|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 56,247
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 56,247 |
The Hammonds should have gotten probation at most. There is clearly a govt agenda at work against them, for whatever reason.
_______________________________________________________
An 8 dollar driveway boy living in a T-111 shack
LOL
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
The Hammonds should have gotten probation at most. There is clearly a govt agenda at work against them, for whatever reason. The Hammonds cut a deal, and the prosecutor crawfished on it. Of course, the Hammond case is now hamstrung to a severe degree due to the Bundys (whom the Hammonds never wanted there in the first place).
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 26,430
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 26,430 |
You liberals from the east side just don't get it. The fires were on BLM land, not a refuge. He started the fires because BLM was dragging their feet and not doing their jobs. He had AU's for the land and it needed to be burnt to support them. The poaching claims were made by a reporter, never entered into the legal case, and may very have just been slander.
The folks at the Oregon farm bureau and Oregon cattlemen's association agree it was BS sentence. I for one support America's ranchers and farmers.
Take a minute and read the pdf from the federal courts on the actual facts. Understand this remote desert were neighbors are miles apart. Burning is accepted management tool and a natural occurrence. Understand the government is not the solution, it's problem.
So sorry that you liberals out west have equally liberal judges. But as mentioned prior, I did eat steak last night[in support of ranchers].
FJB & FJT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 21,677
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 21,677 |
Not so,
and the BLM belongs to me too.
Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.
Communism
Last edited by BMT; 02/04/16.
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,471
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,471 |
5 years in federal prison and 400k in fines for burning 139 acres grass range land is nuts. That's why the original plea deal was for 6 months and I think that was out of line. Coming back after the fact and sending them to prison for another 4.5 years by liberal judge in Eugene is the problem.
The fact that the prosecutor - in an absolutely unprecedented move - appealed the already served sentence is beyond the pale. That is a gross miscarriage of justice and completely without any parallel. This isn't quite what happened. To pic nits- During the middle of trial the defendant's were informed by the court that they had been found guilty of two counts and the jury was deadlocked on additional counts. Having the two counts the prosecutor agreed to run the two counts concurrent and let the jury go home. nothing in the Ninth Circuits opinion purports that the prosecutor agreed to 6 months when the mandatory minimum was 5 years. Prosecutor did not wait until the 6 months was served before filing the appeal, as noted by the Ninth Circuit the prosecutors argued even before the original sentence that the mandatory minimum was 5 years. The sentencing judge determined to not follow the mandatory minimums and sentenced the defendant to 6 months. The Ninth Circuit disagreed.(three judge panel, the authoring judge from the Eastern District of Michigan) Defendant was sentenced October 30, 2012, United States Appealed November 6. of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 & 844(f)(1). On October 30, 2012, a sentencing hearing was held before the Honorable Michael R. Hogan. Judge Hogan declined to apply the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the offense, finding it grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense, in violation of the Eight Amendment. (Sentencing Hr'g Tr. at 26:3-6, Oct. 30, 2012.) Instead, Dwight Hammond was sentenced to three months in prison and Steven Hammond was sentenced to twelve months and one day in prison for each offense. On November 6, 2012, the United States appealed the sentences to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties submitted appellate briefs in the matter and are awaiting oral argument. You can disagree with what happened and the outcome and even be outraged by the law but changing the facts and making stuff up doesn't help anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,566
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,566 |
Bundy's didn't do the Hammonds any favors when they attached their name to the case.
There are issues out there that do need the good fight.
But, the issues worth fighting for are not the ones where sympathizers become the aggressors.
It's hard be the "victim" when you are the aggressor.
Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 39,301
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 39,301 |
The Hammonds should have gotten probation at most. There is clearly a govt agenda at work against them, for whatever reason. The Hammonds cut a deal, and the prosecutor crawfished on it. Of course, the Hammond case is now hamstrung to a severe degree due to the Bundys (whom the Hammonds never wanted there in the first place).
The first time I shot myself in the head...
