Militiamen Occupy Oregon Wildlife Office in Protest of Ranchers' Prison Terms

So just for clarification:
They purchased their ranch and grazing rights in 1964 pre-dating the Bureau Of Land Management. When the Hammonds burned their own land to make it more fertile(which is also very common in national/state parks), the BLM charged the father and son with terrorism and sentenced them to prison. When they got out of prison, the government charged them with terrorism again, and has now sentenced them both to 5 years in prison.

And for this reason I don't rely on ndecent's postings. You can only believe so much before you realize sometimes the Government paints a target on you and goes after you with the most b.s. accusations. Case in point have you seen the movie Concussion, or even Making a Murderer. Basically unfit individuals are ruling on behalf of the law and abusing their power.
But go ahead [MENTION=55551]ndcent[/MENTION] keep going with the name calling of these individuals you are really proving your point?

It's a double standard because last time I checked when the EPA messed up the river in Colorado. . not a peep, was said because it was an EPA government employee. If it was a citizen you know they would have come at them guns blazing, string them up, and charge them with every possible standard. It truly is an abuse of power and pretty much they can rule however they want because GASP who would ever challenge these ridiculous entities that are all ruling.

And I somewhat agree with the trolling. You simply copy and paste these politically charged articles, and then see if you can yell louder than others thus you win? It's not really a discussion with you its more of I'm right your wrong, and no constructive contribution is commended, but is actually condemned.
 
Last edited:
They purchased their ranch and grazing rights in 1964 pre-dating the Bureau Of Land Management.
Click to expand...

It seems people cannot agree on the facts. Please post additional data about these points in the story.

Here is my understanding:

1) they did not purchase the land at all. They never owned the land. They leased grazing rights from the federal government

2) they were convicted of arson, not terrorism. Having grazing rights does not give you a right to burn down the land, even some of it.

3) they were not just thrown in jail like the US is some sort of dictatorship. They were tried, in Oregon by a jury of their peers and found guilty. They were then sentenced twice by judge.
 
Last edited:
BrianSD_42 said:
It seems people cannot agree on the facts. Please post additional data about these points in the story.
.
Click to expand...
ALSO NOTE:THE FAMILY DOES NOT SUPPORT THE ACTIONS OF THE BUNDY FAMILY.
HISTORY: (aa) The Harney Basin (where the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.

(ab) In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

(a) In 1964 the Hammonds’ purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.

(a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres, stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.

(a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told: “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”; 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.

(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentionally diverted the water bypassing the vast meadow lands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers who once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede; now the once thriving privately owned Silvies plains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.

(a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers who still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling facts about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced four times more ducks and geese than the refuge. The study also showed the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.

(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive toward the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*

(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights, and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily, the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). Dwight spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland. He was then hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.

(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.

(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds still intended to use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.

(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.

(g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sell their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later.

(h) The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.

So as you can see. . .what I disagree with is what the government wants the government gets. . whether by force or ridiculous allegations to slowly break you down and bleed you dry. They will win, but again this doesn't make it right.
 
So again just like the film "making a murderer" the BLM are pretty much doing everything through the "legal system", but it doesn't mean they aren't abusing it for their own better. And as we all know the legal system is grey and convoluted these days and not the simple black and white it used to be but I would affiliate more to the moral standards of our country and law men.

(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail which would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for six days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Many of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury. Example: Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.

(o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness who was not mentally capable to be credible. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13-years-old at the time, and 24-years-old when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. However, Judge Hogan allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.

(p) Judge Michael Hogan & Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton every day. Some drove more than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home.

On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict. [Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision.] Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area and influenced by the prosecutors for six straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, gave a verdict and went home.

(q) June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were found guilty of starting both the 2001 and the 2006 fires by the jury. However, the federal courts convicted them both as “Terrorists” under the 1996 Anti terrorism Act. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. Both were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Judge Hogan overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commented if the full five years were required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The day of the sentencing Judge Hogan retired as a federal judge. In his honor the staff served chocolate cake in the courtroom.

(r) On January 4, 2013, Dwight and Steven reported to prison. They fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months). Dwight was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014.

(s) Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM, and her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank Papagni exemplified further vindictive behavior by filing an appeal with the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight’s and Steven’s return to federal prison for the entire 5 years.*

(t) In October 2015, the 9th District Court “re-sentenced” Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years. Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children. Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74) to be alone after 55 years of marriage. If he survives, he will be 79 when he is released.

(u) During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal; if the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.

(v) Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their re-sentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them.

