Bundys in custody, one militant dead after gunfight near Burns

[Krsto]

They were convicted of arson on federal property, which is specifically covered by a federal law that also addresses terrorism.

The "terrorism" label just comes from the title of the law they were prosecuted under. The prosecutor never referred to the Hammonds as terrorists or anything like that. But the actual law (CLICK HERE) specifically covers this case, as you can see...

(1) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.​

That's exactly what they did...they maliciously used fire to destroy federal property.

So they were re-sentenced for violating the same law, not two different laws?

 

[genuineoriginal]

THAT was *their* story ... which didn't jive with the grandson's statement.

The grandson's statement was not about the backfire set in 2006.

They were convicted of arson on federal property, which is specifically covered by a federal law that also addresses terrorism.

The "terrorism" label just comes from the title of the law they were prosecuted under. The prosecutor never referred to the Hammonds as terrorists or anything like that. But the actual law (CLICK HERE) specifically covers this case, as you can see...

(1) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.​

That's exactly what they did...they maliciously used fire to destroy federal property.

The statute they were prosecuted under was the ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996, which states.

(5) the term `Federal crime of terrorism' means an offense
that--
``(A) is calculated to influence or affect the
conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to
retaliate against government conduct; and
``(B) is a violation of-- . . .
844 (f) or (i) (relating to arson and bombing of certain
property) . . .​

They could not be prosecuted under the clause you mention in (B) without meeting (A).

There is nothing about either the 2001 fire to control insect infestation or the 2006 fire to create a fire break that remotely matches that requirement.

 

[Jose Fly]

So they were re-sentenced for violating the same law, not two different laws?

The crime they were convicted of carries a mandatory 5 year sentence. But the judge sentenced them to less than that. The prosecutor appealed and the appeals court agreed that the first judge didn't follow the law. They ruled that the Hammonds had to return to prison to serve the mandatory minimum. But the appeals court also allowed the sentences to be served concurrently, which basically means the court gave them a break.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

That "evidence" doesn't tell the whole story.

It's too bad that all of the evidence wasn't allowed in court.

n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail which would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for six days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Many of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury. Example: Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.

At admit it: You love the tyrants that run our government. Don't be ashamed, Stalin, Mao and Hitler had fans just like you.

 

[genuineoriginal]

According to the grandson, that's not what happened. Who should I believe ... the child who has no reason to make this stuff up OR the militant thugs who were arrested and charged with the crime?

You should ask whether you should believe the 24 year old man who has mental problems and was trying to testify about something he vaguely remembered from 11 years ago when he was only 13, or the law abiding ranchers that had called the fire department prior to setting the fire on their own property that got out of hand.

 

[Jose Fly]

Example: Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings the fires improved the health and productivity of the land.

That's what you think would have changed the jury's verdict?

:rotfl:

 

[Jose Fly]

You should ask whether you should believe the 24 year old man who has mental problems and was trying to testify about something he vaguely remembered from 11 years ago when he was only 13, or the law abiding ranchers that had called the fire department prior to setting the fire on their own property that got out of hand.

So your narrative here is that the jury that convicted the Hammonds was.......what? Part of the conspiracy?

 

[rexlunae]

So this isn't true: they were convicted for arson, then convicted for terrorism?

I only know of the one conviction. From what GO posted, it seems that there are terrorist implications to the law that was used to prosecute them, but there was still only one prosecution.

 

[Rusha]

You should ask whether you should believe the 24 year old man who has mental problems

After being forced by his grandfather to keep such a horrific secret for all of those years, I would not be surprised IF he did develop mental problems.

Thanks Grampa!

 

[rexlunae]

Here is the clause they were prosecuted under:

Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to
damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building,
vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or
possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or
agency thereof, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not
more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.​

There was nothing malicious about setting a back fire to protect property in 2006.

The prosecution of them under the anti-terrorist act was malicious.

Ultimately, that's a question for the jury. The jury convicted them, so it seems that they disagreed.

