Reply With Quote
Greed for a few more acres of worthless rangeland caused the government to prosecute the Hammonds maliciously? seems kinda far fetched.
At trial, the jury found the Hammonds guilty of maliciously setting fire to public public property worth less than $1,000, acquitted them of other charges, and deadlocked on the government’s conspiracy claims. While the jury continued to deliberate, the Hammonds and the prosecution reached a plea agreement in which the Hammonds agreed to waive their appeal rights and accept the jury’s verdict. It was their understanding that the plea agreement would end the case. At sentencing, the trial court refused to apply the mandatory-minimum sentence, holding that five years in prison would be “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses” and that the Hammonds’ fires “could not have been conduct intended [to be covered] under” the Anti-terrorism act: When you say, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles where there are houses up those ravines? Might apply. Out in the wilderness here, I don’t think that’s what the Congress intended. And in addition, it just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality. . . . It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me. Thus, he found that the mandatory-minimum sentence would — under the facts of this case — violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” He sentenced Steven Hammond to two concurrent prison terms of twelve months and one day and Dwight Hammond to one prison term of three months. The Hammonds served their sentences without incident or controversy.
The federal government, however, was not content to let the matter rest. Despite the absence of any meaningful damage to federal land, the U.S. Attorney appealed the trial judge’s sentencing decision, demanding that the Hammonds return to prison to serve a full five-year sentence. The case went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the court ruled against the Hammonds, rejecting their argument that the prosecutor violated the plea agreement by filing an appeal and dismissing the trial court’s Eighth Amendment concerns. The Hammonds were ordered back to prison. At the same time, they were struggling to pay a $400,000 civil settlement with the federal government, the terms of which gave the government right of first refusal to purchase their property if they couldn’t scrape together the money.There’s a clear argument that the government engaged in an overzealous, vindictive prosecution here. By no stretch of the imagination were the Hammonds terrorists, yet they were prosecuted under an anti-terrorism statute. The government could have let the case end once the men had served their sentences, yet it pressed for more jail time. And the whole time, it held in its back pocket potential rights to the family’s property
Greed for a few more acres of worthless rangeland caused the government to prosecute the Hammonds maliciously? seems kinda far fetched.
sentencing them under an anti-terrorism statute does seem a reach. that law is a problem if it's broad enough to cover what the Hammonds did -- it should be scrapped.
funny that the Bundys need NR and others to spell out for them what exactly they're protesting. their own press conferences are far less coherent than their indignant media defenders.
there's one fat lady in fashionable camo, probably wishing she could grow beard, who's pissed that she's applied many times for BLM to give her more taxpayer land (aka "free stuff" that the Repugs love to hate) but is always turned down.
But that's exactly what I pointed out. They agreed to this. They're even going to show up to go back to jail, last I heard. They had a forum to fight for a better outcome and it was their own choice not to pursue it, not the prosecutor or 'evil' BLM.
The issue, to me at least, seems that the government didn't live up to its end of the plea -- it's not an issue with the plea bargain as such.While the jury deliberated on the remaining charges, the
parties reached an oral agreement and presented it to the
court.1
The government told the court that the Hammonds had
agreed to “waive their appeal rights” — except with respect
to ineffective assistance of counsel claims — “and accept the
verdicts as they’ve been returned thus far by the jury.” In
return, the government promised to “recommend” that
Steven’s sentences run concurrently and agreed that the
Hammonds “should remain released pending the court’s
sentencing decision.”
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.
It's settlement -- the Hammonds ostensibly thought they were "buying peace" with the plea agreement.
There may be some ery abreast considering the 9th Circuit's opinion suggests the Hammonds thought that their deal was to accept whatever sentence prescribed by the Judge. They're probably thinking the prosecution backed out of the deal by not accepting - and instead appealing - the district court's sentence.
While the jury continued to deliberate, the Hammonds and the prosecution reached a plea agreement in which the Hammonds agreed to waive their appeal rights and accept the jury’s verdict. It was their understanding that the plea agreement would end the case
Your point about it being on the lawyer's to counsel the Hammond's on the effect of the deal is well taken. Notable that there are claims for ineffective assistance of counsel.
My guess is that counsel was a federal public defender -- probably not the greatest lawyer in the world considering its rural Oregon.
So far fetched the government harassed them for 50 years
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 and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Being 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 that, “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 intentional diverted the water to bypassing the vast meadowlands, 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 that 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 and now the once thriving privately owned Silvies pains 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 that still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling fact about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study that was done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed that 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 that the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced 4 times more ducks and geese than the refuge did. It also showed that 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 that the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive towards the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found that 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). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was 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 intended to still use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that 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.
You can't receive or accept a plea agreement WITHOUT THE PROSECUTOR AGREEING TO IT. The Hammond's agreed to the plea deal then the prosecutor ed them by then turning around and appealing the agreement. That is just total bull .
Right, that's why I said it doesn't seem like the government lived up to their end of the bargain.
