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

I'm glad you wrote that last post NW_P. I'll be looking into those articles on militia later, as those are not my focus here and I'm not myself party to any such organization.

Looking at this link you posted earlier, http://kval.com/news/local/backgrou...ases-on-hammond-case-in-october-december
It becomes clear that my sources on these events have been wrong on some statements. These include the terrorist claim.
I still have doubts about the justice here. Way back, 45 years ago, I worked at a dairy farm that was completely destroyed by fire. It was a wooden building with up to 50 tons of dry hay stored above the cows.
After the fired had burned out, the bodies of those cows were still individual and holding up as separate carcases. Had any forensic personell wanted to check them for bullets to see if they were shot before burned, that would have been entirely possible.
Therefore I still don't believe it is possible to illegally shoot a bunch of deer and cover up the crime with a grassfire. The bodies would still be there. So when the verdict says that evidence was destroyed in the fire, they either didn't look or the Hammonds were convicted on testimony, not evidence.
The other thing is the lighting of fire to one's own land to create a barrier of burnt land to stop a wild fire, it can not be crime. Failing with that prospect is misfortunate, but shall it in all fairness be deemed a crime?
I still argue that an administered and served sentence, although wrongly shortened by the court should not be able to come back and haunt the those who served the time. It should haunt those who served the sentence.

The OJ. Simpson case has left us with a lot of question marks regarding American justice.

You got more bad info, bigswede... there are many layers of burning restrictions promulgated and enforced by municipal, county, state, and federal governments. And there is no exemption from liability for irresponsibly allowing a fire that you start on your own land that spreads to neighboring properties.

Where did you get the idea that the Hammonds were trying to create a barrier of burnt land, anyway? That sort of action is technical in nature and requires a good bit of manpower and equipment to safely manage - you don't just start throwing matches around. Your boys are clearly scoundrels, I don't see why you feel the need to defend them so.

Some of that testimony came from the nephew, a minor at the time, who helped set the fires as ordered by his uncle. During the animal burn fires, son Steven Hammond (defendant) was observed in the area by aircraft and even firefighters working in the area. I'd see that as pretty compelling testimony to a jury.

During the time the fires were set there were firefighters working in the area and were put at risk because of the Hammonds criminal activity. There was a ban on open fires at the time due to the existing dangerous wildfire situation. As you know, for safety reasons, the city, county, state or federal gov't can and does limit open fires within their jurisdictions, even on your own land. These common sense laws or ordinances, for the protection of other property owners are necessary because of the ignorant folks who believe they are above the law or jurisdiction where they live. You have no right to put your neighbors life or property at risk.

Even if they believed they were justified in attempting a controlled burn on their own property, the fire was no longer "controlled" when it spread to the wildlife preserve. It is obvious to the rational person (or jurist), looking at the past actions of these defendants going back to 1994 that they had no regard for BLM personnel, intended to cause damage to the preserve and risk the lives of firefighters and BLM personnel. They, as you seem to be advocating, think they can play patty fingers with the law. Good luck with that.

I'd say the evidence must have been pretty compelling to the jury no matter if it was indeed testimony. The first judge made an error in sentencing and that's his bad. The mandatory minimum sentence was the law of the land at the time, it should and did prevail.

As a point of clarification, the Hammonds' fires had nothing to do with the game refuge, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages it.

The Bureau of Land Management manages other lands.

The "protesters" occupied the wrong property, if they wanted to pick a bone with the BLM.

Yes, the testimonies given by different people must have been compelling. Why the would the Attorneys office say evidence was destroyed?
The sentencing judge made an illegal sentencing. The illegality of it was per the American people, not the Hammonds. If there should be a correction towards the American people it should be the judge on trial.

The Hardie fire in 2001 during an illegal hunting expedition occurred on BLM land. The 2006 Kumbo Butte fire was started adjacent to the Malhuer Preserve on federal land. Perhaps FWS mgmt. I'm not clear yet. The confrontations and some witnesses were Federal agents.

The Hammonds have been yanking the chains of the Feds for a long time. They got much less than they deserve.

They said the fire was started in an attempt to conceal or destroy evidence of the illegal hunting expedition..... You are mincing words.

The first judge was trying to go easy on the Hammonds, the Feds stepped in a cried foul. The Hammonds knew what the cost of their folly could be, they chose to ignore it.

Yeah, they said it was started for the purpose of destroying evidence. The evidence must have still been there to gather to make a strong case. But they didn't Why not?
The Hammonds had already served the time sentenced upon them when the feds cried foul. That foul was made by their own people, the state in general. That's where they should have looked for people to punish, if they wanted to preserve the citizens faith in the judicial system.
No, lets punish the already punished guys instead. That's much easier!

There are some things about this case that just chafes my sense of right and wrong.

let me point out you have been duped by liberal lies and propaganda hook line etc etc

see how easy it is to refute your comments

i suspect you have to enter the mind of a sovereign citizen as a sovereign citizen and argue how correct the world view is and how wrong everyone else is .... o but then you would have confirmed the "bias"

ultimately the solution is not to engage in discussion. There is no amount of factual data, common sense interpretations to provide a chink in any argument presented. They will begin a long never ending series of deflections at no point admitting anything presented by you is factual or valid or even possibly true.

The only use for such encounters is a review of one's position ... is it valid? have you missed something worth considering? etc

While my senses would not be offended if the first judge received some sort of reprimand, the fact remains that the law indeed says the minimum sentence is 5 years apiece and they are out nothing more than the preferential treatment originally received in error. They knew what the federal sentence should have been when they committed the crime.

The Hammonds, to their credit, went knowingly and voluntarily back to jail and further, they denounced the actions of the Bundy group in holding a standoff at Malhuer.

The Hammonds have had a history of interfering with federal employees going back to 1994. They have been handled with kid gloves which only served to embolden them to push the envelope to the next level of criminality.

I hope this will not be the case with the Bundy clan who also have acted egregiously against federal authorities in Nevada and Oregon.