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 Truth About The Oregon Rancher Standoff

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
The Truth About The Oregon Rancher Standoff

I've read a few threads here on ATS, some backing the militias' stand, others making it out to be absurd.

I think this video explains the history of charges ans sentencing better than the opinionated bias in other threads.



While most of us were exchanging Christmas gifts and celebrating the start of a new year, Oregon Ranchers Dwight Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Hammond, 46, were preparing for a return to prison on January 4th, 2016.

Among other things, the Hammonds were charged with various counts of Arson on federal property – punishable by a five-year mandatory minimum sentence according to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.


Arson on federal property. Land (approxinately 167 acres) that was adjacent to a private burn that got out of control, but did nothing of damage. In fact, the federal property value increased because of the the burn eliminating evasive species.

Then, another fire set as a back fire to save the ranch was during a fire ban and burned 1 acre of federal property; again increasing the acre's value.

So after the judge sentences them and an oral agreement is made, the fed gets another judge to vacate the sentence and resentence the 5 year minimum calling these "arson" and "terrorism"

I say F U Feds and land management. and to those who think the militias are there for any reason but to take back their 8th amendment rights and other constitutional rights are the ones in dreamland. I may take a trip down there myself. Of course I have relatives in Oregon.




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: imd12c4funn

I did some looking into it myself, here is my thread on it. Sorry it got a lil derailed towards the end.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   
I support them as well.

People need to grow some balls these days.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: imd12c4funn

from my understanding of the stories they burned it to stop the fire from entering their property?



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: malevolent

Yes, it's something ranchers have to do. They didn't do it to cover up poaching as some have tried to spin per the ridiculous DOJ report. If it was to cover up poaching the evidence would still be there to this day, a grass fire and time couldn't remove all that evidence.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: malevolent

You mean your understanding of what some people said...

Of course the people who were in trouble would say they are innocent, but the courts saw differently and say they set fire to federal property.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: malevolent

Yes, it's something ranchers have to do. They didn't do it to cover up poaching as some have tried to spin per the ridiculous DOJ report. If it was to cover up poaching the evidence would still be there to this day, a grass fire and time couldn't remove all that evidence.


If a rancher had to poach, he'd be bankrupt. (bears, cougars and wolverines excluded)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: malevolent

You mean your understanding of what some people said...

Of course the people who were in trouble would say they are innocent, but the courts saw differently and say they set fire to federal property.

The courts DIDN'T see differently. The federal government came in and imposed double jeopardy by extending a served sentence.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: malevolent

You mean your understanding of what some people said...

Of course the people who were in trouble would say they are innocent, but the courts saw differently and say they set fire to federal property.

Are you quoting a specific person, charge? You view the video above and see what the judge said. He could not sentence 5 year minimum and call it "terrorism" as well.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

They were still found guilty, the judge just went against the mandatory sentence.

edit on thFri, 15 Jan 2016 22:20:04 -0600America/Chicago120160480 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: imd12c4funn

It's a technicality with the 8th amendment. The definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" has not been specifically defined per the Supreme Court, therefore it can and was individually defined by this Judge. It was entered into the legal record system, and accepted by the state. The term was served, sentencing appeal didn't happen in the appropriate timeframe therefore invalidating the sentence appeal.

It's double jeopardy, and if the Hammond's had any sound legal advice, they would have purchased extremely large term-life insurance plans, to determine a base estimated amount of their life per day. That compounded with mental anguish could really have a big settlement coming their way.

That is unless "making a murderer" and the damn militia take all the attention from this case, which the MSM has already done.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Vector99

They were still found guilty, the judge just went against the mandatory sentence.

The judge had legal grounds to do so. The 8th amendment supersedes a congressional act.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Another judge disagrees with what. I am willing to bet he knows more about this than both of us.

The Hammonds don't want these guys there , the town doesn't want them there, who are they fighting for?



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: imd12c4funn


Then, another fire set as a back fire to save the ranch was during a fire ban and burned 1 acre of federal property; again increasing the acre's value.


