RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Phydeaux -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 12:19:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Lucy, I gave two historic examples of armed takeover by leftists.

I also pointed out that two environmental groups have used violence and weapons to make their points, which if you would have bothered to check have happened IN THIS FUCKING CENTURY.

This includes but is not limited to, armed invasion of research labs to free animals, fire bombing housing projects that have destroyed habitat, spiking trees scheduled to be harvested with metal which when hit with a chainsaw would cause serious injury with a real possibility of death.

I had hoped that you were at least intelligent enough to do a little research on your part just to see how overwhelmingly stupid your question actually was.

The tactic I used, as I understand it, is called diplomacy, and done so in a way that would allow you the chance to retract or reword the question without someone making you out to be foolish, ill informed and out of touch with the real world of left leaning protests.

It was the most respectful way I could think of to do so.

Now I do apologize for giving your intellect more credit than it deserves.

Do you have to favor armed occupation to see that there is something wrong with another judge changing the sentence for these men after they have served the original sentence and have COMMITED NO OFFENSES SINCE?


Judges are limited in their authority when it comes to sentencing, defined by the laws passed by legislators. So if a law comes with a mandatory minimum sentence, that is the lowest possible sentence a judge can legally give upon conviction. Likewise, a judge can't sentence a convicted jaywalker to a death sentence.

Personally, I say let the original sentence stand and being the judge up on charges, possibly remove him from the bench for being one of these activist types that refuse to adhere to the letter of the law, without finding the law itself unconstitutional.


You can't remove him from the bench - he already retired.

And you can't bring a government official up on charges for performance of his job, except under small set of cases (bribery, etc). This aint one of the cases.

But besides that, there are a lot of other questions here. Is this an abuse of prosecutorial discretion? The prosecutor tried the case under anti-terrorism statutes. Why? Do you really think clearing land is terrorism? I personally think that the tighter sentence will be overturned on appeal, eventually.




mnottertail -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 12:42:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

there is the posse comitatus act. in total 18 USC 1385.


Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

insurrection act 10 USC 332.

nothing to discuss.



Of course you are quoting sections of the law that were modified and or repealed in 2008.

The current standard reads:

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

So the President could determine that 6 or 12 armed protesters renders the constitutional authorities in Oregon incapable of acting. And he could determine that the local authorities were unable to safeguard the rights of some class of citizen.

But that would be sent to a court so fast and a writ of prohibition entered it would make your head spin. Followed subsequently by a massive trouncing at the polls.





Don't know where that comes from, but I am looking at the gpo and not seeing that crap.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap15.htm

the house appears to agree:

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter15&edition=prelim






Lucylastic -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 12:44:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

I suggest a look at some of the past conversations about protestors, the BLM thugs organizing to Kill cops.... even go as far back as OWS and see all the same people wanting force and more. Not forgetting the only "terrorists" in the world, american muslims and their "rights" being denied
Not one of those posters can be intellectually honest. why do we expect them to change...

While the two of you are looking, why don't you count how many times U.S. MILITARY force was suggested as the way to put things down? Why don't you see how many instances there are of proposing ANY type of force being used in the way your little buddy Joether suggests?

Not being intellectually honest? You must be referring to the Penguin.


no Im referring to you...
Im referring to bounty, Im referring to phydeaux, who hasnt changed his bullshit attempts since he last got banned. IM referring to bama and Im referring to a bunch of others who are no longer here to pollute the boards.
btw
quote:

why don't you count how many times U.S. MILITARY force was suggested as the way to put things down?

WHy should I? i didnt state it, I didnt agree with it, I didnt condone it and I didnt respond to it.
Im only responsible for what I write and not kissing the arse of someone who agrees with me.




Lucylastic -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 12:50:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

I suggest a look at some of the past conversations about protestors, the BLM thugs organizing to Kill cops.... even go as far back as OWS and see all the same people wanting force and more. Not forgetting the only "terrorists" in the world, american muslims and their "rights" being denied
Not one of those posters can be intellectually honest. why do we expect them to change...


