Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Legal Forum Let's check in on the cattle abusers, deadbeat grazers, wildlife squatter Bundys

That fire was began to cover-up the Hammond's poaching.

I was about to post this: Background: US Attorney issued press releases on Hammond case in October, December, when you posted yours. Just for additional citation of the legal situation. As I said, I can certainly appreciate the U.S. Attorney's legal position. What I was unaware of was that the Hammonds were aware of the minimum sentence, and rejected a plea deal. I was also unaware of where the "terrorism" charge came from, but now I know it was not "the gubmint" that made the accusation. Again, surreality trumps reality (i.e., facts).

I am beginning to think that bigswede is an AI program that can only engage in a limited manner with pre-set responses.

Indeed, surreality trumps facts is the way it appears for SovCits who play loosey, goosey, with facts because they're so caught up with rumor and innuendo - or, simply make up their own facts.

I believe the mandatory minimum sentence law came from Conservatives wishing to be really strict with either the ELF folks, or the PETA folks back in the 1980's. There was a mindset then about making sure certain illegal actions got sufficient punishment to satisfy the politicians that retribution was achieved. Pot possession also was a target for mandatory minimums overruling the courts' discretion.

Both ELF and PETA were being popularly labeled as domestic terrorist groups at the time.

I'm going to directly challenge several of your claims here, bigswede, as they are directly contradicted by facts.

First, the Hammonds were not convicted of "accidentally spread(ing a) fire" - they were convicted of arson (i.e., a deliberately set fire).

Second, they were not charged with "a domestic act of terrorism." That is a misinterpretation of the law spread by apologists (whether deliberate or not is immaterial). They get there by conflating/confusing the ominibus bill with the specific provisions of the criminal statutes. The Hammonds, as I noted, were convicted of plain old arson.

Third, the claim that "the BLM people burn that land on a regular basis" (emphasis added) is obfuscation at best or prevarication. Initially, as you have previously acknowledged, the BLM owns that land - and as the land owner, gets to control its own property (whether that is in the interest of your argument or not, you can't change that assertion). Additionally, "that land" is deliberately not specific, as the BLM administers more than 247.3 million acres (1,001,000 km2) of public lands in the United States. Finally, the BLM's burns are controlled and specific. In this case, the Hammonds scorched thousands of acres of public lands to cover up their other crimes.

Finally, the assertion that "They even said the fire was helpful in keeping unwanted weeds down" is an outright lie. What is your source for this claim? (I know, but I'll let you try to excuse it.)

You're correct Loggy: US Federal Sentencing Guidelines


It's seems, to me, this was a dIckish move that Bill Clinton would have done as well.

I certainly never made that assertion. You made the claim that the founders had a view of property rights that was at odds with the historical record. I was trying to correct that error by demonstrating that their view of property contradicted your assertion by many, many decades (centuries, even). Locke, while an influence on the thinking of many founders, was not the source for the Constitution, nor the arbiter of property rights in the United States.

I'll even note this from a legal standpoint: I was involved for many years in "drug forfeiture" enforcement. What that means is taking away property that is used or obtained in the commission of drug distribution enterprises. During the course of that process, I did extensive research in the legal history and precedents in "forfeiture law." The American legal process is a direct descendant of British Common Law. Land "ownership", as I described it, was the basis for all American laws on the subject and proceeds from the premise that land grants are given by the sovereign (the government), on behalf of the people, to individuals. It has been that way since before the Magna Carta in 1215.

Now, I fully appreciate the "theory" of property ownership you've proposed and as explicated by other thinkers, but I will not concede that those theories inform our legal system.

I honestly don't have a clue what was intended by that paragraph. Do I dare ask you to explain?

Of Ranchers And Rancor: The Roots Of The Armed Occupation In Oregon. This is a pretty good, and relatively short, encapsulation of the roots of the conflict.