force.

Why is it that when cities protest over one of the countless police shootings of unarmed people, ATS say they are overreacting yet they condone an organized armed response over a case of crappy justice?


In this case I would presume its because the courts are not even trying to deny what they did. They have made no bones about it at all.
In short there is not even the good grace of a cover-up LOL. They are just like... yep that how we do things here.
edit on 3-1-2016 by Punisher75 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2016 by Punisher75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Yup I raised habeas corpus in my earlier post. Also the post conviction relief applies to the convicted -

28 USC 2255 - Federal custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence


(a) A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.


click link for remainder of info...

The writ falls under post conviction relief.


ETA - I dont want to derail the thread so lets agree to disagree.
edit on 3-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
87
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join