Oregon Occupation: Protesting A Tyrannical Regime

[9thIDdoc]

he Hammonds were afforded full and comprehensive due process.

They were found guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers, and sentenced in accordance with the law

And they paid their debt to society in full accordance with the law. You don't have a problem with courts adding to a sentence after the fact? You're good with the whole double jeopardy thing without even the benefit of a new trial? Not too big on the concept of justice are you?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I've heard a lot of truly ridiculous conspiracy theories floated on this message board, but the claim that Bureau of Land Management is a "foreign corporation" is one of the most bonkers.

 

[depotoo]

II. Convictions. On June 17, 2010, the government charged the Hammonds in a 19-count indictment with conspiracy, arson and other charges involving numerous range fires occurring in a 24-year period from August 1982 to August 2006. ER-1273. On May 17, 2012, less than 30 days before trial, the government filed a 9-count superseding indictment focusing on four separate fires. SER-137. Steven Hammond had acknowledged starting two of the fires, and those were the fires upon which
the jury returned guilty verdicts. Both petitioners were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1) in connection with a 2001 range fire known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire. Steven Hammond was also convicted of violating § 844(f)(1) because he started a back burn during the 2006 Krumbo Butte Fire. The jury found that neither fire had caused more than $1,000 in damages. ER-35, 41. The Ninth Circuit described the 2006 fire as follows: In August 2006, a lightning storm kindled several fires near where the Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven responded by attempting back burns near the boundary of his land. Although a burn ban was in effect, Steven did not seek a waiver. His fires burned about an acre of public land. App. 3. As for the 2001 fire, there were several facts petitioners had acknowledged at trial: Petitioners had been warned after a 1999 prescribed burn on their private land had spread to public land that they would face serious consequences should a similar event occur again. Id. On September 30, 2001, after the Hammonds and their invited guests finished a day of hunting on their private land, Steven Hammond called the BLM to see if burning was per- mitted. After being told there was no burn ban in effect, he informed the BLM that the Hammonds would be setting a fire on a section of their private
land. ER-234; ER-306. The Hammonds then set a fire intended to burn off invasive species; the fire spread to approximately 139 acres of adjacent public land on the Hardie-Hammond Allotment. ER-287; ER-243; ER-54-64. Some of the circumstances of the 2001 fire were disputed at trial. The government’s main witness on the 2001 fire was Dwight Hammond’s grandson, Dusty Hammond, who asserted that the fire had placed him in physical danger. App. 3. The defense presented substantial evidence contradicting Dusty Hammond’s version of the events. See SER-11-22. At sentencing, the trial judge rejected Dusty’s version of what had happened, based on his age and bias. App. 14. The trial judge found that the 2001 fire had, at most, temporarily damaged sagebrush and that, while those damages might have technically been greater than $100, “mother nature” had remedied any harm. App. 14. The judge’s conclusion was supported by the BLM, which had determined that the 2001 fire improved that portion of the federal land to which the fire spread. ER-305. Having listened to all of the evidence and testimony at trial, the trial court succinctly summarized the basis for the convictions as follows: With regard to the sufficiency of the jury verdicts, they were sufficient. And what happened here, if you analyze this situation, if you listened to the trial as I did and looked
at the pretrial matters, there was a – there were statements that Mr. Steven Hammond had given that indicated he set some fires [after he had been warned about the consequences if they spread], and the jury accepted that for what it was. App. 13. III. District Court’s Sentences. The trial court’s advisory guidelines calculations were undisputed on appeal. The advisory range for Dwight Hammond was 0 to 6 months imprisonment, App. 15; the advisory range for Steven Hammond was 8 to 14 months imprisonment, App. 16. Prior to sentencing, petitioners filed a memorandum seeking less than the five-year mandatory minimum provided for under 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1) on the grounds that such sentences would be disproportionate to their criminal conduct and, thus, would violate the Eighth Amendment. ECF-205. At sentencing, the prosecutor addressed petitioners’ Eighth Amendment argument as follows: Perhaps the best argument, Judge, the defendants have in this case is the proportionality of what they did to what their sentence is. Perhaps that’s the most troubling for the court. It is for the prosecutor who tried the case. . . . * * *
The proportionality issue is one, however, that I think our constitution gives to our courts. Congress has told you what they think the mandatory sentence should be. I have done my job as the prosecutor trying the case and presenting the evidence the best way I could, and now it’s the judiciary’s job to impose a sentence that it thinks just. We have made our recommendation of five years as the statute says. ER-9-10. The court responded to the prosecutor’s comments: [T]he argument [the prosecutor] made on proportionality was highly moral. I appreciate that. ER-18. The trial court concluded that petitioners’ offense conduct was not that contemplated by Congress when it added a five-year mandatory minimum sentence to 18 U.S.C. § 844 under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132 (1996). App. 17. Considering the nature of the arson statute, the purpose of the penalty provision added to that statute, the nature of the conduct underlying the petitioners’ convictions, their personal characteristics, and the advisory guidelines, the trial court indicated that it would not impose the five-year mandatory minimum sentence because “to do so under the Eighth Amendment would result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here.” App. 17.