The 9th Circuit's opinion suggests the Hammonds, in open court, stated that their understanding of the plea was that the case would be over upon sentencing -- I understand that to mean no appeals from either side. There's no indication that the AUSA rejected the Hammond's interpretation of the deal -- or reserved a right to appeal in the event it didn't like the district court's sentence. Although it still doesn't explain why the 9th Circuit accepted the prosecution's appeal/refused to enforce the plea -- but then again -- it's the 9th Circuit.
The 9th Circuit's opinion is kind of laughable: "The Hammonds respond by arguing that the statements of defense counsel show that an all-around waiver of appellate rights was the sine qua non of the plea agreement. The record, however, belies that assertion. The statements made by defense counsel just before the judge accepted the plea agreement underscore that all parties sought to resolve the case swiftly, but finality was not the only benefit supporting the plea agreement. Other benefits included favorable recommendations from the government and the dismissal of charges. We thus cannot reasonably read defense counsels’ references to finality as meaning that no party could take an appeal."
So defense counsel says that one of the reasons why his client accepts the deal is ending the litigation upon sentencing, the prosecution says nothing, the 9th circuit acknowledges this is what happened, but somehow -- and despite these uncontested facts -- the prosecution reserved a right to appeal?
This was all about the BLM getting first right of refusal to the Hammond's land, which they got.
Best guess is the prosecutor agreed to the plea deal because the local BLM guys agreed to accept it... then when Washington heard about the plea results they backwards on the deal and forced the appeal.
What's Happening in Oregon Is Nothing Less Than Armed Sedition
By Charles Pierce, Esquire
04 January 16
Its roots in our politics are deep and tangled.
"If three years ago any person had told me that at this day, I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws & cons utions of our own making as now appears I should have thought him a bedlamite—a fit subject for a mad house."
—George Washington to Henry Knox, on the subject of Shays Rebellion, February 3, 1787
ou have to give Captain Daniel Shays this: When he launched his armed sedition against lawful authority, he at least was invited in. Overnight on Saturday, in an obscure corner of the Oregon wilderness, and contrary to the law, and in defiance of democratic authority, both federal and local, another act of armed sedition was committed. It seems to me that this ought to be a bigger story than, say, the belated prosecution of Bill Cosby, or whatever most recently came out of the mouth of the vulgar talking yam. In a small place in Oregon, the essential compact of the United States of America has come apart.
The Bundy family of Nevada joined with hard-core militiamen Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 30 miles southeast of Burns for years. The occupation came shortly after an estimated 300 marchers—militia and local citizens both—paraded through Burns to protest the prosecution of two Harney County ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday. Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and two of his brothers. Militia members at the refuge claimed they had as many as 100 supporters with them. The refuge, federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was closed and unoccupied for the holiday weekend.
(This is also something you have to give to Captain Daniel Shays. He put a little more of his ass on the line. His act of armed sedition aimed a little higher than the occupation of the vacant headquarters of a bird sanctuary.)
Before moving on to the larger issues, it's important to note that the local authorities, and the local citizenry, want no part of this noisy claque of armed meatheads. It is popular among these people who apparently have brains wired like short-wave radios broadcasting from upper Michigan to say that the real cons utional authority in this country resides in its local sheriffs. Well, the local sheriff in this case would like it very much if this particular invasive species would abandon his jurisdiction and go back to freeloading on federal lands in Nevada.
Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward told people to stay away from the building as authorities work to defuse the situation, The Oregonian reported."A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation," Ward said in a statement.
, even the convicted arsonists on whose behalf this action allegedly was undertaken have distanced themselves from these clowns.
The Hammonds said they have not welcomed the Bundy's help. "Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family," the Hammonds' lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff David Ward.
This is an act of armed sedition against lawful authority. That is all that it is, and that is quite enough. This is not "an expression of anti-government sentiment."
Flipping off the governor as he drives by is "an expression of anti-government sentiment."
What Alex Jones does every day is "an expression of anti-government sentiment," and god bless them all for it.
That's what the Founders had in mind. This is not an "occupation" following "a peaceful protest." That would be all those folks who got bludgeoned and pepper-sprayed out of Zuccotti Park a couple of years back. (And when exactly did ABC News decide it wasn't a news organization anymore?) These are men with guns who have declared themselves outside the law. These are men with guns who have taken something that belongs to all of us. These are traitors and thieves who got away with this dangerous nonsense once, and have been encouraged to get away with it again, and they draw their inspiration not solely from the wilder fringes of our politics, either. Ammon Bundy and his brothers should have been thrown in jail after they gathered themselves in rebellion the first time.
This is another step down the road that leads to the broken s of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. There are respectable people in our respectable politics who have been shamefully silent on the subject, and there are respectable people in our respectable media who seem terrified of calling this what it is. You want an example of the deadening effect of "political correctness" in our politics? Watch what the people running for president have to say about this episode. Look at how it is being framed already—or ignored entirely—by the elite political media. There is a cons uency for armed rebellion in this country that is larger than any of our respectable political and social ins utions want to admit. It is fueled by reckless, ambitious people who engage in reckless, ambitious rhetoric.
It did not begin in Burns. It did not begin on the Bundy Ranch, either. In its most modern form, and in the form most relevant to recent events, it began, as so many noxious elements of our politics did, with the Reagan Administration.