There's more truth to that which I think needs to be known and I don't understand why it's not getting more attention in this public scrutiny/dialogue: A witness who was interviewed by authorities claimed that he saw someone -- and I believe he said a BLM employee -- setting the fire which forced the Hammonds to set the back fire to protect their ranch. This witness was never contacted again, and was never disclosed to the Hammonds or their attorneys, directly violating rules of discovery and exculpatory evidence. That's criminal, with malice aforethought -- both the original act of arson, and the discovery violation. With the lowdown dirty tactics being used by the Feds, I understand why the Hammonds (as well as the locals) are afraid to speak out. They have no idea what retaliation they face from the beast.... and they sure can't trust public support to stand by them. Too many turn a blind eye to the crimes of the feds while applauding the persecution of the little guy.

Also disturbing is the Feds forcing the Hammonds to give them first right of refusal if the Hammonds ever sell. Even as the Feds run their ranch into the ground and use (abuse) all their might to destroy them.

I apologize because I have not been able to find a link about the witness. I can't find the right keywords for a search I guess... but I know that info is out there!
edit on 15-1-2016 by Boadicea because: redundancy deleted



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




I apologize because I have not been able to find a link about the witness. I can't find the right keywords for a search I guess... but I know that info is out there!


Can't find the info but you know it is out there.... Well in the mean time might as well talk about it as if it is a fact!



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Vector99

Another judge disagrees with what. I am willing to bet he knows more about this than both of us.

The Hammonds don't want these guys there , the town doesn't want them there, who are they fighting for?

The thing is, even if another judge says it was wrong, legally it was not. What is legally happening right now is federal double jeopardy. A served sentence cannot be extended under any circumstance. A sentence imposed cannot be extended once terms of sentencing have begun, regardless of jurisdiction.

They not only started, but actually completed their initial sentences. It LITERALLY is double jeopardy.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Vector99


The Hammonds don't want these guys there , the town doesn't want them there, who are they fighting for?

I wish the damn militia would go home. They did their job and brought attention to the Hammond's. Now they are staying and being a bunch of asses, completely contradicting their original purpose by constantly detracting from the initial purpose...THAT pisses me off like no other.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I read the stand is coming off really slick!



The "militia" may well be a little peckish and cold, but at least they have now have plenty of lube to accompany all the dildos they've been sent in the post.

On Thursday, Max Temkin, a Chicago-based designer, posted to Twitter his order of a 55-gallon drum of person lubricant, which he kindly sent to the group many have claimed are domestic "terrorists".

source

Oh no, it looks like the Militia's constitutional lawyer is on site!




edit on 15-1-2016 by AlaskanDad because: url problems



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

You keep saying legally it was not, I am not so sure you are correct there.
In the eyes of the law, it was illegal not to give them the 5 year sentence.
www.oregonlive.com...

"A minimum sentence mandated by the statute is not a suggestion that courts have discretion to disregard," Judge Stephen J. Murphy III wrote in the opinion. Murphy noted that even a fire in a remote area such as Harney County had the potential to spread and threaten the lives of residents and crews called out to battle the fire.

The funny thing about this all, is that bill in 96 was passed by a Republican controlled congress.

Also this isn't cut and dry double jeopardy, they are not getting tried and charged again for the same crime.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Vector99


The Hammonds don't want these guys there , the town doesn't want them there, who are they fighting for?

I wish the damn militia would go home. They did their job and brought attention to the Hammond's. Now they are staying and being a bunch of asses, completely contradicting their original purpose by constantly detracting from the initial purpose...THAT pisses me off like no other.


Well hey, we more or less agree here.
We both agree these militia need to get out of dodge at this point.

The TRUTH about these guys is they KEPT lighting fires on the land they leased and KEPT being told they could not do that with out a permit. One finally got away from them and now people who have nothing to do with it are mad they got charged.
edit on thFri, 15 Jan 2016 22:48:55 -0600America/Chicago120165580 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join