 

[depotoo]

Hammond v. United States
the above post is from this link.

 

[JQPublic1]

Let's see if I understand the details. They had permission to burn the area. Therefore it was not arson. Still, not only did they serve time in prison for a crime they didn't commit they are now supposed to return to prison because it's been decided the prison term wasn't enough?! Meanwhile, there is government skullduggery involving an elastic definition of "public land"..

And some people can't fathom why anyone would object to this? If this isn't tyranny, what is?

Which crime did they not commit?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You are unable to read English?

It's my mother-tongue, idiot. You made a claim. Onus is on you to back it up.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You claim it's your mother tongue but your comprehension is woefully lacking. They had permission to burn. Arson is the crime they did not commit.

I guess you missed post #32...read it and weep!

 

[depotoo]

I guess you missed post 43/44. Read it and weep.

Let's see if I understand the details. They had permission to burn the area. Therefore it was not arson. Still, not only did they serve time in prison for a crime they didn't commit they are now supposed to return to prison because it's been decided the prison term wasn't enough?! Meanwhile, there is government skullduggery involving an elastic definition of "public land"..

And some people can't fathom why anyone would object to this? If this isn't tyranny, what is?

Which crime did they not commit?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You are unable to read English?

It's my mother-tongue, idiot. You made a claim. Onus is on you to back it up.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You claim it's your mother tongue but your comprehension is woefully lacking. They had permission to burn. Arson is the crime they did not commit.

I guess you missed post #32...read it and weep!

 

[ogibillm]

Let's see if I understand the details. They had permission to burn the area. Therefore it was not arson. Still, not only did they serve time in prison for a crime they didn't commit they are now supposed to return to prison because it's been decided the prison term wasn't enough?! Meanwhile, there is government skullduggery involving an elastic definition of "public land"..

And some people can't fathom why anyone would object to this? If this isn't tyranny, what is?

Which crime did they not commit?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You are unable to read English?

It's my mother-tongue, idiot. You made a claim. Onus is on you to back it up.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You claim it's your mother tongue but your comprehension is woefully lacking. They had permission to burn. Arson is the crime they did not commit.

no, they didn't

 

[ogibillm]

he Hammonds were afforded full and comprehensive due process.

They were found guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers, and sentenced in accordance with the law

And they paid their debt to society in full accordance with the law.

no, they didn't

 

[Hossfly]

I've heard a lot of truly ridiculous conspiracy theories floated on this message board, but the claim that Bureau of Land Management is a "foreign corporation" is one of the most bonkers.

Here's an interesting claim about BLM.

