Assholes making trouble in Oregon

[Brain357]

Why are you supporting criminals? Just because they are rich and white?

If someone is given a ticket for jay walking, pays the fine, and goes on with life; you support the feds throwing them in prison for 10 years with the claim that the fine was insufficient?

You Communists are some evil *****.

In the free nation that you fight so hard to destroy, once the sentence was complete, the debt to society was paid.

Now you scum view people as property of the state, to be disposed of as the rulers of the state see fit, so the concept of rights is one you simply cannot grasp.

There are min sentence laws that weren't followed. Guess they shouldn't have chosen to be criminals.

 

[Brain357]

The FBI is wasting time on these turds that could be spent finding terrorists. Schools were shut down. Why they need guns? Other protests don't.

Do you think Lord Obama should order a drone strike on them?

I hope it ends with nobody being hurt.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There are min sentence laws that weren't followed. Guess they shouldn't have chosen to be criminals.

That was the decision of the judge, who has the power to do so, The most the regime can constitutionally do is censure the original judges. Putting people in prison after the fact is double jeopardy.

The Hammond's are being put in jeopardy a second time for the same crime. The is terrorism perpetrated by the federal government.

 

[Skylar]

And as Pollard demonstrates, if the sentencing court is in error by a higher court, those convicted can be called back to serve their correct sentences.

No, you're a stupid **** with no idea what you are talking about. Pollard was released on parole, the parole was revoked.

Pollard was found to have been sentenced in error by an appellant court. He was sentenced to a suspended sentenced and 3 years probation. The appealant court found that the sentence was in error and overturned the sentence, insisting that Pollard had to serve his full term in jail in accordance to the statutory sentencing requirements.

Something you insist they could never do under your comic misunderstanding of double jeapordy. But something the USSC found perfectly constitutional. As applying the *correct* sentencing requirements per the law is something the appellant court can do.

Which is *exactly* what the appellant court did with Hammond. Finding that the lower court had not applied the proper sentencing requirements. They overturned the sentence, insisting the Hammonds had to serve the full term in prison in accordance with the statutory re sentencing requirements.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Which is exactly what happened in Pollard. And exactly what happened in Hammond. As usual, you ignore the law and the supreme court....and just make up whatever hapless pseudo-legal batshit you wish.

Laughing.....how's that working out for you?

So the Hammond's were on parole, retard?

Um, shit-stain...even the Hammond's themselves aren't arguing that the resentencing is double jeopardy. But that the longer sentence was 'cruel and unusual punishment'. The only person making this claim is you, citing yourself. And you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

And yet, in your ignorance you insist that *you* know the law better than BOTH the Supreme Court and the 9th circuit court of appeals?

With the Hammond's both in federal prison, how's you citing you working out for you, dipshit?

 

[Brain357]

There are min sentence laws that weren't followed. Guess they shouldn't have chosen to be criminals.

That was the decision of the judge, who has the power to do so, The most the regime can constitutionally do is censure the original judges. Putting people in prison after the fact is double jeopardy.

The Hammond's are being put in jeopardy a second time for the same crime. The is terrorism perpetrated by the federal government.

It is obviously legal. They shouldn't have chosen to be criminals. Stop supporting criminals.

 

[Camp]

Why are you supporting criminals? Just because they are rich and white?

If someone is given a ticket for jay walking, pays the fine, and goes on with life; you support the feds throwing them in prison for 10 years with the claim that the fine was insufficient?

You Communists are some evil *****.

In the free nation that you fight so hard to destroy, once the sentence was complete, the debt to society was paid.

Now you scum view people as property of the state, to be disposed of as the rulers of the state see fit, so the concept of rights is one you simply cannot grasp.

There are min sentence laws that weren't followed. Guess they shouldn't have chosen to be criminals.

