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

nevada said:
this arson charge was just a backdoor way for the feds to get what they want. its BS.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was getting at. It was the only way they could get their foot in the door to something they have been pursuing for decades.
 
ndcent said:
What is an appropriate sentence for arson on Federal property that destroys over 130 acres?
Click to expand...

Each case's sentencing should be decided by the judge. No need for a mandatory minimum.

I believe it in this case and DRUG OFFENSE CASES. Mandatory minimums are not good for the country.
 
Last edited:
BrianSD_42 said:
I fail to see why ANYONE should be able to pass "grazing rights" which are heavily taxpayer subsidized on to their children.

What is conservative about passing on government subsidized grazing rights onto a persons grandkids?




Agreed. And there is no such thing as "their land", it is Federal Land ... as in MY LAND SINCE I AM A TAXPAYER. It is just as much my land as anyone elses LoL.

The land was acquired from deals with the Indian tribes (possibly shady deals just based on US History) but it is solidly, without a doubt, US Federal Government Property.

It belongs to the taxpayers. People like me and you who pay for the government.

It does not belong to a bunch of Yockels from Nevada or the family in Oregon claiming grazing rights.
Click to expand...
I totally agree, well said.
 
The judge who presided over the case legally reduced the sentence. The Feds didn’t like that the Hammond’s sentence was reduced and appealed to the 9th Circuit Court which allowed for a re-sentencing dismissing the original judge’s sentence.

Hammond Affidavit 12-31-15
 
wadle5 said:
The judge who presided over the case legally reduced the sentence. The Feds didn’t like that the Hammond’s sentence was reduced and appealed to the 9th Circuit Court which allowed for a re-sentencing dismissing the original judge’s sentence.

Hammond Affidavit 12-31-15
Click to expand...


Yes the judge didn't do anything illegal when he gave them the original, lower sentence. And yes, the government disagreed and appealed to the 9th circuit, which is by far the most liberal circuit in the US. Judicial error is not in and of itself illegal. The circuit ruled that the judge erred in the initial sentence.
 
Wingsuit said:
Yes the judge didn't do anything illegal when he gave them the original, lower sentence. And yes, the government disagreed and appealed to the 9th circuit, which is by far the most liberal circuit in the US. Judicial error is not in and of itself illegal. The circuit ruled that the judge erred in the initial sentence.
Click to expand...

So per you:
"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 either the defense or prosecution doesn't agree they can appeal."

So then why is it even necessary for the Judge if they are going to come in and over rule. So the government agreed with the ruling initially and than decided they didn't? Also why wait until they served their term to now challenge the sentencing. Is there no time frame or requirement for the them to overrule the initial ruling?
 
Is you boys postin' from inside the compound? I was lookin' for ya over on the Older Tacoma forums, you the official vehicle of the militias. Soon as I gets my stuff I'll be over. Yeeee haaaaa! Uhh, is there heat and running water in there?
 
wadle5 said:
So per you:
"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 either the defense or prosecution doesn't agree they can appeal."

So then why is it even necessary for the Judge if they are going to come in and over rule. So the government agreed with the ruling initially and than decided they didn't? Also why wait until they served their term to now challenge the sentencing. Is there no time frame or requirement for the them to overrule the initial ruling?
Click to expand...

Seems easy enough, at least to most of us. The government apparently never agreed with the original sentence, or they would not have appealed it. There is a short period to get your appeal in, I wanna say 30 days, might be 60, after the sentence was issued. Chances are the appeal was filed before these guys even showed up for jail the first time. So no one waited till they were out to appeal. Not possible. They served their original jail time while the wheels of justice were slowly turning. By the time the appeals court heard the case, and ruled on it, the guys were out of jail. Seems easy enough, at least to most of us.
 
Wingsuit said:
Seems easy enough, at least to most of us. The government apparently never agreed with the original sentence, or they would not have appealed it. There is a short period to get your appeal in, I wanna say 30 days, might be 60, after the sentence was issued. Chances are the appeal was filed before these guys even showed up for jail the first time. So no one waited till they were out to appeal. Not possible. They served their original jail time while the wheels of justice were slowly turning. By the time the appeals court heard the case, and ruled on it, the guys were out of jail. Seems easy enough, at least to most of us.
Click to expand...

Does this seem easy enough for most of us? So you are implying they did get it submitted in a timely manner, and it just so happened to finally rule when they came out?
You're right it does seem easy enough for most of us? :beer:
 
Last edited:
They have to gotten it in by the deadline or else the court would not have accepted it. Everything is not an evil conspiracy
 
BrianSD_42 said:
I really suggest you guys read the official document published by the US Attorney for Oregon. Linked above.
Click to expand...

Again I think its funny they used his nephew/cousin after the event occurred over 10 years prior, and had a history of mental illness? How is that a solid witness? Again I am just saying it seems a lot like "Making a Murderer". And not all evidence is disclosed and what evidence is shown was tampered. I do not condone arson or poaching. . just to be clear.
 
Logan714 said:
Go shovel up the ashes and plant some new trees. 130 acres is not that much land in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...

Or just let Mother Nature do it. She is much better at rebuilding wilderness than man is. She's very resilient, an expert at what she does after millions of years honing her craft.
 
Logan714 said:
Go shovel up the ashes and plant some new trees. 130 acres is not that much land in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...

Seems to me a 3 month or 1 year prison sentence for arson destroying over 5.5 million square feet of government land is a slap on the wrist.

You and others may disagree, I respect that.
 
ndcent said:
Seems to me a 3 month or 1 year prison sentence for arson destroying over 5.5 million square feet of government land is a slap on the wrist.

You and others may disagree, I respect that.
Click to expand...

The article I posted earlier brings up an interesting point about context. 130 burned acres in the middle of nowhere is pretty insignificant. If it were 130 acres on a chaparral-covered hillside in suburban Southern California with homes everywhere, that's a different story.

Back in 2007 an arsonist started what became known as the Santiago Fire here in Orange County. It was over 28,000 acres. They never caught the person who started it but if they ever do, a harsh sentence would be warranted (IMHO).
 
ndcent said:
Seems to me a 3 month or 1 year prison sentence for arson destroying over 5.5 million square feet of government land is a slap on the wrist.

You and others may disagree, I respect that.
Click to expand...

Who measures land in square feet? Come you are just using that measurement to make is sound more drastic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 4,415 (members: 2, guests: 4,413)

Forum statistics

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

Share this page

Trending content

Back
Top