Bundys in custody, one militant dead after gunfight near Burns

Jose Fly said:

Already addressed. CLICK HERE

Click to expand...

According to Oregon state law,
A prosecution for arson in any degree may be commenced within six years after the commission of the crime.

Prosecuting them in 2011 for alleged arson for a fire in 2001 is an illegal prosecution.

Jose Fly said:

He was a gubbermint agent, who was in on the conspiracy. :devil:

Click to expand...

THAT has to be it. I have read both version of what happened and there is most certainly one that has the "let's make it up quickly" vibe to it.

Starting fires. To put out fires. Right...

genuineoriginal said:

According to Oregon state law,
A prosecution for arson in any degree may be commenced within six years after the commission of the crime.

Prosecuting them in 2011 for alleged arson for a fire in 2001 is an illegal prosecution.

Click to expand...

They weren't prosecuted under Oregon law, they were prosecuted under federal law.

genuineoriginal said:

According to Oregon state law,
A prosecution for arson in any degree may be commenced within six years after the commission of the crime.

Prosecuting them in 2011 for alleged arson for a fire in 2001 is an illegal prosecution.

Click to expand...

Again, you don't even have the basic facts straight.

Jose Fly said:

Already addressed. CLICK HERE

Click to expand...

How about I address your address here?

(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...

(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.

Don't cha just HATE the truth Mr. Fly?

genuineoriginal said:

According to Oregon state law,
A prosecution for arson in any degree may be commenced within six years after the commission of the crime.

Prosecuting them in 2011 for alleged arson for a fire in 2001 is an illegal prosecution.

Click to expand...

They're the Feds, they can do anything that they want to (at least under the Obama administration).

Rusha said:

THAT has to be it. I have read both version of what happened and there is most certainly one that has the "let's make it up quickly" vibe to it.

Starting fires. To put out fires. Right...

Click to expand...

Interestingly, one of the most visible militia nutters (Jon Ritzheimer) was in Arizona when the arrests went down. He turned himself in after the arrests were made.

His convenient timing and surrender is generating some speculation that he was actually some sort of informant, working from the inside.

aCultureWarrior said:

(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...

Click to expand...

Um......ok.

(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.

Click to expand...

So the grandson just made the whole thing up, because........:idunno:

And the fact that his testimony corroborated the testimony of the hunters who also witnessed the fire is just a coincidence, right?

aCW, those aren't the facts. Tall tales from the cowboys. You got the around-the-campfire version of what happened.

rexlunae said:

They weren't prosecuted under Oregon law, they were prosecuted under federal law.

Click to expand...

Here is the clause they were prosecuted under:

There was nothing malicious about setting a back fire to protect property in 2006.

The prosecution of them under the anti-terrorist act was malicious.

Rusha said:

Starting fires. To put out fires. Right...

Click to expand...

This is a standard fire fighting technique.

Krsto said:

aCW, those aren't the facts. Tall tales from the cowboys. You got the around-the-campfire version of what happened.

Click to expand...

I don't drink Obama's Kool-Aid like you do.

Based on the article that I presented, the evidence shows that the Feds wanted total control of private land and was going to use whatever means necessary to get it.

aCultureWarrior said:

They're the Feds, they can do anything that they want to (at least under the Obama administration).

Click to expand...

That is the real problem.

rexlunae said:

"Jeopardy" is the danger of being convicted of a crime. These men were convicted once. The problem was that after being convicted, they were given a sentence that was, as an appeals court determined illegally lenient. They were ensnared in a mandatory minimum sentence, which their trial judge felt would "shock the conscience", but the appeals court rejected that logic, forcing them to be resentenced.

There is actually a legitimate complaint here, which is that mandatory minimums often create a major injustice. People are sentenced to life in prison for minor drug crimes, that sort of thing. But the thing that distinguishes this case from a lot of the others seems to be who it impacts.

Click to expand...

So this isn't true: they were convicted for arson, then convicted for terrorism?

genuineoriginal said:

There was nothing malicious about setting a back fire to protect property in 2006.

The prosecution of them under the anti-terrorist act was malicious.

Click to expand...

THAT was *their* story ... which didn't jive with the grandson's statement.

There is nothing malicious about prosecuting the type of idiots who intentionally commit arson to cover their own tracks.

aCultureWarrior said:

I don't drink Obama's Kool-Aid like you do.

Based on the article that I presented, the evidence shows that the Feds wanted total control of private land and was going to use whatever means necessary to get it.

Click to expand...

That "evidence" doesn't tell the whole story.

Krsto said:

So this isn't true: they were convicted for arson, then convicted for terrorism?

Click to expand...

They were convicted of arson on federal property, which is specifically covered by a federal law that also addresses terrorism.

The "terrorism" label just comes from the title of the law they were prosecuted under. The prosecutor never referred to the Hammonds as terrorists or anything like that. But the actual law (CLICK HERE) specifically covers this case, as you can see...


That's exactly what they did...they maliciously used fire to destroy federal property.

genuineoriginal said:

_____
backfire
1: a fire started to check an advancing fire by clearing an area
_____​

This is a standard fire fighting technique.

Click to expand...

According to the grandson, that's not what happened. Who should I believe ... the child who has no reason to make this stuff up OR the militant thugs who were arrested and charged with the crime?

genuineoriginal said:

That is the real problem.

Click to expand...

The real problem is that the folks on your side of this can't even be bothered to get the fundamental facts right.

genuineoriginal said:

Here is the clause they were prosecuted under:

Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to
damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building,
vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or
possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or
agency thereof, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not
more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.​

There was nothing malicious about setting a back fire to protect property in 2006.

The prosecution of them under the anti-terrorist act was malicious.

Click to expand...

It's certainly malicious when the feds had a fire ban to protect the firefighters.