Why don't you go back and support some of your ad homem attacks with actual quotes.

Oh, I know. Because making ad hominen attacks is actually what you want to do.

LMFAO I dont need support, the search engine works quite well.




Phydeaux -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 12:56:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

I suggest a look at some of the past conversations about protestors, the BLM thugs organizing to Kill cops.... even go as far back as OWS and see all the same people wanting force and more. Not forgetting the only "terrorists" in the world, american muslims and their "rights" being denied
Not one of those posters can be intellectually honest. why do we expect them to change...

While the two of you are looking, why don't you count how many times U.S. MILITARY force was suggested as the way to put things down? Why don't you see how many instances there are of proposing ANY type of force being used in the way your little buddy Joether suggests?

Not being intellectually honest? You must be referring to the Penguin.


no Im referring to you...
Im referring to bounty, Im referring to phydeaux, who hasnt changed his bullshit attempts since he last got banned. IM referring to bama and Im referring to a bunch of others who are no longer here to pollute the boards.
btw
quote:

why don't you count how many times U.S. MILITARY force was suggested as the way to put things down?

WHy should I? i didnt state it, I didnt agree with it, I didnt condone it and I didnt respond to it.
Im only responsible for what I write and not kissing the arse of someone who agrees with me.



Banned? Once again you are incorrect. My absence was not due to banning. I did not like how they treated the girl that worked so hard on this site, so for 18 months or so I did not return. Had she put up a competing site I would have visited it. As she did not I am here.






Phydeaux -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 12:57:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

I suggest a look at some of the past conversations about protestors, the BLM thugs organizing to Kill cops.... even go as far back as OWS and see all the same people wanting force and more. Not forgetting the only "terrorists" in the world, american muslims and their "rights" being denied
Not one of those posters can be intellectually honest. why do we expect them to change...


Why don't you go back and support some of your ad homem attacks with actual quotes.

Oh, I know. Because making ad hominen attacks is actually what you want to do.

LMFAO I dont need support, the search engine works quite well.



No what you really mean is - I can't be bothered to actually check my assumptions, support my accusations. I'm lucy lastic and I get to make personal attacks whenever I feel like it. Blah blah blah blah blah.




mnottertail -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 1:06:51 PM)

http://www.collarchat.com/m_4833968/mpage_8/key_BLM%252Cthugs/tm.htm#4835051

now you can apologize for your ad hominem.

and you can apologize separately for pretending that the constant attacks and ad hominems of the nutsuckers are so hard to find that you look stupid by pretending they aren't very easy and constant.




Phydeaux -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 1:14:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

http://www.collarchat.com/m_4833968/mpage_8/key_BLM%252Cthugs/tm.htm#4835051

now you can apologize for your ad hominem.

and you can apologize separately for pretending that the constant attacks and ad hominems of the nutsuckers are so hard to find that you look stupid by pretending they aren't very easy and constant.



Would you mind actually, yanno, quoting. I see no posts by me on that page. I am hereby quoting your the link you pointed to:

quote:



ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

The single best reply to "All lives matter": https://www.reddit.com/comments/3du1qm/
White lives have always mattered. Police lives have always mattered. The message America doesn't want to hear is,
Black Lives Matter TOO!


Wrong nobody is offended by black lives mattering.
Of course black lives matter.
Many are offended by it being used as a cover for thugs.
When it is used as an excuse to drive presidential candidates from the stage (and I like Sanders and O'Mally even less than I do Trump).
When it is used as an excuse to murder cops.
When BLM rallies feature people celibrating the murder of a cop.
This is what America doesn't want to hear.


Fraid I see no support for your position....

And while you are at it - Please quote me where I said those in the middle or those on the right didn't make ad hominems? Never said that.

I said those on the left generally originate the ad hominems. Certainly, it happens on the right from time to time. But certainly not with the frequency of those on the left.

