Crime Insurgents take control of government building in Oregon.

[CaSe]

The Federal government has no right to take land from the people.

I stand in solidarity with my fellow Americans.

Hopefully this can be resolved without violence.

What land are they trying to take? From what I've seen, they're butthurt because the wildlife refuge is federal property and they're using this situation to act like spoiled children about it.

 

[oldshadow]

hi there Mr. oldshadow,

i don't disagree, but what does this have to do with BLM? i mean, there are alot of existing threads on BLM, ya?

- IGIT

My point was how some people give criminal acts a pass if it supports a cause they like, and this is on both sides.

 

[Bald1]

You're the only person I've seen calling the fires acts of terrrorism.

Here's a little snippet of the time line of how this whole deal got kicked off:

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 “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism 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”.

 

[second sight]

(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.

pretty easy to bankrupt people if you force the men running the ranch to long prison sentences

 

[IGIT]

The Federal government has no right to take land from the people.

I stand in solidarity with my fellow Americans.

Hopefully this can be resolved without violence.

hiho Mr. Carter,

(Theodore) Roosevelt set aside unclaimed government lands encompassed by Malheur, Mud and Harney Lakes ‘as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.’ The newly established ‘Lake Malheur Reservation’ was the 19th of 51 wildlife refuges created by Roosevelt during his tenure as president.

the government actually does have the right to create wildlife refuges, too, as per Article IV, section 3, clause 2: Property Clause.

there is nothing unconstitutional about it, as far as i know.

- IGIT

 

[Greoric]

Lol. Go re-read (or perhaps just read) a book on game theory. Perhaps start with an introduction book so you don't fuck up the concept this hard.

This should be fun. Do tell!

 

[IGIT]

And by this the BLM are terrorist also. They take over private property and hold people hostage.

The truth is I just see both as criminals.

BLM = black lives matter.

hi oldshadow,

i guess the thing i'm confused about is why you're introducing BLM into this thread...but its all good, i guess.

- IGIT

 

[CaSe]

Here's a little snippet of the time line of how this whole deal got kicked off:

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 “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism 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”.

The state and feds pick up old/previous charges all the time. It's happened to several people I know. The fact they feel violated and ostracized doesn't give them the right to occupy federal property via threats of death. This whole situation reeks of a disgusting sense of entitlement.

 

[second sight]

So you're going to disregard that there was testimony from trial, from the Hammonds own family and others, that the fire was willful and malicious to cover illegal hunting?

could you please pm me your real name because I want to make sure I don't accidentally hire you as an attorney


http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/e...convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

(o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 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.

 

[Lord Coke]

(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.

pretty easy to bankrupt people if you force the men running the ranch to long prison sentences

Anyone know how the feds where allowed to make the Hammonds give up some of their property rights to them?

 

[Blood and Iron]

So you're going to disregard that there was testimony from trial, from the Hammonds own family and others, that the fire was willful and malicious to cover illegal hunting?


http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/e...convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

That quote does not indicate that the fire was willful and malicious to cover illegal hunting.

Edit: Since you have to be a wiseass, I'll reply in kind by asking the same so that I never make the mistake of hiring you as an attorney due to your thinking this

"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."

equals criminal intent.
You were proven wrong on the Plenary clause debate, and you're wrong again

 

[IGIT]

This next piece tells you everything you need to know about their motives

(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.

heya SS,

as i said earlier, i don't agree Judge Hogan and the prosecutor acted illegally.

that's one man's summary of what occured, i suppose...but i disagree with it.

i also don't find anything inherently sinister about the Government seeking to have the first bite at the Hammond property, should they sell it, since the property is encircled by a wildlife refuge that President Teddy Roosevelt created a century ago.

to me, it makes sense, and would make management of the reserve easier.

- IGIT

 

[Bald1]

hiya there Bald1,

i don't think the Hammonds are terrorists. i see them more as felons, to be honest.

the militia that are occupying the Federal property and threatening an armed response if they are forced to leave, though, seem to be domestic terrorists, yeah.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

- IGIT

Felons fits. As does short sighted and naive. Terrorist, not so much.

The armed militia guys are terrorists by definition. Sure. I wasn't arguing against that, and to be honest with you I don't think they're the big story.

 

[NelmarksGhost]

Did the feds break/circumvent any statutes to do this?

I'm not a legal expert. It appears they were rightfully sentenced under the strict letter of the law. That's why the appeal decision was for the full 5 years sentence.

What is being implied by some defenders of the Hammonds is that the law is being exploited by certain individuals within the BLM to essentially run them off their land.

This case thus draws into question the potential abuses of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

 

[Bald1]

The state and feds pick up old/previous charges all the time. It's happened to several people I know. The fact they feel violated and ostracized doesn't give them the right to occupy federal property via threats of death. This whole situation reeks of a disgusting sense of entitlement.

The Hammonds are not involved in the takeover. They're at home waiting to go to jail. The militia guys took their cause as their own, and are running with it.

 

[panamaican]

(o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 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.

A 13 year old is mentally capable to be a witness. This is what happens when you read things written by people with agendas.

And the judge can't state that the memories were not clear or credible. That's up to the jury. If the witness was not legally credible then the judge would have had the witness removed prior to testifying.

 

[Blood and Iron]

That quote does not indicate that the fire was willful and malicious to cover illegal hunting.

.

 

[IGIT]

alanb posted it originally, everyone should read it

http://holdingblock.blogspot.com/2015/12/fact-event-hammond-family.html?m=1

hi Second Sight,

ahh, ok thanks.

i know you're going to be vexed by this, but i'd take anything that's written there with a grain of salt.

here are the authors;

We the People - United Individuals of these States United: Coalition of Western States (COWS), Pacific Patriot Network (PPN), Bundy Family and Supporters, Oregon Oath Keepers, Idaho III%, Central Oregon Constitutional Guard, Oregon Tactical, Oregon Bearded Bastards, Liberty Watch Washington, Nevada Committee for Full Statehood, Rural Heritage Preservation Project, Liberty For All (LFA) [continuous names below

to my way of thinking, anyone that supports the Bundys are folks who support domestic terrorism.

- IGIT

 

[oldshadow]

heya SS,

as i said earlier, i don't agree Judge Hogan and the prosecutor acted illegally.

that's one man's summary of what occured, i suppose...but i disagree with it.

i also don't find anything inherently sinister about the Government seeking to have the first bite at the Hammond property, should they sell it, since the property is encircled by a wildlife refuge that President Teddy Roosevelt created a century ago.

to me, it makes sense, and would make management of the reserve easier.

- IGIT

Yea but it sounds like they were trying to intemadate them to sell. They had all the others sell to them and they have wanted their land no matter what it took and stretching what is legal seam to be no problem.

 

[SMEAC]

Holy shit, had not heard about this. For years now the FBI has been warning us that right-wing domestic terrorists were a bigger threat than Muslims. Too bad these clowns had to do something like this. I agree they should be handled as harshly as possible.

Are you not one of the leading starters of supposed police brutality threads?