The Truth About The Oregon Rancher Standoff

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?

And don't forget, even the rancher whose fence they cut down doesn't support them. He even had his workers fix the fence and said this:

"They're not coming onto my place no more," he said of the militants. "If they do, I'm gonna have to do something about it. I don't want them going across my ground."

and this:

"I work with BLM," Puckett said. "I have no problem with them." He said government officials told him of their plans to erect the fence, which he said "has not nor will it affect my cattle operation."

"I am a good steward of the land. ... In no way do I feel that I am entitled to the refuge for grazing," he said.

Rancher: 'I didn't know anything' about Bundy entering property, destroying fence

a reply to: Sremmos80

The truth is that it was said... or perhaps reported would be a better word... and I was very clear that I did not have a link or details and that I could not find one. You and others may do with it what you will. If you want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you would be thankful for the heads up and go find it yourself. You sure don't need me for that.

Nor are the Hammonds the first and only ones to be persecuted by the BLM in specific and the feds in general; their bad behaviors have been known for years.

And I don't need to prove a darn thing -- to you or anyone else. Believe it or not. Excuse them or not. Stick your head in the sand or not. Your choice.

a reply to: Informer1958

Thank you for the video -- unfortunately I can't watch it right now. But he's probably referring to the same witness. I didn't learn it from a video, but a written article. The day I read it, I'd been reading up a bunch on the situation, all over the web... I only read of one such witness, so it's probably the same one. I sure hope there weren't more witnesses ignored.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

thinking like an attorney, I say that's the same as stating " I'm going to get you ".......

Yup. Pretty much. Now or later... one way or another...

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

That would sure be sweet

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Xcathdra

Constitution supersedes congressional laws. 8th amendment.

and considering it was heard in federal court, followed up by a federal appeals judge correcting the mistake made by the federal judge, your point would be?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Xcathdra

Constitution supersedes congressional laws. 8th amendment.

and considering it was heard in federal court, followed up by a federal appeals judge correcting the mistake made by the federal judge, your point would be?

Didn't understand that one either. Some rancher went on to federal lands shot some deer and then decided to cover up thr crime scene with a brush fire and he's made out to be a hero. Makes little sense

a reply to: dragonridr

Honestly this nonsense with the deer doesn't even make sense ok?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: dragonridr

Honestly this nonsense with the deer doesn't even make sense ok?

Really how would you clean up an area having just field dressed a dear vaccume cleaner? You have never been hunting have you?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Xcathdra

Constitution supersedes congressional laws. 8th amendment.

and considering it was heard in federal court, followed up by a federal appeals judge correcting the mistake made by the federal judge, your point would be?

The second judgement was illegal.

A party intends to assign error to any part of the corrected or supplemental judgment, the party must file an amended notice of appeal from the corrected or supplemental judgment not later than 30 days after the party receives notice that the corrected or supplemental judgment has been entered.

source

If a sentencing court enters a corrected judgment under this subsection while an appeal of the judgment is pending, the sentencing court shall immediately forward a copy of the corrected judgment to the appellate court

source

The state filed the appeal a year after the sentencing. Their time limit ran out, and the 9th district illegally assumed jurisdiction and illegally extended a sentence.

I just found out some more about this situation. There is a company called Energy One, owned by the Russian Government, who mines uranium. They are now called Oregon Energy L.L.C. ,Quote from B.L.M. website.............."Uranium on BLM-Administered Lands in OR/WA

In September 2011, a representative from Oregon Energy, L.L.C. (formally Uranium One), met with local citizens, and county and state officials, to discuss the possibility of opening a uranium oxide ("yellowcake") mine in southern Malheur County in southeastern Oregon. Oregon Energy is interested in developing a 17-Claim parcel of land known as the Aurora Project through an open pit mining method. Besides the mine, there would be a mill for processing. The claim area occupies about 450 acres and is also referred to as the "New U" uranium claims.

On May 7, 2012, Oregon Energy LLC made a presentation to the BLM outlining its plans for development for the mine.

The Vale District has agreed to work with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife on mitigation for the "New U" uranium claims, which are located in core sage grouse habitat. Although the lands encompassing the claims have been designated core, the area is frequented by rockhounds and hunters, and has a crisscrossing of off-highway vehicle (OHV) roads and other significant land disturbance from the defunct Bretz Mercury Mine, abandoned in the 1960s.

However, by the fall of 2012 the company said that it was putting its plans for the mine on hold until the uncertainty surrounding sage grouse issues was resolved.

Location information for the Aurora Project can be found on the "Non-Renewable Energy Projects of Oregon" map at this website: www.blm.gov..." I thought this could be relevant to the situation.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Xcathdra

Constitution supersedes congressional laws. 8th amendment.

and considering it was heard in federal court, followed up by a federal appeals judge correcting the mistake made by the federal judge, your point would be?

The second judgement was illegal.

A party intends to assign error to any part of the corrected or supplemental judgment, the party must file an amended notice of appeal from the corrected or supplemental judgment not later than 30 days after the party receives notice that the corrected or supplemental judgment has been entered.

source

If a sentencing court enters a corrected judgment under this subsection while an appeal of the judgment is pending, the sentencing court shall immediately forward a copy of the corrected judgment to the appellate court

source

The state filed the appeal a year after the sentencing. Their time limit ran out, and the 9th district illegally assumed jurisdiction and illegally extended a sentence.

You misunderstood the statute the 30 days is to appeal a corrected judgement. In other words once thr correction goes through they have 30 days to apeal the decision. By the way you have people that spent years in jail that are released under corrective judgement. This also isn't ant sort if double jeopardy just a chance in sentence this can only occur when mandatory sentencing is involved or a judge decides thr original sentence was to hard.

The option they have is to file what's called a relief from judgement. This sets a review process but in this situation outcome wouldn't change because of mandatory sentences.

a reply to: Vector99
The judgement was not changed.
The sentence was.

This goes into much better detail than I could.

a reply to: Vector99
You know that that is the petition which led to the Hammonds' resentencing, right? Sorry wrong document.

Can you clarify what your point is? The argument seems to center around the fact that a plea bargain was reached.
It's about the sentencing, not the judgement.

a reply to: Phage

depending on the answer to this

Under what circumstances does the Eighth Amendment
authorize a district court to impose a sentence
less than the statutory mandatory minimum?

it means everything for the Hammonds.

a reply to: Vector99

it means everything for the Hammonds.

Well, it means a few years, certainly.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.” The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced “in compliance with the law.” In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.

www.justice.gov...

a reply to: Phage

The original case also determined the fires were set intentionally but not for the purpose of arson. The cost of damages for each fire was less than $1000, and the BLM even acknowledged the 2006 fire set by them was actually beneficial long-term.

The extended sentencing pursued is in compliance with acts of terrorism. This isn't one.

a reply to: Vector99

The extended sentencing pursued is in compliance with acts of terrorism

No.
Arson on federal lands carries a minimum sentence of 5 years. No extended sentence was applied. Nor was terrorism charged.
www.law.cornell.edu...

a reply to: Phage

Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.

The jury ruled that while the fires were intentionally set, they weren't set with the intent of causing damage or harm. That is why the judge ruled as he did.

a reply to: Vector99

It still doesn't change the fact the judge had no ability to issue a sentence less than what the law required.