Dave Karoly, post: 351650, member: 94 wrote: You can read the Actual Ninth Circuit opinion here:
http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Hammond_742_F3d_880_9th_Cir_2014_Court_Opinion?1451956657
Problem #1: Ninth Circuit...
The two men charged are going back to prison, as they should. They are not fighting the courts. These people are no better than the Westboro Baptists grandstanding at events that they have nothing to do with. Cut the power and smoke them out. I hope they throw the book at them and the they all end up in jail for a long time.
John Putnam, post: 351829, member: 1188 wrote: The citizens of this great country spent well over a million dollars to fight these fires. While the Hammonds repaid $400,000 you and I are still on the hook for over $600,000. That money could be used to manage a hell of a lot of sage brush.
Fire fighting has become a government sponsored industry, with most fires in remote areas becoming expensive controlled burns.
[sarcasm]Expecting anybody to cover those costs is also a disproportionate punishment. [/sarcasm]
The family at the center of the Westboro Baptist foolishness includes several attorneys. The believe they already understand every nuance of the Constitution far better than any judges.
Holy Cow, post: 351834, member: 50 wrote: Sage brush is "managed" by ignoring it. There is nothing humans can do to make it useful.
Actually sagebrush landscapes are managed by using prescribed burns and grazing...ironic isn't it?
The Hammonds want nothing to do with the occupation because they know that doing so would ruin their chances at getting off early for good behavior.
If they were involved with the militia, they would be made an example of and serve all 5 years. It was a smart move on their part, they will probably serve less than 18 months in reality. There simply isn't room or money to incarcerate people like that when there are actual hardened criminals that are actually a danger to society.
I agree with the above post. The militia, in my opinion are a total side show of the real issue. The issue I see here is between the Hammonds and the various gov't entities that have acquired land around the ranch for wildlife preservation purposes and disallowed them to maintain their cattle and other livestock. It is rare, to me at least, that landowners of multiple thousands of acres are in such limelight. As an aspiring PLS, these types of cases intrigue me. I wonder how could they have been avoided, how could survey work have changed the situation, and how does this shape the future for surveying in the area? Will there be extra precautions taken by surveyors surveying refuge boundaries? Will the BLM scrutinize their work any tighter? These cases usually end up in some sort of textbook or seminar on how and why things went awry.
gschrock, post: 351846, member: 556 wrote: The conviction was by a jury. It was not a terrorism conviction.
If people are not happy with the outcome of jury trial they can appeal, and appeal, and appeal... all the way up to the supreme court.
We all have that right. Average citizens have raised matters all the way up to the supreme court.
If people do not like certain laws, there are mechanisms to get those changed. And average people, and groups of people have changed laws.
People can vote out people that do not do what they want. This can and has happened throughout the history of this wonderful country.I like living in this country where there are such mechanisms. If people stop simply complaining (or threatening) and participate, that is how they can change things. Not always successful, but we are one of the few countries where such mechanisms are in place. If you have ever lived in a place that does not have such mechanisms you can more fully appreciate what we have here. Armed occupation of public property is illegal (no matter who it is or what cause they feel they are supporting). Even the convicted are not happy with what these people have done in their name. Such actions are not part of the mechanisms for challenging a conviction or changing laws.
Coming from a rural county, I have a different perspective.
That is a good explanation of how things are supposed to work in theory. It's an awesome idea that probably worked very well many years ago.
For small town America today, it is a much different story.
Seriously - Find me one person from Burns, Oregon that thinks their vote counts or their voice is being heard (other than at the city/county level).
Around here, the presidential election is already decided before my vote is even counted.
People don't get to vote on federal land management regulations. The NEPA process is a joke. The regulations are dictated from Washington DC.
Contact your representative these days and they send you to a multiple choice form to fill out....click 1 for positive, click 2 for negative...nobody even reads letters anymore. The best you will get is a canned response thanking you for taking the time.
We just deal with whatever comes down the pipe.