Let's take you, for example Mnotter. How many times do you suppose you have used the term "nutsacker" to disparage those you don't agree with. Do you think its 50% of your posts? 80%?




mnottertail -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 1:22:25 PM)

and you also cannot read. have someone explain it to you. cuz cogitation will be out of the question for you.


here is your ad hominem, and it also in typical nutsucker fashion, turns out to be completely false and hallucinatory:


quote:


Why don't you go back and support some of your ad homem attacks with actual quotes.

Oh, I know. Because making ad hominen attacks is actually what you want to do.


Suck it up fido, you are the purveyor of ad hominem and the one with low to no information whatsoever here.





Phydeaux -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 1:44:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

and you also cannot read. have someone explain it to you. cuz cogitation will be out of the question for you.


here is your ad hominem, and it also in typical nutsucker fashion, turns out to be completely false and hallucinatory:


quote:


Why don't you go back and support some of your ad homem attacks with actual quotes.

Oh, I know. Because making ad hominen attacks is actually what you want to do.


Suck it up fido, you are the purveyor of ad hominem and the one with low to no information whatsoever here.





So lets revisit the facts, shall we?

My first post to Lucygoosey was post #14. Here is the sum of my comment:
quote:


Just curious. So you're ok with them taking over the building as long as they don't have weapons is that right?


Here is her reply:
quote:


again you dont have the literacy skills to realise I said nothing of the kind.


So, I made a point, she responded with an adhominem. Exactly proving my statement, that those on the left generally originate ad hominem attacks.

Thanks for proving my point. Of course, you will now make another personal attack, or bring up another non-sequitur.





MercTech -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 1:56:13 PM)

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

Just some of the back story as to why the protesters in Oregon took over a Fish and Wildlife building to make a point.




mnottertail -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 1:56:22 PM)

quote:


Just curious. So you're ok with them taking over the building as long as they don't have weapons is that right?


And there is your first ad hominem.

This is an ad hominem constructed of a strawman, a contexomy, and all wrapped up in the typical nutsucker loaded question.

attack point fido, convicted out of his own mouth.





mnottertail -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 2:00:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

Just some of the back story as to why the protesters in Oregon took over a Fish and Wildlife building to make a point.



Shoot those goddamn terrorists!!!!!




Phydeaux -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 2:09:31 PM)

HISTORY: (aa) The Harney Basin (where the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.

(ab) In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

(a) In 1964 the Hammonds’ purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.

(a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres, stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.

(a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told: “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”; 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.

(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentionally diverted the water bypassing the vast meadow lands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers who once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede; now the once thriving privately owned Silvies plains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.

(a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers who still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling facts about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced four times more ducks and geese than the refuge. The study also showed the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.

(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive toward the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*

(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights, and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily, the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). Dwight spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland. He was then hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.

(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.

(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds still intended to use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.

(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.

(g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sell their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later.

(h) The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.

(i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries.

(j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.

(j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff’s office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.

(k) In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges; they accused them of being “Terrorists” under the Federal Anti terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death. Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over the news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”. Susan Hammond (Wife & Mother) said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me”.

(l) Shortly after the sentencing, Capital Press ran a story about the Hammonds. A person who identified as Greg Allum posted three comments on the article, calling the ranchers “clowns” who endangered firefighters and other people in the area while burning valuable range land. Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, soon called Capital Press to complain he had not made those comments and requested they be taken down from the website. Capital Press removed the comments. A search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments revealed the origin as the BLM’s office in Denver, Colorado. Allum said, he is friends with the Hammonds and he was alerted to the comments by neighbors who knew he wouldn’t have written them. “I feel bad for them. They lost a lot and they’re going to lose more,” Allum said of the ranchers. “They’re not terrorists”. “There’s this hatred in the BLM for them, and I don’t get it,” the retired BLM employee said. Jody Weil, deputy state director for communications at BLM’s Oregon office, indicated to reporters that if one of their agents falsified the comments, they would keep it private and not inform the public.