TOTAL LIES BY THE BLM TO STEAL THE BUNDY'S LAND, WHICH BY THE WAY THE BLM IS A FOREIGN OWNED-- ASSET

THe BLM did the same thing to the OX Ranch in the California new York mountains.....I used to live near the ivanpah valley and near the molycorp mine....they had a big waste water pipe blow up and they sent in "the turtle lady" I got to know her and she said the desert tortoise was doing much better around the cows....good food partly digested.......her name was patty......another bit of information that is just something to think about.....on the clean-up of the "radioactive waste" that cost them about 13 million.....I was invited to a BLM and molycorp meeting, at the end they ask if there were any questions.....I questioned why the people cleaning up the waste were storing it in 55 gallon drums right next to the three trailers they were living in if was that dangerous.....typical answer was we will investigate the problem.....a couple days latter clean up was terminated(BLM is actually a sub-corporation of UNITED STATES INCORPORATED, a private foreign owned off-shore corporation since its last incorporation in 1925, copyrighted, trademarked and registered in Puerto Rico).Under the Reorganization Act of Washington District of Columbia, by it's
own private business charter, neither the BLM, nor any other
federal/corporate agency has lawful/legal authority, jurisdiction or
interstate nexus within the 50 state geographical landmass.

Alerts

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I've heard a lot of truly ridiculous conspiracy theories floated on this message board, but the claim that Bureau of Land Management is a "foreign corporation" is one of the most bonkers.

Here's an interesting claim about BLM.

TOTAL LIES BY THE BLM TO STEAL THE BUNDY'S LAND, WHICH BY THE WAY THE BLM IS A FOREIGN OWNED-- ASSET

THe BLM did the same thing to the OX Ranch in the California new York mountains.....I used to live near the ivanpah valley and near the molycorp mine....they had a big waste water pipe blow up and they sent in "the turtle lady" I got to know her and she said the desert tortoise was doing much better around the cows....good food partly digested.......her name was patty......another bit of information that is just something to think about.....on the clean-up of the "radioactive waste" that cost them about 13 million.....I was invited to a BLM and molycorp meeting, at the end they ask if there were any questions.....I questioned why the people cleaning up the waste were storing it in 55 gallon drums right next to the three trailers they were living in if was that dangerous.....typical answer was we will investigate the problem.....a couple days latter clean up was terminated(BLM is actually a sub-corporation of UNITED STATES INCORPORATED, a private foreign owned off-shore corporation since its last incorporation in 1925, copyrighted, trademarked and registered in Puerto Rico).Under the Reorganization Act of Washington District of Columbia, by it's
own private business charter, neither the BLM, nor any other
federal/corporate agency has lawful/legal authority, jurisdiction or
interstate nexus within the 50 state geographical landmass.

Alerts

I know how hard it is for you guys to recognize bullshit, but here's a little lesson for you.

You see that above? That's bullshit.

 

[Hossfly]

I've heard a lot of truly ridiculous conspiracy theories floated on this message board, but the claim that Bureau of Land Management is a "foreign corporation" is one of the most bonkers.

Here's an interesting claim about BLM.

TOTAL LIES BY THE BLM TO STEAL THE BUNDY'S LAND, WHICH BY THE WAY THE BLM IS A FOREIGN OWNED-- ASSET

THe BLM did the same thing to the OX Ranch in the California new York mountains.....I used to live near the ivanpah valley and near the molycorp mine....they had a big waste water pipe blow up and they sent in "the turtle lady" I got to know her and she said the desert tortoise was doing much better around the cows....good food partly digested.......her name was patty......another bit of information that is just something to think about.....on the clean-up of the "radioactive waste" that cost them about 13 million.....I was invited to a BLM and molycorp meeting, at the end they ask if there were any questions.....I questioned why the people cleaning up the waste were storing it in 55 gallon drums right next to the three trailers they were living in if was that dangerous.....typical answer was we will investigate the problem.....a couple days latter clean up was terminated(BLM is actually a sub-corporation of UNITED STATES INCORPORATED, a private foreign owned off-shore corporation since its last incorporation in 1925, copyrighted, trademarked and registered in Puerto Rico).Under the Reorganization Act of Washington District of Columbia, by it's
own private business charter, neither the BLM, nor any other
federal/corporate agency has lawful/legal authority, jurisdiction or
interstate nexus within the 50 state geographical landmass.

Alerts

I know how hard it is for you guys to recognize bullshit, but here's a little lesson for you.

You see that above? That's bullshit.

Are you sure?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I've heard a lot of truly ridiculous conspiracy theories floated on this message board, but the claim that Bureau of Land Management is a "foreign corporation" is one of the most bonkers.

Here's an interesting claim about BLM.