 

[genuineoriginal]

So your narrative here is that the jury that convicted the Hammonds was.......what? Part of the conspiracy?

The "conspiracy" as you call it, is merely the standard operating procedure of the Federal Government prosecutors and court officials that is systematically stripping the jury of its powers (such as nullification) and its ability to make a fair judgment with all the facts (by suppressing evidence).

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
Example: Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings the fires improved the health and productivity of the land.

That's what you think would have changed the jury's verdict?

:rotfl:

You have to keep in mind Mr. Fly that the jury didn't consist of a bunch of cross dressing faggots from San Fransicko who loooooooooooath people like the Bundy's (the Bundy's believe in God, what's not to looooooath?), but did consist of people from that area that were interested in hearing the truth.

 

[Jose Fly]

The "conspiracy" as you call it, is merely the standard operating procedure of the Federal Government prosecutors and court officials that is systematically stripping the jury of its powers (such as nullification)

None of that prevented the jury from either acquitting the Hammonds, or ending up in a deadlock.

and its ability to make a fair judgment with all the facts (by suppressing evidence).

What evidence was suppressed that you believe would have flipped the jury's verdict?

 

[genuineoriginal]

After being forced by his grandfather to keep such a horrific secret for all of those years, I would not be surprised IF he did develop mental problems.

Thanks Grampa!

You should be thanking the federal prosecutors that took a man with mental problems and coached him into giving a false testimony.

 

[Jose Fly]

You have to keep in mind Mr. Fly that the jury didn't consist of a bunch of cross dressing faggots from San Fransicko who loooooooooooath people like the Bundy's (the Bundy's believe in God, what's not to looooooath?), but did consist of people from that area that were interested in hearing the truth.

Um.......thanks for further making my point. :up:

 

[Rusha]

You should be thanking the federal prosecutors that took a man with mental problems and coached him into giving a false testimony.

No reason to. Obviously I am not buying what you (or they) are selling.

 

[Jose Fly]

One thing that doesn't seem to have been mentioned here, and is particularly relevant given that this is a Religion forum, is the religion of the Bundy's and their supporters (including LaVoy Finicum, who was killed last night).

Explainer: The Bundy Militia’s Particular Brand Of Mormonism

It's interesting to see a group of fundamentalist Christians strongly support a band of oddball Mormons. When I was a kid, our fundie church regularly referred to Mormonism as a cult.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Um.......thanks for further making my point. :up:

Allow me to let the Supreme Court of the United States make my point:

Petitioners are cattle ranchers who ranched on
10,000 acres of private land, intermixed with tens of
thousands of acres of public land. Both were convicted
of arson in connection with a 2001 fire lit to burn
invasive species on private land that burned 139
acres of public land. Steven Hammond was also
convicted of arson when a “back burn” he lit to protect
private land during a giant wildfire burned an acre of
public land. The fires caused minimal damage and,
arguably, increased the value of the land for grazing.
The district court found no one was endangered by
the fires
http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/Ha...for-Writ-of-Certiorari-Filed-June-17-2013.pdf

"Minimal damage, increased the value of the land, and no one was endangered by the fires."

How much tax payer money has been spent on this fiasco Mr. Fly?

 

[Jose Fly]

Both were convicted of arson in connection with a 2001 fire lit to burn invasive species on private land

Nope. They lit a fire to cover up their poaching, and that fire spread to federal lands. That's arson on federal property.

The fires caused minimal damage and, arguably, increased the value of the land for grazing.

So everyone should just go around lighting fires? That'd be a good thing?

How much tax payer money has been spent on this fiasco Mr. Fly?

Good question. Too bad these militia nuts claiming to be on the side of the Constitution can't seem to abide by it.

 

[WizardofOz]

Nope. They lit a fire to cover up their poaching, and that fire spread to federal lands. That's arson on federal property.

So everyone should just go around lighting fires? That'd be a good thing?

Good question. Too bad these militia nuts claiming to be on the side of the Constitution can't seem to abide by it.

Have BLM burns of public land ever spread to private land?