General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOregon Ranchers Supposedly Torch Fed Land To Cover Up Deer Poaching/Explains Sentence
The media is probably is not telling the whole story on the Oregon rancher and his son. While listening to Thom Hartmann today he reported that the rancher and his son had been killing deer on federal land illegally. To cover their tracks they started a fire. It became so bad the son got trapped and had to lay in a creek to escape the flames. I feel confident that Hartmann would not announce such a claim without checking it out.
The MSM is probably NOT telling the real story of why they were sent back to prison. The were not clearing land and brush as some reports have indicated. They were engaged in a criminal act. The MSM is framing the situation that makes THEM the victim.
We have a truly corrupt and criminal media in the US now. And it is much worse then we can imagine.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Mona
(135 posts)....at the bottom of this page, from the DOJ, which seems to give a summary:
http://thesouthwestjournal.com/2015/11/20/the-blm-ranchers-and-domestic-terrorism-part-i-u-s-v-dwight-and-steven-hammond/
I'm sure that there is other info out there, but this was the best I could find on a quick google when I was looking.
Also, one issue seems to be that people are complaining about the "re-sentencing" of the two. This document, if I read it correctly, shows that the govt appealed the sentencing about a week after they were originally sentenced, and the s0-called re-sentencing is merely the verdict on the appeal. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/oregon/ordce/2:2011cv00823/103287/47/
Reading a lot of the misinformation out there I went looking for some of the original documentation, not that I suspected to find anything less.
I use BLM lands a lot for recreation. I'm offended that these buffoons claim to be holding those lands "for the people", when we know they just want free land for themselves.....
They don't do anything in my name. I'm insulted they have the gall to assume I support them.
icymist
(15,888 posts)Opens as a PDF
http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/Hammond_superseding-indictment%20May%2017%202012.pdf
that they targeted to illegally burn, and burned;
maliciously damage and destroy, and attempt to damage and destroy, vehicles and other real and
personal property owned and possessed by the United States and its departments and agencies;
intimidate BLM employees and firefighters while they were employed in, engaged in, or perfonning their official duties of suppressing fires burning on property owned by the United
States and its departments and agencies; and,
9. The defendants obliterated, destroyed or secreted evidence of their criminal
activities.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)double jeopardy. For anyone who thinks five years is too long, they were convicted of arson. It doesn't matter whether they burned 10 or 10,000 acres; arson is arson.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)"for themselves" NOT "for the people." I hope they get the book thrown at them. Enough of this BS is enough. And MSM! Often nothing but lies and distortions. DU generally has the most trustworthy information IMO!
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)Do we have anything else besides the word of a prosecutor on that matter?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Yes, we have the verdict of a jury, based on the testimony of people who were there, including the boy who was nearly killed.
This isn't the "word of the prosecutor", it is the verdict of the court.
No, they were not charged with poaching because they did a good enough job of destroying the evidence. It is also likely that charge was dropped to get the testimony of the hunting guide and one of the hunters who was there.
FOUR witnesses:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2660399/Statement-USattorney.pdf
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)It was about arson.
Is there anything besides the prosecutor's word?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)A hunting guide, one of the hunters, the hunter's father, and a teenage member of the fucking family.
You don't get convicted on "the prosecutors word".
Do you understand how trials work?
And, no, they weren't charged with poaching because they did a good enough job of destroying the evidence that the specifics could not be determined from physical evidence. It is also likely that the hunter and the guide were given immunity for testimony on the arson charge.
I can't fucking believe that people think the Hammond verdict, which went up on cross appeals and was reviewed a second time by the appeals court, is somehow based on "the prosecutor's word".
All four witnesses were lying, is that your point? And one of them was a HUNTING GUIDE who just happened to be hanging out for brush clearing for no particular reason.
You're right! They weren't charged with poaching. Because if I light your car on fire to cover up the theft of your radio, the petty theft charge isn't going to be of particular interest to anyone.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Yes indeed, there seems to be a knowledge gap.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)This thing gets reported as if the case had not gone to trial.
I've seen several media reports that make it seem like "the Hammonds say...." and "the prosecution says...." and entirely leave out "AND THE JURY FOUND THE HAMMONDS FULL OF SHIT."
And when you consider the fact that a jury has to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it appears the jury found the Hammonds COMPLETELY FULL OF SHIT.
The next one they go to is "but they weren't convicted of poaching". If you actually read the 9th Circuit decision, it mentions that the Hammonds were acquitted of other charges in the case.
These pinheads seem to believe that if I run someone down while driving the getaway car from a bank robbery, then I can't be convicted of the killing unless I'm convicted for the bank robbery.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)You do realize that I never argued against the arson conviction right?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"You do realize that I never argued against the arson conviction right?"
