From the desk of Capt. Obvious

[datachicane]

Ammon Bundy says he's never been to Oregon before, as he plans a campout in Harney County in January.

:rofl:

[cameraman]

We could get lucky and the whole lot of them could freeze.

[datachicane]

I can't believe they chose a CCC building in a beloved wildlife refuge established by Teddy Roosevelt as their rallying point against the inadequacy of gov't stewardship. The irony is thick and delicious.

[Tifosi24]

I can't believe they chose a CCC building in a beloved wildlife refuge established by Teddy Roosevelt as their rallying point against the inadequacy of gov't stewardship. The irony is thick and delicious.

And starting a siege without much food and promptly asking for snacks on social media.

[cameraman]

It is pretty impressive that they got the LDS Church to come out with a statement condemning their actions and disavowing any connection between their actions and the tenets of the LDS faith. That isn't how the LDS Church normally operates. You have to be serious idiots to get such quick attention from Temple Square. This is huge news in the land of Utardia...

[TravelGal]

Following this, albeit only slightly, on High Country News. He's emboldened now but been a scofflaw for decades.

[datachicane]

Full credit to the Hammonds for showing up to serve their sentences as they'd promised today, and for disavowing this nonsense.
Oregon, where even our seditionist nutjobs are more reasonable than yours. :thumbup:

[Ed_Severson]

And starting a siege without much food and promptly asking for snacks on social media.

To be delivered by the government-operated USPS, no less. What a bunch of 'tards. :gomer:

[Napoleon]

And starting a siege without much food and promptly asking for snacks on social media.

Better yet, a picture of what they brought has very in the way of food, but it does have free weights and what appears to be karaoke machine.

https://twitter.com/amandapeacher/status/683741037207007232/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

810

[Tifosi24]

Better yet, a picture of what they brought has very in the way of food, but it does have free weights and what appears to be karaoke machine.

https://twitter.com/amandapeacher/status/683741037207007232/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

810

Looks like the free weights are good practice for all the weights they should be lifting soon in federal prison.

[datachicane]

Since BLM's supposedly strangling ranchers with the lousy job it does managing the land, I say we give them what they want and transfer it to a CDC with the stipulation that grazing rights be sold at full market rates. Who knew rugged individualism looked so much like a teenager whining about doing his chores before Dad cuts lose with the keys to the Escalade?

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/libresco-oregon.png

[nrc]

And starting a siege without much food and promptly asking for snacks on social media.

Certainly not the first "occupiers" to seek food donations.



The notion that the Federal government doesn't have a right to own and manage land is foolish and naive.

Completely aside from that, the Hammond sentence - and the fact that the Federal prosecutor fought for such a harsh sentence - seems excessive. By comparison, the guy who supplied the gun that the Tsarnaevs used to murder a police officer got time served - less than eighteen months.

[Napoleon]

Completely aside from that, the Hammond sentence - and the fact that the Federal prosecutor fought for such a harsh sentence - seems excessive.

I have not read what the prosecutor's reasoning or motivation may be, but the Hammonds have repeatedly made death threats against the Federal officials that run that reserve going all the way back to 1986 and have been arrested in the past for various crimes related to that reserve. They appear to be every bit the wacked out trouble makers that the Bundys are, which I think explains why they are there at the protest.

[datachicane]

In any case, the Hammonds' case was clearly a fig leaf of opportunity here. The Hammonds themselves have disavowed these folks, and this is the first time the Bundys seem to have taken any interest in Federal minimum sentencing guidelines.

[datachicane]

Some interesting history about the Malheur refuge and the two, count'em two U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding Federal ownership.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/supreme_court_already_ruled_th.html

[Napoleon]

From a member of one of my favorite musical groups, Colin Meloy and Bundy erotic fan fiction:

https://twitter.com/hashtag/bundyeroticfanfic?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[datachicane]

Here's a pretty damning description of the Hammonds' burning activities, from the denial of their grazing rights renewal.
The fun starts on page 5.

http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/FINAL-Decision-Hammond_Redacted.pdf

[cameraman]

They are real lowlifes who do not think they have to follow ANY law other than the "natural law" they dream up to excuse whatever idiocy they are doing at the time.

