If they didn't light a fire they wouldn't be charged. ..
This is gonna get interesting! Militia takes over Ore. federal building after protest.
- Thread starter Uncle Ben
- Start date
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Had they gotten the permits too, they would've been fine. The US Attorney even said, “Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison. These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.”
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
odd ball, this might be the first thing we agree on.your analogy is spot on. there are different rules for parents and kids. it's how it is and there is no argument.
i'm just amazed that the hammonds admit it, and want to finish the sentence and be done with this but these teabaggers will have none of that. in other countries, they would have been mowed down by 50 cal incoming and this would be settled in 10 minutes or less.
bravedave
Well-Known Member
For all you arm-chair lawyers and con-law professors...
Again, the judge in this case who was privy to ALL of the Hammond's deeds and misdeeds, past and present, with a background in the case and the laws surrounding it, is quoted in court documents saying:
Does not sound like someone sentencing a poacher/arsonist/terrorist now does it? So who again knows more about it than the judge or even the prosecutor, who had no qualms with the judge's sentence?
Again, the judge in this case who was privy to ALL of the Hammond's deeds and misdeeds, past and present, with a background in the case and the laws surrounding it, is quoted in court documents saying:
Does not sound like someone sentencing a poacher/arsonist/terrorist now does it? So who again knows more about it than the judge or even the prosecutor, who had no qualms with the judge's sentence?
bravedave
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Dave has a way of saying things such that I want to disagree with him even when he says something I agree with. I guess I'm biased against him. Sorry for that. So he's not a total jackass but...
The federal judge that refused to sentence the Hammonds for five years had probably seen it all during his tenure and he didn't see the justice in these long terms. They committed arson and are serving time for this, way too long a sentence in my opinion and in the opinion of that judge. The thing is, they committed the crime when this law was in place. Those stupid minimum sentencing guidelines were written by politicians (Bob Dole, specifically) and the laws were passed by 91 to 6 vote in the Senate. On an ironic side note, two of the "no" votes were from Republican Senators from Oregon. If you don't like the law, get it changed. If you do violate that law (twice, by the way), don't expect less than what the law requires. Duh.
From what I've read, the Hammonds have not had their last day in court over this and they have a good argument.
So, change the law and find a way to set aside that sentence.
One Oregon lawyer said that the Hammonds have a better case than the gunmen occupying the buildings in the wildlife refuge will have once they go to trial.
Last edited:
londonfog
Well-Known Member
you actually did use public schools too...your kids did as well. I'm sure there is a whole lot you have used that you now bitch about.
I don't think they shoot you for not paying your property taxes, but were you not aware of this tax before you purchased your property ? I would suggest that you go to your public school and volunteer, that way you can see how your money is being use. WAIT maybe it would not be a good idea for you to be around the young. What age was it that you said it is ok for a child to consent to sex ?
bravedave
Well-Known Member
I irritate because I go with the truth as we know it from the facts that exist as opposed to you
telling us what surely was going through the mind of the the Judge. A psychic lawyer?
The sentence argument is whether this was terrorism not an arson argument. Silly overreach by a strangely punitive government agency.
Follow the story from the beginning and its the government who looks more the terrorist certainly following an agenda not favored by the people who actually live in the area.
I have witnessed the government steamroll citizens with no real agenda outside of the politically hidden or just some gov. PHD telling us things like "sure they will ride the trains".
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
I love how he calls everyone arm-chair lawyers and con-law professors mockingly then goes on to state a legal opinion, he just squarely put himself into the above category. Good job, Dave! Also, good job on paraphrasing with a picture. You missed the part where the Judge also said "It doesn't seem fair, and I know my criminal law professor would yell at me for saying that..." But let's see what a tribunal of Judges said...
Given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense. The Supreme Court has upheld far tougher sentences for less serious or, at the very least, comparable offenses. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (upholding a sentence of fifty years to life under California’s three-strikes law for stealing nine videotapes); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (upholding a sentence of twenty-five years to life under California’s three-strikes law for the theft of three golf clubs); Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 (1982) (per curiam) (upholding a forty-year sentence for possession of nine ounces of marijuana with the intent to distribute); Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (upholding a life sentence under Texas’s recidivist statute for obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses). And we and other courts have done the same. See, e.g., United States v. Tolliver, 730 F.3d 1216, 1230–32 (10th Cir. 2013) (upholding a 430-month sentence for using arson in the commission of a felony); United States v. Major, 676 F.3d 803, 812 (9th Cir. 2012) (upholding a 750-year sentence for offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 280; United States v. Meiners, 485 F.3d 1211, 1212–13 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (upholding a fifteen-year sentence for advertising child pornography); United States v. Uphoff, 232 F.3d 624, 625–26 (8th Cir. 2000) (upholding a five-year sentence for arson of a building).
Ouch. That's what three judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled. There goes your argument.
The prosecution could have done two counts of Section 844 to form a ten year sentence, but decided to be lenient and recommended concurrent sentences instead. Huge, huge, huge, overreach.
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
Anyways, back to the topic...
bravedave
Well-Known Member
Did the Ninth Circuit try this case? I was not aware.
Feel free to include the entire statement by the judge. I zeroed in in my point, not hiding anything. Even that which you did quote really only backs up the idea that knowing all the facts had him torn and reluctant to burden the Hammond's further.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Those guys got grapes not grapefruits, Like I said before, they need to take a Federal Courthouse, not a Federal birdhouse. And like Quint said in Jaws, ..."get ya name in national Geographic"......
budlover13
King Tut
The government ain't my parents.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Or was that the Mayor.......??
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
See you took it wrong. The analogy was comparing Government to parenting rather than slave drivers, or what Rob calls them.
I would have said that the gov. were everyone`s mom and dad if that`s what I was doing.
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
You are mistaken by the sweet cake judge, he is a Obama appointed judge. Blame Bush is getting fucking old.
Nomination to U.S. District Court[edit]
On September 19, 2012, President Obama nominated McShane to serve as a United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, to the seat vacated by Judge Michael R. Hogan who took senior status on September 24, 2011.[3] On January 2, 2013, his nomination was returned to the President, due to the sine die adjournment of the Senate.
On January 3, 2013, he was renominated to the same office. His nomination was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 7, 2013, by voice vote.[4]
The Senate confirmed his nomination on May 20, 2013, by voice vote. He received his commission on May 30, 2013.
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
Wrong judges. The Oregon District judge was a Bush appointee. The judicial tribunal judges were appointed by Bush and Clinton. McShane was not even on the bench for this.
Before: Richard C. Tallman and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges, and Stephen J. Murphy, III, District Judge**
http://www.landrights.org/or/Hammond/Hammonds Appeal 9th district court.pdf
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
The appellate court. I don't really want to get into and explain it at this moment. Long story short they get to review the case mostly procedure.
Last edited:
budlover13
King Tut
Ok, but if we give the government the right to parent, doesn't that mean they will "parent" us?
My boy is 16. Live in the house that I pay for, live by my rules. Help with the bills, get more freedom. Turn 18, and you get more freedom. BUT, still my house, my rules.
And that's where I feel we stand with our government. Except they pay the bills with my money. Yet it is still their house to rule even though I pay for it.
Hope that made sense. High as hell right now.
I see Rob's point about them being "masters" and us being slaves though. I mean, if we don't participate as they deem we should, the end result is them forcing you to participate or face violence.
And yes, I have the right to move. But I thought I was supposed to be able to stay and try to change things. Without fear of prison or death.