TOTAL LIES BY THE BLM TO STEAL THE BUNDY'S LAND, WHICH BY THE WAY THE BLM IS A FOREIGN OWNED-- ASSET

THe BLM did the same thing to the OX Ranch in the California new York mountains.....I used to live near the ivanpah valley and near the molycorp mine....they had a big waste water pipe blow up and they sent in "the turtle lady" I got to know her and she said the desert tortoise was doing much better around the cows....good food partly digested.......her name was patty......another bit of information that is just something to think about.....on the clean-up of the "radioactive waste" that cost them about 13 million.....I was invited to a BLM and molycorp meeting, at the end they ask if there were any questions.....I questioned why the people cleaning up the waste were storing it in 55 gallon drums right next to the three trailers they were living in if was that dangerous.....typical answer was we will investigate the problem.....a couple days latter clean up was terminated(BLM is actually a sub-corporation of UNITED STATES INCORPORATED, a private foreign owned off-shore corporation since its last incorporation in 1925, copyrighted, trademarked and registered in Puerto Rico).Under the Reorganization Act of Washington District of Columbia, by it's
own private business charter, neither the BLM, nor any other
federal/corporate agency has lawful/legal authority, jurisdiction or
interstate nexus within the 50 state geographical landmass.

Alerts

I know how hard it is for you guys to recognize bullshit, but here's a little lesson for you.

You see that above? That's bullshit.

Are you sure?

Yes, as is anyone else with functioning cognitive faculties.

Do you believe everything you read on the internet? I've seen some good deals on bridges.

 

[Hossfly]

I've heard a lot of truly ridiculous conspiracy theories floated on this message board, but the claim that Bureau of Land Management is a "foreign corporation" is one of the most bonkers.

Here's an interesting claim about BLM.

TOTAL LIES BY THE BLM TO STEAL THE BUNDY'S LAND, WHICH BY THE WAY THE BLM IS A FOREIGN OWNED-- ASSET

THe BLM did the same thing to the OX Ranch in the California new York mountains.....I used to live near the ivanpah valley and near the molycorp mine....they had a big waste water pipe blow up and they sent in "the turtle lady" I got to know her and she said the desert tortoise was doing much better around the cows....good food partly digested.......her name was patty......another bit of information that is just something to think about.....on the clean-up of the "radioactive waste" that cost them about 13 million.....I was invited to a BLM and molycorp meeting, at the end they ask if there were any questions.....I questioned why the people cleaning up the waste were storing it in 55 gallon drums right next to the three trailers they were living in if was that dangerous.....typical answer was we will investigate the problem.....a couple days latter clean up was terminated(BLM is actually a sub-corporation of UNITED STATES INCORPORATED, a private foreign owned off-shore corporation since its last incorporation in 1925, copyrighted, trademarked and registered in Puerto Rico).Under the Reorganization Act of Washington District of Columbia, by it's
own private business charter, neither the BLM, nor any other
federal/corporate agency has lawful/legal authority, jurisdiction or
interstate nexus within the 50 state geographical landmass.

Alerts

I know how hard it is for you guys to recognize bullshit, but here's a little lesson for you.

You see that above? That's bullshit.

Are you sure?

Yes, as is anyone else with functioning cognitive faculties.

Do you believe everything you read on the internet? I've seen some good deals on bridges.

"All I know is what I read on the Internet"
~~Mark Twain

 

[Compost]

Let's see if I understand the details. They had permission to burn the area. Therefore it was not arson. Still, not only did they serve time in prison for a crime they didn't commit they are now supposed to return to prison because it's been decided the prison term wasn't enough?! Meanwhile, there is government skullduggery involving an elastic definition of "public land"..

And some people can't fathom why anyone would object to this? If this isn't tyranny, what is?

Which crime did they not commit?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You are unable to read English?

It's my mother-tongue, idiot. You made a claim. Onus is on you to back it up.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You claim it's your mother tongue but your comprehension is woefully lacking. They had permission to burn. Arson is the crime they did not commit.

I guess you missed post #32...read it and weep!