Nothing having to do with that court case or those convicted gives anyone the right to take over a public facility at the point of a gun. Some random criminals have taken over property owned and paid for by American taxpayers and are riding around in and on vehicles owned by taxpayers and living in facilities owned by taxpayers. They are doing it not by invitation or with permission. They are doing it by force of arms and the threat of violence. They need to be put into jail cells when and if this can be ended without violence.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Pollard was found to have been sentenced in error by an appellant court. He was sentenced to a suspended sentenced and 3 years probation. The appealant court found that the sentence was in error and overturned the sentence, insisting that Pollard had to serve his full term in jail in accordance to the statutory sentencing requirements.

Are you lying, or just stupid?

Pollard was legally incarcerated. Parole is the condition of being in the custody of the state. Pollard was not free, the Hammods were.

The Hammond's are being placed in jeopardy of life and limb a second time for the same crime.

Something you insist they could never do under your comic misunderstanding of double jeapordy.

But something the USSC found perfectly constitutional. As applying the *correct* sentencing requirements per the law is something the appellant court can do.

Which is *exactly* what the appellant court did with Hammond. Finding that the lower court had not applied the proper sentencing requirements. They overturned the sentence, insisting the Hammonds had to serve the full term in prison in accordance with the statutory re sentencing requirements.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Which is exactly what happened in Pollard. And exactly what happened in Hammond. As usual, you ignore the law and the supreme court....and just make up whatever hapless pseudo-legal batshit you wish.

Laughing.....how's that working out for you?

So the Hammond's were on parole, retard?

[/quote]
Um, shit-stain...even the Hammond's themselves aren't arguing that the resentencing is double jeopardy. But that the longer sentence was 'cruel and unusual punishment'. The only person making this claim is you, citing yourself. And you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

And yet, in your ignorance you insist that *you* know the law better than BOTH the Supreme Court and the 9th circuit court of appeals?

With the Hammond's both in federal prison, how's you citing you working out for you, dipshit?[/QUOTE]

Again, you have no ******* clue what your talking about.

I suspect that the SCOTUS will overturn the travesty of Obama's pet 9th - provided the current ration of 5 constitutionalists remains to the 4 leftists.

 

[Skylar]

There are min sentence laws that weren't followed. Guess they shouldn't have chosen to be criminals.

That was the decision of the judge, who has the power to do so, The most the regime can constitutionally do is censure the original judges. Putting people in prison after the fact is double jeopardy.

Again, higher courts can overturn the sentences of lower courts if they find those courts sentence wasn't in accordance with the statutory sentencing requirements.

In Pollard v. US, Pollard was sentenced to a suspended sentence and 3 years probation. A higher court overturned that sentence and sentenced him instead to a prison term. Which the USSC found perfectly constitutional.

If a higher court can't overturn a sentence of a lower court....how did this happen in Pollard?

Simple: You don't know what the **** you're talking about.

The Hammond's are being put in jeopardy a second time for the same crime. The is terrorism perpetrated by the federal government.

Even the Hammonds aren't arguing double jeaprody. You're just offering us your imagination of what you think the law is, and seem confused that the courts are following the actual law rather than your pseudo-legal gibberish.

Get used to being confused.

 

[Camp]

And as Pollard demonstrates, if the sentencing court is in error by a higher court, those convicted can be called back to serve their correct sentences.

No, you're a stupid **** with no idea what you are talking about. Pollard was released on parole, the parole was revoked.

Pollard was found to have been sentenced in error by an appellant court. He was sentenced to a suspended sentenced and 3 years probation. The appealant court found that the sentence was in error and overturned the sentence, insisting that Pollard had to serve his full term in jail in accordance to the statutory sentencing requirements.

Something you insist they could never do under your comic misunderstanding of double jeapordy. But something the USSC found perfectly constitutional. As applying the *correct* sentencing requirements per the law is something the appellant court can do.

Which is *exactly* what the appellant court did with Hammond. Finding that the lower court had not applied the proper sentencing requirements. They overturned the sentence, insisting the Hammonds had to serve the full term in prison in accordance with the statutory re sentencing requirements.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Which is exactly what happened in Pollard. And exactly what happened in Hammond. As usual, you ignore the law and the supreme court....and just make up whatever hapless pseudo-legal batshit you wish.

Laughing.....how's that working out for you?

So the Hammond's were on parole, retard?