To date the Hammonds have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of year (2015). If the Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution. (more citations here)
 
Last edited:
Wingsuit said:
No US Federal District Court could ever come close to being a "kangaroo court". Federal trials and proceedings are run with decorum and strict adherence to the law and rules. And Lord knows I've seen enough of them. They are subject to the oversight of the appeals and Supreme Courts, if things aren't handled correctly. The info regarding poaching was admitted and heard by the jury. This is exactly why we are a nation of laws not men. (Look it up). To say someone was "cleared" is a vague non-legal term. No one who has been acquitted on any charge can be tried again on that same charge. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. If those guys had any hair (you know where) they woulda taken on a federal courthouse or some other not so soft target.
Click to expand...
based on what I have read, IF it is indeed true, I disagree. they were railroaded through the system. im not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but judges are often doing things as they wish, and nobody seems to care, or be willing to do anything about it. they believe to be above the law themselves, and I would guess that most times that is the case.
 
"If anyone is confused as to whether the Bundy Clan are American Heroes, let me help. Cliven Bundy owes 1,000,000 in late fees to the federal government for his deeply discounted grazing rights on land he has never owned. Every other rancher...in all of America...combines for less than 250,000 in late fees. He owes 4 times as much as every other ranch combined. Ammon Bundy's truck repair business is funded by a 530,000.00 loan from...wait for it...a government loan (because he couldn't get private financing). All ranchers pay their grazing rights at a 93% discount from market value (again, on land they have never owned) to the BLM. They are one of the most heavily subsidized groups in the nation, to the tune of about 100,000,000 a year in taxpayer dollars. And now they have taken part in an armed insurrection because the almost free stuff they get isn't totally free."
 
ndcent said:
"If anyone is confused as to whether the Bundy Clan are American Heroes, let me help. Cliven Bundy owes 1,000,000 in late fees to the federal government for his deeply discounted grazing rights on land he has never owned. Every other rancher...in all of America...combines for less than 250,000 in late fees. He owes 4 times as much as every other ranch combined. Ammon Bundy's truck repair business is funded by a 530,000.00 loan from...wait for it...a government loan (because he couldn't get private financing). All ranchers pay their grazing rights at a 93% discount from market value (again, on land they have never owned) to the BLM. They are one of the most heavily subsidized groups in the nation, to the tune of about 100,000,000 a year in taxpayer dollars. And now they have taken part in an armed insurrection because the almost free stuff they get isn't totally free."
Click to expand...

As the Hammonds have STATED numerous times the Bundy's do not speak on behalf of them, they(Bundys) just heard about this and wanted the media attention. So again no affiliation. While talking about tax evasion and people needing the spotlight to capitalize on unfortunate events, what are your thoughts on the "reverend" Al Sharpton. ..last time I checked he hangs out with the President all the time even though he hasn't paid millions in taxes. . .again tit for tat.
 
wadle5 said:
So just for clarification:
They purchased their ranch and grazing rights in 1964 pre-dating the Bureau Of Land Management. When the Hammonds burned their own land to make it more fertile(which is also very common in national/state parks), the BLM charged the father and son with terrorism and sentenced them to prison. When they got out of prison, the government charged them with terrorism again, and has now sentenced them both to 5 years in prison.

And for this reason I don't rely on ndecent's postings. You can only believe so much before you realize sometimes the Government paints a target on you and goes after you with the most b.s. accusations. Case in point have you seen the movie Concussion, or even Making a Murderer. Basically unfit individuals are ruling on behalf of the law and abusing their power.
But go ahead [MENTION=55551]ndcent[/MENTION] keep going with the name calling of these individuals you are really proving your point?

It's a double standard because last time I checked when the EPA messed up the river in Colorado. . not a peep, was said because it was an EPA government employee. If it was a citizen you know they would have come at them guns blazing, string them up, and charge them with every possible standard. It truly is an abuse of power and pretty much they can rule however they want because GASP who would ever challenge these ridiculous entities that are all ruling.

And I somewhat agree with the trolling. You simply copy and paste these politically charged articles, and then see if you can yell louder than others thus you win? It's not really a discussion with you its more of I'm right your wrong, and no constructive contribution is commended, but is actually condemned.
Click to expand...