It began with a man named Ron Arnold, and a Secretary of the Interior named James Watt, and in something called the Wise Use movement with which the Republican party (and the conservative movement that became its fundamental life force) allied itself for its political advantage in the western part of the country.
Much of this popularity can be explained by the lingering economic recession of the early 1980s, which provided a receptive grassroots audience for the Wise Use claim that it is easier to force nature to adapt to current corporate policies than to encourage the growth of more environmentally sound ways of doing business.
Wise Use pamphlets argue that extinction is a natural process; some species weren't meant to survive. The movement's signature public relations tactic is to frame complex environmental and economic issues in simple, scapegoating terms that benefit its corporate backers.
In the movement's Pacific Northwest birthplace, Wise Users harp on a supposed battle for survival between spotted owls and the families of the men and women who make their livings harvesting and milling the old growth timber that is the owl's habitat. In preparation for President Clinton's forest summit in Portland, Oregon, Wise Use public relations experts ran seminars to teach loggers how to speak in sound bites. Messages such as "jobs versus owls" have been adapted to a variety of environmental issues and have helped spark an anti-green backlash that has defeated river protection efforts and threatens to open millions of acres of wilderness to resource extraction.
That was the respectable—if undeniably destructive—part of the movement. Its philosophy, however, was embraced by the growing militia movement in the same part of the country. Its philosophy ran in poisoned tributaries to all points of the political compass until it gathered itself into a great reservoir of toxic fantasy, and that is where the essential compact of the United States of America was encouraged to break down.
There is no actual tyranny in this country against which to take up arms.
There is bureaucratic inertia.
There is pigheaded bureaucracy.
There even is political chicanery.
But there is no actual tyranny in the Endangered Species Act, or in the Bureau of Land Management, or in the Environmental Protection Agency, or in the Affordable Care Act, or in IRS dumbassery, or even in whatever it is that the president plans to say about guns in the next week or so.
Anyone who argues that actual tyranny exists is a dangerous charlatan who should be mocked from the public square. Anyone who argues that there is out of political ambition, or for their own personal profit, should be shunned by decent people until they regain whatever moral compass they once had.
It does us no good to ignore what is going on in this obscure little corner of the Pacific Northwest. It does us no good to refuse to hold to account the politics that led to this, and the politicians who sought to profit from it. It does us no good to deny that there is a substantial cons uency for armed sedition in this country, and to deny the necessity of delegitimizing that cons uency in our politics, and the first step in that process is to face it and to call it what it is.
And, in related news, of course, Tamir Rice is still dead.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40914/oregon-bundy-militia/
Exactly. There's no way the defense lawyer isn't aware of the federal minimum, IMO. No way.
Also, is the plea deal sealed? It would be interesting to see what's in it.
They are using guns to take over a federal building for political purposes. Do they have to start shooting for it to be terrorist? Is that your distinction?
Even judges hate mandatory minimums... they remove some of their own authority. But, they're known to every party.
Keep them for violent crimes. Get rid of the rest of them.
more laughable evidence the Burns Buttholes are hallucinating freaks
Oregon Militia Man: We Face ‘Backlash’ But Black Lives Matter Doesn’t
“The Black Lives Matter movement, they can go and protest, close freeways down and all that stuff, and they don’t get any backlash, not on the level that we’re getting.”
Militia members this week have repeatedly drawn comparisons between themselves and Black Lives Matter. Leader Ammon Bundy, whose father is infamous Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy,told CNN on Monday that there are “some similarities” between the groups. He framed both groups’ primary opponent as a federal government that overreaches in its efforts to enforce order.
“The government should not be doing anything but encouraging the people to claim their rights, encouraging them to use their rights, and then protecting and defending the people as they live freely,” he told CNN.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...+%28TPMNews%29
Ammon Bundy Compares Himself To George Washington, Who Quashed The Whiskey Rebellion
Bundy, the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who made racist remarks during his own standoff with the federal government, also spent time criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement, which he says was responsible for “lots of looting and violence towards businesses and innocent citizens.”
He insisted that he and his allies “are not terrorists” and warned of the prospect of a violent attack on his group by law enforcement:
I do think the government has violence on its mind. That’s why they have taken so long to show up. I believe they are planning something for us to finally get rid of us once and for all. If they use force against us we will fight back to defend ourselves. I hope we don’t have to do that. I hope this all ends peacefully and the government does the right thing for once.
He also compared himself to George Washington, saying that just as Washington challenged British rule, he is leading a fight against the U.S. government:
George Washington is inspiring to me for what he did to help found this country, and all of the founding fathers by how they took a stand against the British. I don’t have any faith in our government anymore. I don’t believe they can help at all and will only make things worse for our country in the years to come.
Bundy may want to hit the books and learn a bit more about what Washington thought of armed insurrections after the U.S. became an independent nation.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...skey-rebellion
here's the US Att'y's take:
http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/ea...e-years-prison
I don't think they're terrorists, but they're certainly morons.
This scenario so far lacks any violent/deadly conduct that might justify calling the protesters terrorists, IMHO.
as soon as they shoot at local LE or Federal officers, the frame changes.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