Um, shit-stain...even the Hammond's themselves aren't arguing that the resentencing is double jeopardy. But that the longer sentence was 'cruel and unusual punishment'. The only person making this claim is you, citing yourself. And you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

And yet, in your ignorance you insist that *you* know the law better than BOTH the Supreme Court and the 9th circuit court of appeals?

With the Hammond's both in federal prison, how's you citing you working out for you, dipshit?

A little drawn out and long, but an impressive ***** slap.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Again, higher courts can overturn the sentences of lower courts if they find those courts sentence wasn't in accordance with the statutory sentencing requirements.

In Pollard v. US, Pollard was sentenced to a suspended sentence and 3 years probation. A higher court overturned that sentence and sentenced him instead to a prison term. Which the USSC found perfectly constitutional.

If a higher court can't overturn a sentence of a lower court....how did this happen in Pollard?

Simple: You don't know what the **** you're talking about.

AGAIN retard, Pollard was still a prisoner. The SCOTUS upheld reversing the SUSPENSION of the sentence he was serving.

I don't know if you're lying or really this stupid. Either way, you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

Pollard was found to have been sentenced in error by an appellant court. He was sentenced to a suspended sentenced and 3 years probation. The appealant court found that the sentence was in error and overturned the sentence, insisting that Pollard had to serve his full term in jail in accordance to the statutory sentencing requirements.

Are you lying, or just stupid?

Pollard was legally incarcerated. Parole is the condition of being in the custody of the state. Pollard was not free, the Hammods were.

Pollard was sentenced to a suspended sentence and 3 years probation. That sentence was overturned by a higher court. Something you insist a higher court can't do. But the USSC found to be perfectly constitutional.

As the USSC, the 9th circuit court of appeal, and the Hammond's actually being in prison demonstrate......you're ******* clueless. And your pseudo-legal gibberish has no relevance to the outcome of any case.

I suspect that the SCOTUS will overturn the travesty of Obama's pet 9th - provided the current ration of 5 constitutionalists remains to the 4 leftists.

The USSC already turned down Hammond's appeal of the 9th circuit court ruiling . Demostrating that 'what you suspect' means jack shit, as you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A little drawn out and long, but an impressive ***** slap.

I take it you would support a situation where a man in his 20's was convicted of shoplifting, given 6 months in prison, then released. 30 years later he protests against an action by Obama, so a federal judge orders him to 10 years of prison on the shoplifting charge, arguing the original sentence was too light?

Is this what you of the left see as the "brave new world?"

If so, the Bundy is correct and we no longer are a nation of law.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

These guys masquerade a “patriot” groups but there is nothing patriotic about treason and armed rebellion. These guys aren’t champions of liberty. They’re champions of free stuff for themselves, and that free stuff happens to be other peoples’ property, whether Native tribes or the American people: you and me.

 

[Camp]

A little drawn out and long, but an impressive ***** slap.

I take it you would support a situation where a man in his 20's was convicted of shoplifting, given 6 months in prison, then released. 30 years later he protests against an action by Obama, so a federal judge orders him to 10 years of prison on the shoplifting charge, arguing the original sentence was too light?

Is this what you of the left see as the "brave new world?"

If so, the Bundy is correct and we no longer are a nation of law.

You are distorting and misrepresenting the case being discussed. You want it to be something it is not. Whether you or I agree or not in regards to the fairness of the case and sentencing is irrelevant to the situation where armed thugs have taken over taxpayer-owned property at the point of a gun and threat of violence. You are for domestic terrorism or against it, that is what the topic narrows down to.

 

[Tilly]

Stupid ass. This is not about Waco, this is about a bunch of outsiders that are not wanted and are causing trouble.

Infidels who fail to bow to the living god you worship.

So can you get Reno out their to kill them and their families?

they think they can come in with their arsenal, and bully the whole community, and the US Government, as well. They need to spend major time in the iron bar hotel.

I thought you wanted to slaughter them all? These are white people. Isn't it the policy of the democratic - socialist party that whites should be killed on sight? Remember, white lives don't matter.