I rationalize my epic fails and accidental illustrations of bias as such too.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I suppose the first one could have been to cover up something.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Their "back fire" was swept right toward firefighters who had to be evacuated.
Do you also "suppose" the jury which heard the evidence might have had a clue as to what happened?
Do you "suppose" all four witnesses just might have made shit up?
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2660399/Statement-USattorney.pdf
Mona
(135 posts)they failed to notify the BLM of their burn. It wasn't during a fire that they back-burned, but as a proactive measure. That one also burned some public land.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Though part of this whole shitshow is a disagreement about which land is "public". Particularly out west there are some seriously Byzantine land leases...
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)is public and which is not. The Malheur was created in 1908 by Teddy Roosevelt and that fact is not in dispute. 1908. The buildings there mostly come from the WPA era.
So what sort of 'disagreement' do you think the Bundy clan can have with a decision made in 1908?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's part of the problem. The 1908 act was an Indian Reservation annex that was later upgraded to a national park.
The larger problem is that they leased water rights but BLM fenced off all the streams.
OregonBlue
(7,755 posts)County pioneers. They were well aware that the property they were purchasing abutted a wildlife refuge and that there were restrictions on what they could and could not do on the adjoining land. They have run their cattle on the land for years paying almost nothing for the privilege. All of the witnesses testified that they intentionally set fire to the refuge and that they were threatened when they refused to go along with the Hammond's story. Sorry but these guys aren't heroes or victims.
2naSalit
(86,875 posts)I posted a good source regarding their antics for a long time. There's this article but if you browse the site at the link you'll find more of their history.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7500880
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Again, do you think the jury was a bunch of witless morons? Do you think, since the case was on appeal anyway, that the THREE lawyers for the Hammonds from TWO different law firms just, uh, forgot to raise any appealable issues?
The BLM had to evacuate their own firefighters because these moronic yahoos - who were specifically TOLD not to light any fires - decided to interfere with the firefighting operation because, well, freedom!
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Here's today's news release from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Oregon:
http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison
Arson on federal lands carries with it a five year mandatory minimum sentence. Judge Michael Hogan, a bit of a right-wing ideologue, originally sentenced the Hammonds to less than the mandatory minimum. The government appealed, and won at the Ninth Circuit, overruling Judge Hogan's sentence, and ordering that the Hammonds be sentenced in accordance with federal law. Judge Ann Aiken imposed the mandatory minimum sentence, and the Hammonds were returned to federal prison to serve out the remainder of their sentence.
What the nutjobs are arguing against, then, is mandatory minimum sentences. Surely you all remember how up in arms the Bundys and indeed all the right wing nutjobs have historically been against mandatory minimum sentences? Their legendary campaign of peaceful protests against longer sentences for possession of crack versus possession of cocaine? Their cogent and well-reasoned arguments that sending a generation of young black men to jail for possession of crack all out of proportion to the number of well-connected white cocaine users who skated by on lesser charges and shorter sentences?
You all remember that, right? Conservatives railing against the seeming racism in mandatory minimum sentences? Right?
Huh; you don't usually hear crickets at this time of the year.
love_katz
(2,585 posts)
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)with their distorted reporting techniques to pursue their agenda and profits.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)And those among us that think 5 years in prison is appropriate for burning brush and/or poaching, you are contributing to the police state mentality that grips America. I don't like the politics of this old rancher and his son and they committed criminal acts and were tried and convicted and punished. But please, charging them under a terrorism statute with no discretion for anything less than 5 years in prison? That was overreach. This is a totally separate issue from the "Bundy Gang" nonsense. These militia clowns should not keep us from having a serious discussion about mandatory minimums and prison sentences in general. Prison is not the solution to our problems, folks.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)But until it is changed, the law is on the books and Judge Hogan did not have discretion to take a shortcut through the law any more than a judge could have reduced the sentence for some poor black kid caught with a rock of crack.
Now might be a good time to revisit the concept of mandatory minimums and return some discretion to the bench, rather than leaving sentencing matters up to the prosecuting attorney. I say that because the prosecutor decides which charges to pursue. A vindictive prosecutor has a political, professional, and personal interest in securing the maximum penalty possible.
Once we get that fixed, I'm thinking there might be a few thousand people in line ahead of the Hammonds who have been victimized by a zealous prosecutor. Odd that we couldn't have this conversation before the Hammonds had burned land they didn't own to cover up their other crimes and endangering the lives of wildfire fighters.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"These militia clowns should not keep us from having a serious discussion about mandatory minimums and prison sentences in general..."
Seems a rather effective approach to doing so would to start a conversation about just that, in and of itself, divorced from an OP to which yours is but tangential at best. 
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The jury so found beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the testimony of FOUR witnesses to it - including the hunting guide.