Posted on 01/02/2016 9:38:11 PM PST by Nextrush
"After the peaceful rally was completed today, a group of outside militants drove to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they seized and occupied the refuge headquarters. A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area.....Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation"
!. Setting a backfire to try & slow down a range firee is a charge?
The Federal Government does this all the time with wildfires. Trying to protect your ranches—buildings—house—equipment— is something any of us would do.
2. “It was considered wrong by the Feds to burn pastures to control toxic weeds.
Burning pastures to stop toxic weeds isn’t anything new. They have done everything they can to blame toxic weeds on targets that were not responsible for such weeds. Horseback ricers have been blamed, when they are actually barely in the top ten reasons for the spreading of toxic weeds. Wind—Birds—Migrating animals—are all up higher on the list & the #1 reason for the spreading of toxic weeds may surprise you. RAILROADS. The rail lines were there before National Parks & other areas ere declared. A rail car can be in Georgia today & in Wyoming by Friday—no sweat. It is very easy for such rail cars to transport seeds.
The Hammonds have done NOTHING wrong. This is another Bundy Ranch situation, where the Federal Government is applying rules that have no basis. This administration in general would like every single rancher & farmer & person living rural to give up &* move into a city. I will NOT do so. Neither will my neighbors. Besides-—who will be growing the food you now eat if all these ranchers & farmers are put out of business. ???
Take your death wishes elsewhere, troll.
Why in Hell isn't he working with the People?
Go HERE and scroll down to 11/21/12 for a 34-page transcript of the court decision.
[Snip]:
MR. BLACKMAN: Your Honor, we have provided the court with an awful lot of information in writing, and with respect to Dwight Hammond, I don't really think there's any material disagreement, for example, about the guideline calculation. I think there's a point question in terms of whether there was any loss of more than a hundred dollars in connection with the 2001 fire. I think the court will recall that the testimony from the BLM range con at trial was that the portion of the public land that burned as a result of that fire was improved, not damaged, by the fire, and there were no suppression costs.
(They later claimed $15,000.)
THE COURT: I do have this question: We had argument on it, but is -- what indication, if any, do you have more than I have that when this five-year mandatory minimum was put in in the Terrorism Act that this sort of activity is what was anticipated? Is there anything?
MR. MATASAR: . . . I can only say, Your Honor, that my understanding . . . that this kind of activity was not intended in that statute.
Five years in prison? Fer Chrissakes, I've seen crime shows where a murderer served less than that.
And, standing up to such erosion of and incursion on citizen rights is perfectly in keeping with the oath to the constitution that many of us have taken.
People who want to snap to a judgement of these people need to research much more deeply into what is going on before they throw these people under the bus.
It is very similar to the conditions in principle at Klamath, or any other of a dozen places where the federal government is warring on citizen's rights in the west...and generally against people who are independent, making their own way, and are not in need or desirous of federal assistance.
In this case, the ranchers have leased federal land and are using it...as Bundy did...but land which should be either private or under the state's jurisdiction once they were no longer a territory of the United States and became a sovereign State in the Union.
Sure looks like it.
FReegards
“A new law” is the basis for Double Jeopardy. That’s why they call it ‘time served’. And not ‘time served until they pass a new law’.
That "new law" was on the books when they were convicted. And the appeals court ruled they should have been sentenced under that.
Jay Walking was on the books when they were convicted. Should they be charged for that too? Perhaps you don’t grasp the concept of Double Jeopardy.
Were they jaywalking?
Perhaps you don’t grasp the concept of Double Jeopardy.
I do. Do you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.