A. They were never charges with terrorism. Fact.
B. They never claimed to burn the land to make it more fertile.
C. After they were convicted by a jury of their peers (see above), the US District Court Judge did what is called a downward departure, sentencing them to a sentence well below the range of jail time specified by the Congressionally mandated sentencing guidelines. You know, the congressmen that we all elected. The government appealed the sentences, just as the defendants can do. An appeals court ruled that they had to be re-sentenced within the guidelines. By the time the appeals were heard, they had already served their minimal first sentence of a few months, and had been released. So now, with the new sentences, they were out of jail. That's why they had to go back. They were not convicted again. That would be double jeopardy, which is unconstitutional. Both defendants understand the process and don't support the occupiers.
D. The BLM has been around since 1946.
E. The park service doesn't burn land to make it more fertile, since they don't grow crops in national parks.
F. The facts hurt when they don't support your position,particularly
If you are emotionally charged.
G. The EPA fiasco was not an intentional act. You can bet that millions of dollars will be paid out in damages on that, and employees will be severely disciplined, if not fired.
H. People hate the federal government but can't wait to ask for federal money, when storms, fires floods and earthquakes happen.

Espousing volatile opinions when one has their version of the facts completely wrong (Ferguson, MO, anyone?) is a dangerous road to go down. When one has all the knowledge the world has ever known at your fingertips (the Internet, if that helps) it should be easy to discern the factual basis for all this, and to separate opinion and editorial, rumor and innuendo, from facts. It's the rumor and innuendo part that can get people hurt.

Now for the heavy part, these guys have been referred to on the web as "y'all Quaida" and "vanilla Isis". Anybody on here can top that?
 
Wingsuit said:
D. The BLM has been around since 1946.
E. The park service doesn't burn land to make it more fertile, since they don't grow crops in national parks.
F. The facts hurt when they don't support your position,particularly
If you are emotionally charged.
G. The EPA fiasco was not an intentional act. You can bet that millions of dollars will be paid out in damages on that, and employees will be severely disciplined, if not fired.
H. People hate the federal government but can't wait to ask for federal money, when storms, fires floods and earthquakes happen.
Click to expand...
I will just pick a few for now:
The BLM had no unified legislative mandate until Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)

And if you truly don't believe they do controlled burns in national parks than you are completely wrong. For them it is not for crops you are correct, but they do, do controlled burns in our national parks. But apparently its not arson?

Not emotional, just don't care for people that continue to post the same politically charged articles from one sided sites and use that as their baseline. I have given an example of how poorly that plays out. What I don't agree with is the same individual not having a discussion of opinion but a "forced debate" of their conjecture.

Interestingly enough I haven't heard of anything about what came of that EPA agent. . .again if it was a citizen they would have already thrown the book at them without all the facts gathered. . .it seems like there again is a double standard with processing time in public and private matters?

Never once said I hate the federal government. The ideas/rules/laws are great. How it is ruling and the system is being abused I do not agree with. Much like the welfare system it was a great idea, but over time has been abused and misused. And you won't see me asking for money. . if you live near an ocean get flood insurance, if you live on a fault, get earthquake insurance. Don't make the rest of the country pay for the more dangerous location you live in when you rightfully know the consequences of these less stable conditions?
 
Last edited:
Oregon is in the news. Great

If you're planning a revolution the first thing you do is take over a wildlife refuge in the middle of nowhere. In winter. Without extra socks and snacks. On behalf of a local population that doesn't want you there.

Social media is abuzz with their call for "snacks, energy drinks and socks." So much for the long haul.

Rollingstone has a simple version of the event...

WTF is Happening in Oregon

Block the road in. Unplug the press. Leave the black helicopters in the garage.

Total PR stunt that could end badly.
 
wadle5 said:
I will just pick a few for now:
The BLM had no unified legislative mandate until Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)

Not emotional, just don't care for people that continue to post the same politically charged articles from one sided sites and use that as their baseline. I have given an example of how poorly that plays out. What I don't agree with is the same individual not having a discussion of opinion but a "forced debate" of their conjecture.

Interestingly enough I haven't heard of anything about what came of that EPA agent. . .again if it was a citizen they would have already thrown the book at them without all the facts gathered. . .it seems like there again is a double standard with processing time in public and private matters?

Never once said I hate the federal government. The ideas/rules/laws are great. How it is ruling and the system is being abused I do not agree with. Much like the welfare system it was a great idea, but over time has been abused and misused. And you won't see me asking for money. . if you live near an ocean get flood insurance, if you live on a fault, get earthquake insurance. Don't make the rest of the country pay for the more dangerous location you live in when you rightfully know the consequences of these less stable conditions?
Click to expand...


This is too easy. First if all, it wasn't an EPA Agent. EPA Agents are federal investigators, they don't turn valves. Secondly, the assertion that if it was a non guv'ment employee that unleashed all that horrible stuff in error, that person would have been arrested on the spot and somehow railroaded to prison is absurd. The core issue here is easily dissected in a factual manner, which I have done. No cut and paste, just the facts of the case. Like has been said, the two defendants have accepted the outcome and apparently have respect for the law and the process. And they reject those occupiers trying to make this more than it is.
 