(m) In September 2006, Dwight & Susan Hammond’s home was raided. The agents informed the Hammonds they were looking for evidence that would connect them to the fires. The Hammonds later found out a boot print and a tire tracks were found near one of the many fires. No matching boots or tires were found in the Hammonds home or on their property. Susan Hammond (Wife) later said; ” I have never felt so violated in my life. We are ranchers not criminals”. Steven Hammond openly maintains his testimony that he started the backfire to save the winter grass from being destroyed and the backfire ended up working so well it put out the fire altogether.

(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail which would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for six days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Many of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury. Example: Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.

(o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness who was not mentally capable to be credible. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13-years-old at the time, and 24-years-old when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. However, Judge Hogan allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.

(p) Judge Michael Hogan & Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton every day. Some drove more than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home.

On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict. [Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision.] Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area and influenced by the prosecutors for six straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, gave a verdict and went home.

(q) June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were found guilty of starting both the 2001 and the 2006 fires by the jury. However, the federal courts convicted them both as “Terrorists” under the 1996 Anti terrorism Act. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. Both were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Judge Hogan overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commented if the full five years were required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The day of the sentencing Judge Hogan retired as a federal judge. In his honor the staff served chocolate cake in the courtroom.

(r) On January 4, 2013, Dwight and Steven reported to prison. They fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months). Dwight was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014.

(s) Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM, and her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank Papagni exemplified further vindictive behavior by filing an appeal with the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight’s and Steven’s return to federal prison for the entire 5 years.*

(t) In October 2015, the 9th District Court “re-sentenced” Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years. Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children. Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74) to be alone after 55 years of marriage. If he survives, he will be 79 when he is released.

(u) During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal; if the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.

(v) Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their re-sentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them.

To date the Hammonds have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of year (2015). If the Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution. (more citations here)







Lucylastic -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 2:10:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

Just some of the back story as to why the protesters in Oregon took over a Fish and Wildlife building to make a point.



Shoot those goddamn terrorists!!!!!

i posted that yesterday post 23

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4870823




Hillwilliam -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 2:11:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

Just some of the back story as to why the protesters in Oregon took over a Fish and Wildlife building to make a point.



Shoot those goddamn terrorists!!!!!

Not really terrorists.

More like "Vanilla ISIS" [8D]




Hillwilliam -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 2:12:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



Banned? Once again you are incorrect. My absence was not due to banning. I did not like how they treated the girl that worked so hard on this site, so for 18 months or so I did not return. Had she put up a competing site I would have visited it. As she did not I am here.




Are you talking about Mod 3?




mnottertail -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 2:14:33 PM)

Tiffany I think.




Hillwilliam -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 2:18:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Tiffany I think.

This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6Q3mHyzn78




Phydeaux -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/4/2016 2:19:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


Just curious. So you're ok with them taking over the building as long as they don't have weapons is that right?


And there is your first ad hominem.

This is an ad hominem constructed of a strawman, a contexomy, and all wrapped up in the typical nutsucker loaded question.

attack point fido, convicted out of his own mouth.





Don't know the meaning of contexomy, eh? Nowhere did in my original post did I quote her. Asking what her position is on taking over a building sans arms, is not a personal attack.
you can tell because it asserts nothing about lucy's person; it doesn't disparage her in any fashion. In my reply to you, I quoted her in full. So you can hardly say I shortened her quote, or out of context.

So let me help you out here:

ad hominem: attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument
contextomy: the practice of misquoting someone by shortening the quotation or by leaving out surrounding words or sentences that would place the quotation in context.


Since your recent posts have been inane (saying that the jews believed three hours constitued a day; misquoting my positions; you refusing to address exact points - "I and the father are one"; "he who has seen the son have seen the father"; asserting that I committed contextomy when you know full well I did not, I'm done playing with you for now.

Try harder to come up with a point worth bothering to refute.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625