[nrc]

Here's a pretty damning description of the Hammonds' burning activities, from the denial of their grazing rights renewal.
The fun starts on page 5.

http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/FINAL-Decision-Hammond_Redacted.pdf

They were tried, convicted, sentenced. They served time, paid restitution, and lost their grazing rights, their firearms, and a pilots license. That seems like a sufficient punishment.

Instead the Government fought to apply a five year sentence that was intended for terrorists even though they admitted that the Hammonds were not terrorists.

[nrc]

They are real lowlifes who do not think they have to follow ANY law other than the "natural law" they dream up to excuse whatever idiocy they are doing at the time.

Which "occupy" movement are we talking about again?

As with all such movements, occupiers who refuse lawful orders to leave should all be arrested. But there's no reason they can't just wait this out.

[datachicane]

They were tried, convicted, sentenced. They served time, paid restitution, and lost their grazing rights, their firearms, and a pilots license. That seems like a sufficient punishment.

Instead the Government fought to apply a five year sentence that was intended for terrorists even though they admitted that the Hammonds were not terrorists.

Minimum sentencing guidelines are a thing. That's why the initial sentence was thrown out. Removing the discretion of judges to adjust sentences is the entire point. Terror has nothing to do with it.


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.


There's an argument to be made that they still got off easy, since there were multiple applicable offense which, under a strict reading of the law, should have resulting in a minimum sentence of five years each.

[Tifosi24]

Trying to argue "legislative intent" won't work unless it is explicitly defined in the statute or code. There is no reference to "terrorists" or a definiton of terrorists in the code. The Hammonds were found to have intentionally damaged federal property, so that's it. Plus, the code in question says shall for sentencing; therefore, no wiggle room.

[cameraman]

Instead the Government fought to apply a five year sentence that was intended for terrorists even though they admitted that the Hammonds were not terrorists.

That is an outright falsehood. They cut a deal during jury deliberations and in exchange for the feds dropping two more serious charges they agreed on the 5-year term. It was the Judge who did not follow the law and gave them a lighter sentence.

There is no mention of terrorism anywhere except for right-wing pundits.

This is what really happened.


Three years ago, after a two-week trial in Pendleton, Oregon, a jury found 70-year old Dwight and his son, 43-year old Steven Hammond, guilty of committing arson on public lands in 2001. Steven Hammond was also found guilty of committing a second arson in 2006.

They were found not guilty of other arson charges, and while the jury was deliberating on the remaining charges, the Hammonds negotiated for the dismissal of those charges and a promise from the U.S. Attorney to recommend the minimum sentence mandated by law. The Hammonds assured the trial judge that they knew the law required they serve no less than five years in prison.

The U.S. Attorney also agreed they should remain free until sentencing.

Try reading the entire statement
http://kval.com/news/local/background-us-attorney-issued-press-releases-on-hammond-case-in-october-december

[nrc]

Trying to argue "legislative intent" won't work unless it is explicitly defined in the statute or code. There is no reference to "terrorists" or a definiton of terrorists in the code. The Hammonds were found to have intentionally damaged federal property, so that's it. Plus, the code in question says shall for sentencing; therefore, no wiggle room.

Legislative intent frequently comes into play both in the interpretation of ambiguous statutes and as a factor in execution of prosecutorial discretion. In this case the prosecutor had an opportunity to use that discretion to accept what was a just sentence from the original sentencing.


That is an outright falsehood. They cut a deal during jury deliberations and in exchange for the feds dropping two more serious charges they agreed on the 5-year term. It was the Judge who did not follow the law and gave them a lighter sentence.

There is no mention of terrorism anywhere except for right-wing pundits.

The law that placed a mandatory minimum of five years on this crime was the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996". Title VII of that Act, which amended the statute that the Hammonds were convicted of to impose a five year minimum, is titled "CRIMINAL LAW MODIFICATIONS TO COUNTER TERRORISM".

The Hammonds never "agreed on the 5-year term". They agreed to accept the completed jury verdicts. The prosecutor said that they would recommend the five year minimum but the Hammonds never agreed to a sentence and their council argued all along for a shorter sentence on an Eighth Amendment basis.