Wingsuit said:
Now for the heavy part, these guys have been referred to on the web as "y'all Quaida" and "vanilla Isis". Anybody on here can top that?
Click to expand...

The internet (collective painting with a broad brush) loves to think they're cute marginalizing people by assigning labels and/or calling others catchy names, but I don't like it. These guys are nothing like those terrorist organizations. They're a flea fart in comparison. If the Feds felt they were a dangerous threat, they'd not be running free right now.

That said, I did read where the land rights thing is not isolated to this bunch of people. Turns out, if this article is accurate, several STATES (their legislative officials) have disagreement with the Feds over how and how much land is not in State control. Some have tried legislation (sounded like unsuccessfully) to reclaim control of some of the land from the Feds.

The only difference is, this group has responded more dramatically to being ignored/brushed off by the Feds than the elected officials have. Doesn't make them right, but it sheds light on the fact that, misguided in their actions as they may be, they are not the only ones who feel the Feds are overstepping their bounds.
 
Wingsuit said:
A. They were never charges with terrorism. Fact.
B. They never claimed to burn the land to make it more fertile.
C. After they were convicted by a jury of their peers (see above), the US District Court Judge did what is called a downward departure, sentencing them to a sentence well below the range of jail time specified by the Congressionally mandated sentencing guidelines. You know, the congressmen that we all elected. The government appealed the sentences, just as the defendants can do. An appeals court ruled that they had to be re-sentenced within the guidelines. By the time the appeals were heard, they had already served their minimal first sentence of a few months, and had been released. So now, with the new sentences, they were out of jail. That's why they had to go back. They were not convicted again. That would be double jeopardy, which is unconstitutional. Both defendants understand the process and don't support the occupiers.
D. The BLM has been around since 1946.
E. The park service doesn't burn land to make it more fertile, since they don't grow crops in national parks.
F. The facts hurt when they don't support your position,particularly
If you are emotionally charged.
G. The EPA fiasco was not an intentional act. You can bet that millions of dollars will be paid out in damages on that, and employees will be severely disciplined, if not fired.
H. People hate the federal government but can't wait to ask for federal money, when storms, fires floods and earthquakes happen.

Espousing volatile opinions when one has their version of the facts completely wrong (Ferguson, MO, anyone?) is a dangerous road to go down. When one has all the knowledge the world has ever known at your fingertips (the Internet, if that helps) it should be easy to discern the factual basis for all this, and to separate opinion and editorial, rumor and innuendo, from facts. It's the rumor and innuendo part that can get people hurt.

Now for the heavy part, these guys have been referred to on the web as "y'all Quaida" and "vanilla Isis". Anybody on here can top that?
Click to expand...

"Yeehawdists."
 
ndcent said:
What is an appropriate sentence for arson on Federal property that destroys over 130 acres?
Click to expand...

Sounds like something closer to 1 year, based on the original Judge's ruling after he had heard all of the evidence presented on the case.
 
ndcent said:
What is an appropriate sentence for arson on Federal property that destroys over 130 acres?
Click to expand...


Their sentence was not a mandatory minimum. Here is how it works: some crimes do in fact carry a mandatory minimum sentence. Very serious crimes. Like some career criminal large scale drug trafficking offenses, Murder in the First Degree, etc. everything else is subject to sentencing guidelines, which carry a range of penalties that the sentencing judge must adhere to, unless he/she can articulate a compelling reason not to, in the sentencing decision. The range is computed by the offense convicted of, and other factors, such as leadership role in the crime/organization, prior convictions, use of a minor in the offense, aggravated nature of the crime, willingness to take responsibility, etc. it's actually a big chart in the sentencing guidelines book. If the judge goes under or over the range, he must explain why. If either the defense or prosecution doesn't agree they can appeal. Which is what happened here. Anyone can look up any case on line and read all the decisions by the courts, if so inclined to get to the facts of a matter.
 
ndcent said:
What is an appropriate sentence for arson on Federal property that destroys over 130 acres?
Click to expand...
how much of that 130 acres was there own land? any of it?

also, have you ever seen 130 acres? or a large fire?

130 isn't much, not really, and not in relation to large fires.


this arson charge was just a backdoor way for the feds to get what they want. its BS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 6,844 (members: 1, guests: 6,843)

Forum statistics

Threads
278,315
Messages
3,554,131
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Share this page

Trending content

Back
Top