Am I wrong?
EDIT: I do agree with your idea on this being the best country in the world....and that there is a legal system in place for appeals and it should be utilized. I just don't think this is the type of case the Supreme Court would even hear. I'm also not justifying what they are doing. I just understand the source of frustration.
Andy J, post: 351837, member: 44 wrote: The two men charged are going back to prison, as they should. They are not fighting the courts. These people are no better than the Westboro Baptists grandstanding at events that they have nothing to do with. Cut the power and smoke them out. I hope they throw the book at them and the they all end up in jail for a long time.
As a precautionary measure the BLM should do a few water drops. Wouldn't want another fire..
To shed some light on this, here is a synopsis of the Hammond trial released by the US Attorney for Oregon
That sheds a ton of light on the situation from a judicial standpoint and provides a good idea of why the family may have turned themselves in. This is a great group of people to dissect current events such as these with.
To shed a little more historical light, the refuge is named after the Malheur River.The name of the river is derived from the French for "Misfortune". Around 1818 some French trappers had their cache of beaver pelts stolen by indians.
This is an interesting story written in 2014 that gives more of the back-story of what's happening.
JaRo, post: 351917, member: 292 wrote: This is an interesting story written in 2014 that gives more of the back-story of what's happening.
I've got clients mired in similar "disputes",,,,,,,,
The fencing issue is huge, if you live in a fence out state, then it's up to you to fence out any livestock, don't know if that's how it is there, why the feds would believe that they don't have to doesn't surprise me at all.
JaRo, post: 351917, member: 292 wrote: This is an interesting story written in 2014 that gives more of the back-story of what's happening.
The BLM's attitude toward the fencing issue in the article link above shouldn't surprise anyone. Native American nations that were moved to Oklahoma by treaty and laws have been given the shaft time and time again by that same bureaucracy and hypocrisy for almost 150 years.
Same old song, different verse.
Still not enough information for me.
The Hammonds were witnessed "Slaughtering a herd of 7 deer illegally, with others injured and limping from the scene".
Immediately I sense some truth stretching. It almost sounds like 2 men shot 7 deer, possibly consisting of does and yearlings (entire herd) - poaching.
It is the DA's responsibility to build a case that will be believable to the jury. They take simple facts and use their linguistic skills to portray the facts in a way that benefits their case. Not necessarily lying, but stating the same thing in a way that leads someone down a different thought process.
Technically, slaughtering is another word for killing. Seven bucks in a group could be described as a herd. Some bucks might not have been killed instantly, so they limped from the scene. All true, but that could also describe an extremely successful hunt by a family of hunters. The illegal part could pertain to the fact that the deer were killed near a water source, or they drove down an access road that was closed, or they were witnessed talking on a radio.
If anybody comes across the court transcripts, I would be interested to read the Hammonds side of the story.
Indeed, true words can paint quite different pictures of the same thing. There is a famous line from a Robert Heinlein story where the wordsmith asks something along the line of, "Which would you rather have, a thick, juicy, medium-rare char-broiled steak, or a bloody chunk of seared muscle flesh from the corpse of an immature castrated bull?"
So-called witnesses are prone to present their opinions as facts. Non-local "hunters" are not supportive of the locals who do not want them on their land, thus subject to retaliating in any way they can find. I would not have believed their testimony.
The use of words by the U. S. Attorney did create a visual scene that perhaps plays on the emotions of one side. The word "slaughter" almost seems to bring a vision of someone setting up a machine gun and mowing down a herd of deer. Of course "others ran away". That is what deer do when being hunted.
In many ranch areas where deer are overpopulated, landowners can apply for a nuisance permit where they can kill many deer. State laws vary. Obviously this isn't the case here, but the mass shooting of deer or other wildlife is permitted by landowners under certain circumstances. A herd of deer will eat quite a bit of baled alfalfa and keep coming back for more.
Why even bring up the deer killing? Isn't that for Game Wardens (State and Federal) and not the BLM???
