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.

 

The reason the Hammond Ranch is under siege?

page: 6
32
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

not convicting someone of a mandatory minimum by definition is an acquittal. Science, I'm rough on, laws I'm sharp.


No it isn't. You posted the definition of acquittal yourself and what you are saying there doesn't apply.

now you are purposely misinterpreting definitions
edit on 8-1-2016 by Vector99 because: wrong word




posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vector99

Yes, seriously. Are you not trying to get to the bottom of this or are you just trying to confirm your bias? Because people such as myself that don't worry about their biases want answers to all questions and holes in an argument.

You really think I'm biased towards the Hammond's? I give no f's about them, I care about law and justice and fair practice.

I've given you every single link you ask for, and you want me to defend it. You attack a link without even reading it. I've tried to explain to you that the court proceedings against the Hammond's are in violation of double jeopardy laws. I've explained why and how this is.


Well yea, because I don't see what you are saying. I'm seeing what the SCOTUS said on the matter. You aren't proving your point very thoroughly to me and you are becoming ruder the more frustrated you become with it.


YOU chose to just debate me, and not look at the facts. I'm trying to present them to you constantly, and trying to explain how law works, but you won't have it.


See. This is what I'm talking about. You know damn well that I've been reading your links since I've called back excerpts from them, but you keep accusing me of not reading them. Sure I may have missed things, but I'm not perfect. All you need to do there is point out what I missed. If you've noticed, I've apologized for the mistakes I've made, but I don't see you offering me the same courtesies. Plus, you are completely ignoring MY explanations of how the law works.


I don't get how else to put it to you, except prove me wrong. The quotes I have provided you to use are all in my favor.


Well you need to prove the SCOTUS wrong since I've been siding with them since the beginning. When I read legal documents I see everything aligning to what the SCOTUS said happened. I also see you taking liberties with definitions like acquittal and bending them so that you can argue they apply to your reasoning. These are the things I'm seeing.
edit on 8-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Vector99
Acquittal definition

a judgment that a person is not guilty of the crime with which the person has been charged.


Why did you post this definition? The Hammonds were never acquitted of anything.

They were acquitted of the mandatory minimum by a court of law. Legally binding.


No they weren't.

YES THEY WERE!

This is a lgally binding court case whether you accept it or not, it's how law works



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Vector99
Acquittal definition

a judgment that a person is not guilty of the crime with which the person has been charged.


Why did you post this definition? The Hammonds were never acquitted of anything.

They were acquitted of the mandatory minimum by a court of law. Legally binding.


No they weren't.

YES THEY WERE!

This is a lgally binding court case whether you accept it or not, it's how law works


Here's your definition again:

a judgment that a person is not guilty of the crime with which the person has been charged. (Source)


There was no "not guilty" charge with that case. They were found guilty. I don't know how much more simple that can be...
edit on 8-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you are going to try to use a legal term, don't use SCOTUS, I'm guessing you have no clue what the acronym stands for, or you wouldn't be using it.

The proper court it was sent to was the 9th district court, which ruled the initial judgement was improper, however the sentence had already been served by the time it was filed and motioned upon and agreed upon.

The supreme court of the united states is a far far distance from seeing this case. It infact is very unlikely the SCOTUS will ever see this case, let alone rule on it.

Lower courts did that, and the DEFENDANTS were FOUND GUILTY AND SENTENCED AND SERVED THE TERM. THEY CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR MORE TIME FOR THE SAME CRIME BECAUSE A DIFFERENT BUREAU DECIDES LATER THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE JUDGE'S RULING.

Sorry for yelling, but I really don't get how else to get it through to you.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

they were acquitted of mandatory minimums...my god you are a brick wall that refuses to understand.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you are going to try to use a legal term, don't use SCOTUS, I'm guessing you have no clue what the acronym stands for, or you wouldn't be using it.


Supreme Court of the United States.


The proper court it was sent to was the 9th district court, which ruled the initial judgement was improper, however the sentence had already been served by the time it was filed and motioned upon and agreed upon.

The supreme court of the united states is a far far distance from seeing this case. It infact is very unlikely the SCOTUS will ever see this case, let alone rule on it.


Ok I made a mistake there. Again sorry.


Lower courts did that, and the DEFENDANTS were FOUND GUILTY AND SENTENCED AND SERVED THE TERM. THEY CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR MORE TIME FOR THE SAME CRIME BECAUSE A DIFFERENT BUREAU DECIDES LATER THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE JUDGE'S RULING.


Which has nothing to do with the word "acquittal"


Sorry for yelling, but I really don't get how else to get it through to you.


Apology not accepted. I'm tired of being patient with you and getting this # from you along with the insults to my intelligence. So this is the last straw. I'm going to tell you what I think now.

You don't have a clear understanding of the law as you think you do. This is clear by the way you twist the definition of acquittal as well as not knowing what the Fifth Amendment says and has been interpreted to say about Double jeopardy. You refuse to acknowledge your mistakes and only care about being right. Good bye. You are wrong, and I'm glad you are pissed off about it. Have a nice day. Those two assholes will be in jail longer and there is nothing you can do about it because you don't understand the law as thoroughly as you think you do, Mr. Internet Lawyer.
edit on 8-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Please Stop



Please stop the off topic discussion about each other.

Address the topic, NOT each other.

We do not allow posts and threads that talk about other members. It is considered Off Topic and those posts will be removed.

Stick to talking about the thread's topic.

Remember:

Go After The Ball, Not The Player

Do not reply to this post.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t



Ok I made a mistake there. Again sorry.


The 9th court has no legal precedent to extend a served sentence. I've provided case examples, and interpretations of the law. It is something I am knowledgeable of. If you care to refute any of my points with legal points of action please do so. I will consider any of your personal opinions invalid as you have stated you are not knowledgeable of the law.

Please use specifics from here out, as I have done.
edit on 8-1-2016 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

If this has been posted (and debunked) already, my apologies.

Anyone with a Facebook account want to check this out and see if it's genuine?

Uranium One - I appreciate our friends at the Oregonian


I appreciate our friends at the Oregonian for covering an issue that so greatly affects our company. We have reached out and offered compensation for their time and energy put into covering the Bundy Terrorists. They refused. This only shows their goodwill towards the international interests that could lose millions and billions of profit if more terrorists decide to follow suit.

We want to pay special appreciation to the Oregonian's ‪#‎ThereseBottomly‬, ‪#‎MaxineBernstein‬ and ‪#‎LesZaitz‬ for their persistent support of our cause and calling for the arrest and detainment of ‪#‎ammonbundy‬


This sounds too outrageous to be true... offering "compensation for [the reporters'] time and energy put into covering the Bundy Terrorists?

I believe this is the legitimate Facebook page for Uranium One, but it requires login to view.




top topics



 
32
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join