The argument that Federal Prosecutors are obligated to act on every violation and always prosecute to the fullest extent of the Law doesn't hold water when there are thousands of pot growers and dealers operating right out in the open who are violating Federal law. Many of those would subject to a five or ten year mandatory minimum if prosecuted.

The same Federal Government that could have chosen not to appeal a sentence that was fair and just according to all the sentencing guidelines used before the AEDP Act is simultaneously arguing that mandatory minimums for "non-violent drug offenders" are draconian and unfair.

[datachicane]

Did you read the link I posted above to the sworn testimony about the Hammond's pertinent activities? Hard to see how anyone could be sympathetic towards them after seeing that.

[Insomniac]

The argument that Federal Prosecutors are obligated to act on every violation and always prosecute to the fullest extent of the Law doesn't hold water when there are thousands of pot growers and dealers operating right out in the open who are violating Federal law. Many of those would subject to a five or ten year mandatory minimum if prosecuted.

The same Federal Government that could have chosen not to appeal a sentence that was fair and just according to all the sentencing guidelines used before the AEDP Act is simultaneously arguing that mandatory minimums for "non-violent drug offenders" are draconian and unfair.

I don't think any local/state/federal government should let it slide when a judge does not follow the law. The mandatory minimums are there for a reason. The law is there, if the government doesn't like the law, then change it. How many other people in jail would like to have their mandatory minimum sentences reviewed by someone who feels their punishment was excessive? Change the law, but no exceptions because the exceptions are not applied equally or justly.

[Tifosi24]

I did some of my own looking, because I have some time on my hands. The code in question looks like it initially went on the books in 1970 and relates primarily to explosives and arson crimes. The name of the act or amending title is irrelevant. My coworkers and I get to deal with changes in statute all the time that are related to oddly titled, or seemingly unrelated, pieces of legislation. If the code is modified, it is modified. If the Congress had intended the modification to Sections 840-845 to be related only to "terrorists" they would have written something in the definitions or preambles saying that these modifications only relate to terrorist activity and all other activities would be punished under existing penalties.

As far as I can tell, the main difference between this case and the non-violent drug offense strawman is that the government has decided not to enforce those laws (that is a debate for another time). Since the government brought the Hammond's case to court, and won, it is the AG's duty to defend the statute. It's the joys of checks and balances! The original judge made a ruling outside of the law and the AG defended what was duly approved by the legislative and executive branch. The judiciary at the appellate level ultimately found that the original sentencing was incorrect.

I would also like to point out that the Congress has further amended the relevant Sections twice since 1996, so there have be opportunities to modify the sentencing guidelines. There are clearly issues with mandatory minimums, but they are there because people want them. If we want to give judges more discretion then the laws need to be changed to remove mandatory sentencing.



The law that placed a mandatory minimum of five years on this crime was the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996". Title VII of that Act, which amended the statute that the Hammonds were convicted of to impose a five year minimum, is titled "CRIMINAL LAW MODIFICATIONS TO COUNTER TERRORISM".

The same Federal Government that could have chosen not to appeal a sentence that was fair and just according to all the sentencing guidelines used before the AEDP Act is simultaneously arguing that mandatory minimums for "non-violent drug offenders" are draconian and unfair.

[G.]

The code in question looks like it initially went on the books in 1970 and relates primarily to explosives and arson crimes.

Probably in response to leftist groups occupying, burning, and blowin' stuff up.
:laugh:

[SteveH]

The OR militants have updated their wish list. https://t.co/ZmDB3XC4Ag

[Napoleon]

The OR militants have updated their wish list. https://t.co/ZmDB3XC4Ag


I wonder what they would do if you sent them 110 grit sandpaper instead?

[datachicane]

They say they're in for the long haul? Sounds good to me. Temps there are in the teens and twenties F. I'd like to see the Feds come in at night and irrigate the compound with half a dozen firehoses. Get it thick enough and they won't see daylight until June, let alone snacks. I suspect they'll be more amenable then.

[nissan gtp]

The OR militants have updated their wish list. https://t.co/ZmDB3XC4Ag

cut the power and water, nothing goes in. add time. easy.

[TKGAngel]

The OR militants have updated their wish list. https://t.co/ZmDB3XC4Ag

If they added a Kitchen Aid mixer, they'd have a decent start on a bridal registry.