And he's lying. The locals don't mind them there. The locals are thrilled that FINALLY their situation is getting some attention.

That is incorrect. Do you have a LINK to support your claim? Even the Hanmond family reject these assholes.

Oregon ranchers reject Cliven Bundy family occupation

On their lawyers advice, of course.

 

[bodecea]

A little drawn out and long, but an impressive ***** slap.

I take it you would support a situation where a man in his 20's was convicted of shoplifting, given 6 months in prison, then released. 30 years later he protests against an action by Obama, so a federal judge orders him to 10 years of prison on the shoplifting charge, arguing the original sentence was too light?

Is this what you of the left see as the "brave new world?"

If so, the Bundy is correct and we no longer are a nation of law.

You still haven't learned about accurate analogies, have you?

 

[bodecea]

Stupid ass. This is not about Waco, this is about a bunch of outsiders that are not wanted and are causing trouble.

Infidels who fail to bow to the living god you worship.

So can you get Reno out their to kill them and their families?

they think they can come in with their arsenal, and bully the whole community, and the US Government, as well. They need to spend major time in the iron bar hotel.

I thought you wanted to slaughter them all? These are white people. Isn't it the policy of the democratic - socialist party that whites should be killed on sight? Remember, white lives don't matter.

And he's lying. The locals don't mind them there. The locals are thrilled that FINALLY their situation is getting some attention.

That is incorrect. Do you have a LINK to support your claim? Even the Hanmond family reject these assholes.

Oregon ranchers reject Cliven Bundy family occupation

On their lawyers advice, of course.

So, their lawyers are in on it too?

 

[Tilly]

A little drawn out and long, but an impressive ***** slap.

I take it you would support a situation where a man in his 20's was convicted of shoplifting, given 6 months in prison, then released. 30 years later he protests against an action by Obama, so a federal judge orders him to 10 years of prison on the shoplifting charge, arguing the original sentence was too light?

Is this what you of the left see as the "brave new world?"

If so, the Bundy is correct and we no longer are a nation of law.

You are distorting and misrepresenting the case being discussed. You want it to be something it is not. Whether you or I agree or not in regards to the fairness of the case and sentencing is irrelevant to the situation where armed thugs have taken over taxpayer-owned property at the point of a gun and threat of violence. You are for domestic terrorism or against it, that is what the topic narrows down to.

At the point of a gun? The buildings were empty of people.

 

[Seawytch]

A little drawn out and long, but an impressive ***** slap.

I take it you would support a situation where a man in his 20's was convicted of shoplifting, given 6 months in prison, then released. 30 years later he protests against an action by Obama, so a federal judge orders him to 10 years of prison on the shoplifting charge, arguing the original sentence was too light?

Is this what you of the left see as the "brave new world?"

If so, the Bundy is correct and we no longer are a nation of law.

You are distorting and misrepresenting the case being discussed. You want it to be something it is not. Whether you or I agree or not in regards to the fairness of the case and sentencing is irrelevant to the situation where armed thugs have taken over taxpayer-owned property at the point of a gun and threat of violence. You are for domestic terrorism or against it, that is what the topic narrows down to.

At the point of a gun? The buildings were empty of people.

Are you denying that these yokels are armed?

 

[koshergrl]

Stupid ass. This is not about Waco, this is about a bunch of outsiders that are not wanted and are causing trouble.

Infidels who fail to bow to the living god you worship.

So can you get Reno out their to kill them and their families?

they think they can come in with their arsenal, and bully the whole community, and the US Government, as well. They need to spend major time in the iron bar hotel.

I thought you wanted to slaughter them all? These are white people. Isn't it the policy of the democratic - socialist party that whites should be killed on sight? Remember, white lives don't matter.

And he's lying. The locals don't mind them there. The locals are thrilled that FINALLY their situation is getting some attention.

That is incorrect. Do you have a LINK to support your claim? Even the Hanmond family reject these assholes.

Oregon ranchers reject Cliven Bundy family occupation

On their lawyers advice, of course.

Their "rejection" was simply a statement that he didn't speak for them.