Thank you, JQP. I have read post 32. I see no reason to weep. I'm glad to get more information on this. What went on is not clear- not all the versions tally. Obviously something outrageous happened to cause men to take over a fed building in protest. I intend to follow this story and hopefully learn more.

 

[JQPublic1]

I've heard a lot of truly ridiculous conspiracy theories floated on this message board, but the claim that Bureau of Land Management is a "foreign corporation" is one of the most bonkers.

Here's an interesting claim about BLM.

TOTAL LIES BY THE BLM TO STEAL THE BUNDY'S LAND, WHICH BY THE WAY THE BLM IS A FOREIGN OWNED-- ASSET

THe BLM did the same thing to the OX Ranch in the California new York mountains.....I used to live near the ivanpah valley and near the molycorp mine....they had a big waste water pipe blow up and they sent in "the turtle lady" I got to know her and she said the desert tortoise was doing much better around the cows....good food partly digested.......her name was patty......another bit of information that is just something to think about.....on the clean-up of the "radioactive waste" that cost them about 13 million.....I was invited to a BLM and molycorp meeting, at the end they ask if there were any questions.....I questioned why the people cleaning up the waste were storing it in 55 gallon drums right next to the three trailers they were living in if was that dangerous.....typical answer was we will investigate the problem.....a couple days latter clean up was terminated(BLM is actually a sub-corporation of UNITED STATES INCORPORATED, a private foreign owned off-shore corporation since its last incorporation in 1925, copyrighted, trademarked and registered in Puerto Rico).Under the Reorganization Act of Washington District of Columbia, by it's
own private business charter, neither the BLM, nor any other
federal/corporate agency has lawful/legal authority, jurisdiction or
interstate nexus within the 50 state geographical landmass.

Alerts

I can't call you a liar because you really believe BLM is owned by foreigners. Here is a reality check for you. BLM didn't even exist until 1946. Where did you get that 1925 date from? BTW, BLM was a Harry S. Truman initiative, not that of the queen of England or winston Churchill.

 

[ogibillm]

Which crime did they not commit?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You are unable to read English?

It's my mother-tongue, idiot. You made a claim. Onus is on you to back it up.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You claim it's your mother tongue but your comprehension is woefully lacking. They had permission to burn. Arson is the crime they did not commit.

I guess you missed post #32...read it and weep!

Thank you, JQP. I have read post 32. I see no reason to weep. I'm glad to get more information on this. What went on is not clear- not all the versions tally. Obviously something outrageous happened to cause men to take over a fed building in protest. I intend to follow this story and hopefully learn more.

crazy people doing crazy things isn't evidence something actually happened

 

[Compost]

You are unable to read English?

It's my mother-tongue, idiot. You made a claim. Onus is on you to back it up.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You claim it's your mother tongue but your comprehension is woefully lacking. They had permission to burn. Arson is the crime they did not commit.

I guess you missed post #32...read it and weep!

Thank you, JQP. I have read post 32. I see no reason to weep. I'm glad to get more information on this. What went on is not clear- not all the versions tally. Obviously something outrageous happened to cause men to take over a fed building in protest. I intend to follow this story and hopefully learn more.

crazy people doing crazy things isn't evidence something actually happened

Of course not. However, crazy people doing crazy things is something happening.

 

[miketx]

Which tyrannical regime are they protesting?

The one the libtard collective voted for, of which you are a card carrying member.

 

[ogibillm]

It's my mother-tongue, idiot. You made a claim. Onus is on you to back it up.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You claim it's your mother tongue but your comprehension is woefully lacking. They had permission to burn. Arson is the crime they did not commit.

I guess you missed post #32...read it and weep!

Thank you, JQP. I have read post 32. I see no reason to weep. I'm glad to get more information on this. What went on is not clear- not all the versions tally. Obviously something outrageous happened to cause men to take over a fed building in protest. I intend to follow this story and hopefully learn more.

crazy people doing crazy things isn't evidence something actually happened

Of course not. However, crazy people doing crazy things is something happening.

Yes, but it doesn't mean their reasons are valid

 

[Moonglow]

Which tyrannical regime are they protesting?

The one the libtard collective voted for, of which you are a card carrying member.

I'm not a libertarian..