[datachicane]

Bunch of sweethearts.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/residents_near_oregon_occupati.html

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/rancher_i_didnt_know_anything.html#incart_big-photo


Some rumblings that they're planning on arresting the Sheriff for treason following the kangaroo court "Citizen's Grand Jury" they're planning for Friday, which is also when they'll ostensibly reveal their plans for leaving. Self-proclaimed "U.S. Superior Court Judge", part-time computer repair expert, and full-time crazy person Bruce Doucette himself is flying out from Denver to preside over the festivities.

[chop456]

Bunch of sweethearts.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/residents_near_oregon_occupati.html



Jason Patrick of the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, the self-styled militia at the refuge, said Tuesday the group had no role in any intimidation.

So that's what he's been up to. Whatever pays the bills, I guess.

[indyfan31]

The OR militants have updated their wish list. https://t.co/ZmDB3XC4Ag

What the heck is a 4" Apran? :\

[datachicane]

I can't emphasize strongly enough that these nutjobs are not from Oregon.

N8TTWujUGsU

Seriously, scary stuff going on here.

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2016/01/25/forum-malheur-standoff-canceled-over-safety-concerns/79290844/

They're removing security cameras from electrical substations umpteen miles away from anything, convinced the Feds are using them to spy on them :saywhat:. Careful with that ladder there, buddy. Five minutes listening to Ammon Bundy "negotiating" with the FBI and the Sheriff oughta be enough to convince anyone that these guys aren't rational. On the plus side, Max Temken sent them a 55gal drum of lube to go with all of the fine rubber goods that keep rolling in.

[Napoleon]

I never had a problem with Ruby Ridge or Waco. Give them an ultimatum, and 2 or 3 hours later put bullets through the head of those Confederates. I truly have no idea of why the government does not wipe out these home grown Nazis.

[Tifosi24]

They're removing security cameras from electrical substations umpteen miles away from anything, convinced the Feds are using them to spy on them :saywhat:. Careful with that ladder there, buddy. Five minutes listening to Ammon Bundy "negotiating" with the FBI and the Sheriff oughta be enough to convince anyone that these guys aren't rational. On the plus side, Max Temken sent them a 55gal drum of lube to go with all of the fine rubber goods that keep rolling in.

If they are stealing equipment from substations, the ratepayers in the area should be pressing the utility to file thief charges. And don't even get me started about the potential impacts to the general grid by there not being enough monitoring of sensitive infrastructure.

[nrc]

I never had a problem with Ruby Ridge or Waco. Give them an ultimatum, and 2 or 3 hours later put bullets through the head of those Confederates. I truly have no idea of why the government does not wipe out these home grown Nazis.

Just to be clear, are you advocating summary executions for trespassing or for some other offense? Do you support the execution of any protestor who refuses a lawful order to disperse, or just this particular group? It seems like you may be a little confused about who would be wearing the jackboots in such a scenario.

These guys should all be arrested for trespassing and whatever other crimes they've committed. But any unnecessary use of force would just be foolish and further inflame the situation.

[Napoleon]

^^^

No of course not. I am presuming that after they are told to get out and the Feds show up to drag them out they are the ones who shoot first or otherwise brandish weapons. At that point the government should simply shoot them. I have absolutely no problem with that.

[datachicane]

I have no problem whatsoever with protesters of any stripe. Protesters pointing guns at folks? Not certain at what point that stops being a protest and starts being armed insurrection. Part of civil disobedience, a crucial part IMHO, is the willingness on the part of the protester to accept the consequences for any laws they may break. Holding law enforcement off with the threat of deadly force while shooting video selfies full of martyrdom fantasies is something else entirely.


I get that these guys are supposedly just protesters, but indulge me in a little thought experiment-describe for me a scenario where their actions would clearly cross the line from protest to actual sedition and armed insurrection... What exactly would that take?

[TravelGal]

Now I'm reading that years of fairly successful attempts to keep out invasive species (of the finned variety, not human variety) are being threatened by the fact that the conservationists cannot get to the area. :shakehead: See carp vs Linda Beck.

[datachicane]

An important and under-reported detail is that one of the compounds that they're 'occupying' isn't Federally owned at all, but is privately held. Not that legal nuance is exactly their strong point.