Meniere's Sucks Big Time!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,471
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,471 |
The Hammonds should have gotten probation at most. There is clearly a govt agenda at work against them, for whatever reason. The Hammonds cut a deal, and the prosecutor crawfished on it. Of course, the Hammond case is now hamstrung to a severe degree due to the Bundys (whom the Hammonds never wanted there in the first place). Not affiliated with the case nor was I privy to any discussions but the oral agreement was put on the record. No mention is made in any of the cases regarding a purported sentence nor does that information appear supported by the procedure.
Although the Hammonds did not enter guilty pleas, the Hammonds agreed not to contest the jury verdicts in exchange for the government moving to dismiss other charges. The resulting posture is the same as that following a plea agreement. We thus will refer to the oral agreement here as a plea agreement and apply to it the law governing plea agreements.
The Hammonds agreed with the government's summary of the plea agreement. Their attorneys also added that the Hammonds wanted the "case to be over" and hoped to "bring th[e] matter to a close." According to the defense, the "idea" of the plea agreement was that the case would "be done with at the sentencing" and that the "parties would accept . . . the sentence that's imposed." The district court then accepted the plea agreement and dismissed the remaining charges.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,581
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,581 |
The Hammonds should have gotten probation at most. There is clearly a govt agenda at work against them, for whatever reason. The Hammonds cut a deal, and the prosecutor crawfished on it. Of course, the Hammond case is now hamstrung to a severe degree due to the Bundys (whom the Hammonds never wanted there in the first place). Not affiliated with the case nor was I privy to any discussions but the oral agreement was put on the record. No mention is made in any of the cases regarding a purported sentence nor does that information appear supported by the procedure.
Although the Hammonds did not enter guilty pleas, the Hammonds agreed not to contest the jury verdicts in exchange for the government moving to dismiss other charges. The resulting posture is the same as that following a plea agreement. We thus will refer to the oral agreement here as a plea agreement and apply to it the law governing plea agreements.
The Hammonds agreed with the government's summary of the plea agreement. Their attorneys also added that the Hammonds wanted the "case to be over" and hoped to "bring th[e] matter to a close." According to the defense, the "idea" of the plea agreement was that the case would "be done with at the sentencing" and that the "parties would accept . . . the sentence that's imposed." The district court then accepted the plea agreement and dismissed the remaining charges.
Damn facts aren't near as much fun as rumors.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 5,143
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 5,143 |
If they can send a man to prison for five years for burning off some grass on his lease, anything is possible. He wasn't sent to prison for that; not that facts matter. Take a minute and read the court case, that's exactly what he was sent to jail for, they called it arson on federal land. I call it burning some brush to control weeds and do it on my land every year. How may have you talked to about that? It was probably on the ballot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,581
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,581 |
325 million owners, kinda slow going.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,289
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,289 |
The Hammonds should have gotten probation at most. There is clearly a govt agenda at work against them, for whatever reason. The Hammonds cut a deal, and the prosecutor crawfished on it. Of course, the Hammond case is now hamstrung to a severe degree due to the Bundys (whom the Hammonds never wanted there in the first place). Not affiliated with the case nor was I privy to any discussions but the oral agreement was put on the record. No mention is made in any of the cases regarding a purported sentence nor does that information appear supported by the procedure.
Although the Hammonds did not enter guilty pleas, the Hammonds agreed not to contest the jury verdicts in exchange for the government moving to dismiss other charges. The resulting posture is the same as that following a plea agreement. We thus will refer to the oral agreement here as a plea agreement and apply to it the law governing plea agreements.
The Hammonds agreed with the government's summary of the plea agreement. Their attorneys also added that the Hammonds wanted the "case to be over" and hoped to "bring th[e] matter to a close." According to the defense, the "idea" of the plea agreement was that the case would "be done with at the sentencing" and that the "parties would accept . . . the sentence that's imposed." The district court then accepted the plea agreement and dismissed the remaining charges.
They cut a deal with a federal judge, then another judge reneged on the deal. Exactly what everyone is PO about. Chit deal in my book and miss application of the statute.
"Life is tough, even tougher if your stupid"
John Wayne
|
|
|
|
|
567 members (007FJ, 1eyedmule, 12344mag, 10Glocks, 1234, 1beaver_shooter, 53 invisible),
2,698
guests, and
1,242
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,190,566
Posts18,453,797
Members73,908
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
