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: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Vector99


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

You are right, they aren't getting tried for the same charge twice, just punished for it twice.

wiki of supremecy laws


The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that criminal sentences that are inhuman, outrageous, or shocking to the social conscience are cruel and unusual. Although the Court has never provided meaningful definitions for these characteristics

source




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80


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!


Yup! I know it's out there because I read it. That's fact. I never spoke to the truth of the information itself, which of course I have no way of knowing one way or the other. Perhaps you cannot make that distinction, and therefore felt compelled to make your false corrolation. Or perhaps you can make that distinction, and chose to misrepresent and distort what I said to confuse and obfuscate.

I'm hoping another ATSer has seen the same and perhaps even provide a link...

Of course, if you have information that refutes the witness' statements or otherwise discredits that information, please post it. I'm always happy to be corrected when I have misinformation. Oh wait! If you wanted to do that, then you would have done it to begin with in the interest of full disclosure and truth and transparency and all that, and wouldn't have resorted to mocking and ridicule instead. Oh well.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Nope, not punished twice, it is an extension of the original punishment, or a fulfillment of what it should have been.

This is an interesting case, one I agree deserves more looking into to. But at this point the judges doing so have agreed that what was originally done was not legal and what is being done now is.



Although the Court has never provided meaningful definitions for these characteristics


This is very important, the vagueness goes both ways.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




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:


This is how you prefaced that.
When you preface it like that, to me that implies you think that witness statement that can't be found sheds more 'truth' on the matter.



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.

Then this, implying intimidation of said witness no? Since it followed after you said the witness was never heard from again.



Too many turn a blind eye to the crimes of the feds while applauding the persecution of the little guy.


Please, these guys continued to light fires on land that they only leased after being told they could not do that with out a permit. Then one got away and burned over 100 acres and put crews fighting it in danger.

Oh and I can't prove someone didn't say something, YOU have to prove it was said.
edit on thFri, 15 Jan 2016 23:18:44 -0600America/Chicago120164480 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Is this what your looking for?

Bombshell: Three Percenter Says Eyewitness Provided Affidavit Claiming He Saw BLM Light Fire at Hammond Ranch in Oregon

“There’s an eyewitness that saw the BLM light a fire behind the Hammond Ranch.” Pick up the video around 11:40.



sonsoflibertymedia.com... oregon/


edit on 15-1-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Vector99

Nope, not punished twice, it is an extension of the original punishment, or a fulfillment of what it should have been.

This is an interesting case, one I agree deserves more looking into to. But at this point the judges doing so have agreed that what was originally done was not legal and what is being done now is.



Although the Court has never provided meaningful definitions for these characteristics


This is very important, the vagueness goes both ways.

Punishing someone for something they already were punished for is the definition of double jeopardy.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
One Down!


Or should I say arrested?


Medenbach, 62, was detained outside a Safeway supermarket in Burns, Oregon, some 30 miles from the Malheur national wildlife refuge, according to a statement from the Harney County sheriff’s office.

He appears to have driven from the occupied compound to a local supermarket in a vehicle allegedly stolen from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which runs the refuge. The sheriff’s office statement said that law enforcement officers recovered “two vehicles stolen from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge”.


sou rce

You would have thought a grown man would know you can't steal vehicles from the feds!



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80


This is very important, the vagueness goes both ways.


The vagueness allows the judge to make a legal judgement like he did, the constitution supersedes congress.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

There is two fires they got charged for, that guy is talking about an event that happened 5 years later.
www.oregonlive.com...

The lightening strike fire happened in 06.

Then in August 2006, lightning sparked several fires near the spot where the Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven Hammond set a back-burn to thwart the advancing flames, and it burned across about an acre of public land, according to federal court records.

www.oregonlive.com...

But in September 2001, the Hammonds started another fire. This one ran off their property on Steens Mountain, consumed 139 acres of public land and took the acreage out of production for two growing seasons, according to court papers.


A jury in June 2012 found the Hammonds guilty of arson for the 2001 blaze that came to be called the Hardie-Hammond Fire. Steven Hammond also was convicted for arson in the 2006 Krumbo Butte Fire.



Also where is this witness? This person isn't coming out, all we have is more second had testimonies of him/her?



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
I agree the constitution supersedes but I think you are taking that out of context.



Punishing someone for something they already were punished for is the definition of double jeopardy.
Multiple judges disagree with what the judge did, are they just liberty hating no good commies?
Or could it be they know bit more then me and you.


No it isn't. Double jeopardy is getting CHARGED with the same crime after getting acquitted.
That isn't what happened at all.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

You clearly don't have a grasp on the definition of double jeopardy laws. The sentence was put in the law books per a legally elected judge. The sentence stands. The state had the right to appeal the sentence initially, but they chose not to. Therefore, legally, the imposed sentence is accepted by both parties, defendant and plaintiff, judgement is determined. Sentence is imposed on certain date. Once the imposed sentence begins it CANNOT be extended. To do so would violate federal double jeopardy laws.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Nothing wrong with pursuing a cause with acts of civil disobedience it’s just the guns and the
threats that some people have problems with.

I would like to see the Native Americans demand some stuff and the Black people do something similar and demand their 40 acres and a mule this government never gave to them that they were owed



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

I guess those federal judges don't either.

The hammonds should just hire you and you would have them off scott free!




The state had the right to appeal the sentence initially, but they chose not to.

That isn't true, that is how this case got to where we are today.

Government lawyers appealed the sentence, saying it wasn't stiff enough.

In February 2014, a three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

"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 appeals court ruled that the Hammonds must be returned to the district court for resentencing.



edit on thSat, 16 Jan 2016 00:06:20 -0600America/Chicago120162080 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

They appealed it a year after the initial sentencing was addressed, and especially for the legal aspect AFTER the term imposed was served.

I've provided all of his info if you care to look it up.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Was still an appeal though right?

So the long and short of you are saying is that only one judge got it right?

Strange how we don't have judges falling over backwards calling out the 9th.
edit on thSat, 16 Jan 2016 00:18:28 -0600America/Chicago120162880 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: imd12c4funn

The judges did nothing of the sort. The first judge failed to comply with federal law. The second judge rectified the problem.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

you said the right of first refusal forced on them, thinking like an attorney, I say that's the same as stating " I'm going to get you ".......legally proving malintent, malfeasance and fraud.....on the part of the money hungry fed group......I'll represent the case....I'll use the law to hold em by the nose and kick em in the butt.....

force by bargain.....for real estate....I think I can get a letter out on that.....




posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

I'm saying law is law. Judgement was entered, and via the 8th amendment the judge was within legal rights to disregard the mandatory minimum.

I've provided legal examples of this, interpretations of the law on that law, and specific examples.

I don't care to argue opinion, I care to argue legal standards. This fits the legal definition of double jeopardy. If you can show me how it legally doesn't, I would appreciate it.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Constitution supersedes congressional laws. 8th amendment.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 01:43 AM
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.
are you from there? or even close? so it pisses you off who the fug are you to judge the actions of another? i think if your that upset you might try looking into yourself to find the issue




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join