Can I call it a protest if I show up with guns and move into my neighbor's house, or is that different?


http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/malheur_field_station_manager.html

[cameraman]

Welp one of those idiots managed to get killed...

[SteveH]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-siege-arrests/index.html

[nrc]

I have no problem whatsoever with protesters of any stripe. Protesters pointing guns at folks? Not certain at what point that stops being a protest and starts being armed insurrection. Part of civil disobedience, a crucial part IMHO, is the willingness on the part of the protester to accept the consequences for any laws they may break. Holding law enforcement off with the threat of deadly force while shooting video selfies full of martyrdom fantasies is something else entirely.

I haven't seen anything indicating that protesters were pointing guns at anyone. I'm curious where you've seen that.

Open carrying a weapon in Oregon isn't a crime. Pointing a weapon at someone other than in self-defense is a crime and anyone doing that should be arrested. If you threaten an officer with grave bodily harm then they have every right to use deadly force to defend themselves.


I get that these guys are supposedly just protesters, but indulge me in a little thought experiment-describe for me a scenario where their actions would clearly cross the line from protest to actual sedition and armed insurrection... What exactly would that take?

If they violently attack civil authority for the purpose of overthrowing it then it's an armed insurrection. Sitting in the refuge with or without weapons is not.

I've said from the outset that these guys were in the wrong and should all be arrested. I'm just bemused by the sudden enthusiasm for police use of deadly force.

[datachicane]

The argument that these are just open-carry enthusiasts engaging in some plain old civil disobedience is completely off the rails.
I guarantee you that a goodly proportion of any randomly selected residents of Burns are carrying, and no one ever bats an eye. It's a non-issue.

There's a difference, though, between protesters who happen to be carrying sidearms and guys showing up with piles of pseudo-military gear, vests, etc., etc., threatening townspeople and local Federal employees, families of the Judge and local LEOs, all of which there's more documented evidence for than I have the energy to provide. There's a reason why there were no employees at the refugee when Bundy et al showed up, and it wasn't because it was 'abandoned' for the season. They were evacuated.

It's no longer civil disobedience when you use the threat of deadly force against LE, full stop. Watch 30 seconds of that idiot Fry's live feed from inside the compound if you can stomach it, and then get back to me. Here's some random quotes from Ammon Bundy, Anderson, Fry, etc, sloppy formatting because I just don't have my heart in it.



“There are no laws in this United States now! This is a free-for-all Armageddon!”

"If they stop you from getting here, kill them!"

Jason Patrick was indicted last year on a charge of making terroristic threats, a felony. He was accused of "threatening to kill everyone inside the Warner Robins Municipal Court complex," south of Macon, in August, an indictment filed in Houston County Superior Court shows.Patrick was indicted last year on a charge of making terroristic threats, a felony. He was accused of "threatening to kill everyone inside the Warner Robins Municipal Court complex," south of Macon, in August, an indictment filed in Houston County Superior Court shows.

Ammond Bundy: "ALL PATRIOTS ITS TIME TO STAND UP NOT STAND DOWN!!! WE NEED YOUR HELP!!! COME PREPARED." What does 'come prepared' mean in this context?

“If force is used against us, we would defend ourselves."

"I hope each and every one of you get shot in the forehead"

[cameraman]

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZx85P5W0AA6GDL.jpg

[datachicane]

I have a bit of an apology to make, rereading my comments in this thread. My tone is not one I'm proud of.

I'm taking this more than a bit personally. I grew up knocking around Grant and Harney Counties, and I know these communities pretty well. My grandfather (whom I've posted here about before) was a Presbyterian minister who served a number of these communities that couldn't afford their own pastor, and made a circuit every Sunday covering John Day, Dayville, Mt. Vernon, Monument, and likely a few others I've forgotten. As a kid I watched the annual cattle drive through downtown John Day. It hurts my soul to see these guys choosing these communities to spread their poison. I only pray that it doesn't take root. They've got a hard enough road without piling a bunch of delusional ******** fantasies on top of it.

[cameraman]

I also have a very personal stake in this as the people I work with have had equipment vandalized, cars shot up and tires slashed by "patriots" who don't like damned government biologists. They have been doing this crap for decades and while the BLM is far from perfect I have zero tolerance for these idiots.