Bundys in custody, one militant dead after gunfight near Burns

rexlunae

New member
And yet, my friend, Al Sharpton who owes millions of dollars in back taxes walks the street free and unmolested?

Likely in part because Congress leaves the IRS chronically underfunded. Enforcement actions cost money, so they mostly rely on voluntary compliance.

But the bottom line is that Sharpton has never done something so stupid as break the law in a way that can't be ignored and then resist arrest with a firearm. If he did that, there's a good chance it would end badly for him.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Likely in part because Congress leaves the IRS chronically underfunded. Enforcement actions cost money, so they mostly rely on voluntary compliance.

But the bottom line is that Sharpton has never done something so stupid as break the law in a way that can't be ignored and then resist arrest with a firearm. If he did that, there's a good chance it would end badly for him.

Al Sharpton didn't get sentenced twice for the same offense (double jeopardy) under a federal anti-terrorist act for creating a fire break to protect his property.
 

Jose Fly

New member
Why did they get pulled over ?

Because there was a federal warrant out for their arrest.

Are there still occupants at the park ?

Yep. There's a handful of 'em holed up in one of the refuge buildings. The FBI has set up a closed perimeter. Those militia nutters still at the refuge say they are prepared to die and have referred to those who were arrested last night as "cowards".
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Those militia nutters still at the refuge say they are prepared to die and have referred to those who were arrested last night as "cowards".

Eh, those *cowards* will live to breathe another day.
 

rexlunae

New member
Al Sharpton didn't get sentenced twice for the same offense (double jeopardy) under a federal anti-terrorist act for creating a fire break to protect his property.

Having a sentence thrown out for not conforming to the law isn't double jeopardy. And the Bundys weren't involved in that case anyway.
 

Krsto

Well-known member
Al Sharpton didn't get sentenced twice for the same offense (double jeopardy) under a federal anti-terrorist act for creating a fire break to protect his property.

Creating a fire break when the Feds had a ban on burning to protect the lives of fire fighters. Though it's unfortunate they had to use a "terrorism" law and engage in double jeopardy (if indeed that's the case) I don't think 10 years in jail is unreasonable for lighting fires without permission when you endanger the lives of others. Perhaps reckless endangerment would have been a more accurate charge.

The other fire they set without permission was to control insects, according to their own testimony, and was done without any regard to federal property, which got destroyed, so in that case the so-called "terrorism" law was invoked, though as you say was probably double jeopardy.

But hey, this is the Hammonds we are talking about, not the loons at the refuge. Wrongdoing toward the Hammonds does not justify an armed takeover of a federal facility. The end game of these people is to get mineral rights to lands owned by the feds. Lots of uranium in them thar hills.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Eh, those *cowards* will live to breathe another day.

It's really too bad that *your President* (and at the time *your Secretary of State*) didn't give the Americans at Benghazi half the attention that they're giving the Bundy's :

Spoiler
beng4.jpg
 

Jose Fly

New member
Please explain.

I hope Rex doesn't mind...

When the Hammonds were first charged with arson on federal property, they were told by the prosecutor that a conviction of that crime carries a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence, and were offered a plea bargain to lesser crimes, thereby avoiding the 5 year mandatory minimum. They refused and elected to go for a jury trial, where they were subsequently convicted of arson on federal property. Now they're crying because they're going to prison for 5 years.

If they'd just owned up to what they'd done and taken responsibility, they'd be free men today and none of us would ever know anything about them.
 

rexlunae

New member
Please explain.

"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.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If they'd just owned up to what they'd done and taken responsibility, they'd be free men today and none of us would ever know anything about them.

Apparently they wished to make a name for themselves ... just like Kentucky Kim.

Well, they certainly succeeded. :chuckle:
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
I hope Rex doesn't mind...

When the Hammonds were first charged with arson on federal property, they were told by the prosecutor that a conviction of that crime carries a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence, and were offered a plea bargain to lesser crimes, thereby avoiding the 5 year mandatory minimum. They refused and elected to go for a jury trial, where they were subsequently convicted of arson on federal property. Now they're crying because they're going to prison for 5 years.

If they'd just owned up to what they'd done and taken responsibility, they'd be free men today and none of us would ever know anything about them.

And now, for the rest of the story (I hope Rex minds) :

(i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries.

(j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.

(j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff’s office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.

(k) 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 “Terrorists” under the Federal Anti terrorism 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”.

Read more: http://theconservativetreehouse.com...uge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

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