This is gonna get interesting! Militia takes over Ore. federal building after protest.

nitro harley

nitro harley

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
Wrong judges. The Oregon District judge was a Bush appointee. The judicial tribunal judges were appointed by Bush and Clinton. McShane was not even on the bench for this.

Before: Richard C. Tallman and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges, and Stephen J. Murphy, III, District Judge**

http://www.landrights.org/or/Hammond/Hammonds Appeal 9th district court.pdf
Click to expand...
Well if you were paying attention the post you started commenting about was in response to the oregon baker and not the land rights case. Here is one of your land rights case judges. Read it and weep.

Federal judge[edit]
President Bill Clinton nominated her to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Oregon vacated by James A. Redden in November 1995, and again on January 7, 1997.[1] Aiken was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on January 28, 1998, receiving her commission on February 4, 1998.[1] On February 1, 2009, she became chief judge of the court, the first woman to hold that position on the Oregon court.[2]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison
EUGENE, Ore. – Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon in Harney County, were sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for arsons they committed on federal lands.
 
budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
nitro harley said:
Well if you were paying attention the post you started commenting about was in response to the oregon baker and not the land rights case. Here is one of your land rights case judges. Read it and weep.

Federal judge[edit]
President Bill Clinton nominated her to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Oregon vacated by James A. Redden in November 1995, and again on January 7, 1997.[1] Aiken was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on January 28, 1998, receiving her commission on February 4, 1998.[1] On February 1, 2009, she became chief judge of the court, the first woman to hold that position on the Oregon court.[2]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison
EUGENE, Ore. – Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon in Harney County, were sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for arsons they committed on federal lands.
Click to expand...
I think democracy would be better served if we elected judges instead of appoint them. Jmo.
 
pnwmystery

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
nitro harley said:
Well if you were paying attention the post you started commenting about was in response to the oregon baker and not the land rights case. Here is one of your land rights case judges. Read it and weep.

Federal judge[edit]
President Bill Clinton nominated her to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Oregon vacated by James A. Redden in November 1995, and again on January 7, 1997.[1] Aiken was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on January 28, 1998, receiving her commission on February 4, 1998.[1] On February 1, 2009, she became chief judge of the court, the first woman to hold that position on the Oregon court.[2]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison
EUGENE, Ore. – Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon in Harney County, were sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for arsons they committed on federal lands.
Click to expand...
You're so cute that you think you're correct and yet you're so wrong. The Ninth kicks it back and she has to go by their ruling. Learn how our judicial system works.
 
G

GrowUrOwnDank

Well-Known Member
This is turning into a shit sandwhich for the Bundy's real quick. The locals are mixed about backing them. Other ranchers have stated to the effect of they don't want to be represented by "Y'allQaeda". The Hammonds don't back what is going on. The Bundy's are effectively outsiders to the area.

Please correct me if I am wrong on any of this. It's based on what I am seeing on the television and reading in the news. I don't feel they have very much support.

Someone didn't think this through very well. The Bundy's should rethink their position and strategies. If it were me, I might accept the egg on my face for poor decision making and work something out with the Feds to try and lessen the charges as much as possible. Just my opinions.
 
Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
The people of Burns, Oregon don't even want them there. The Hammonds turned themselves into Federal authorities in California on Monday, and have said that they don't want the Bundy's to represent them.






On top of this the Bundys have called for an "independent review board to examine the evidence against the Hammonds, we're just protecting Constitutional rights" (paraphrasing), so they have no idea what due process is and what to circumvent it.
Click to expand...
Doesn't represent shit. It's political pure and simple.

I could care less as it's the courts that have to decide and if whomever doesn't like it they have the right to appeal.
 
ricky1lung

ricky1lung

Well-Known Member
It will end with a few dead redneck idiots and a rebuilt facility.

There's gonna be a hard lesson being learned here. 2nd A and the right to bear arms is no match to the power of drones and missles.

Militias, lol, what a joke.
 
Rrog

Rrog

Well-Known Member
Well, don't get me wrong. I like the concept of civil disobedience. I think we need more demonstrations of our collective anger and disgust. But these guys are complete idiots and daddy Bundy is the head idiot. But he "understands the black man"

Jesus. Chromosomal damage, maybe?
 
bravedave

bravedave

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
The appellate court. I don't really want to get into and explain it at this moment. Long story short they get to review the case mostly procedure.
Click to expand...
Long story short...You missed the rhetorical nature of my faux ignorance.
They did NOT try the case. The notoriously left-leaning 9th, (who famously are beaten back often by the Supreme Court) on appeal by that strangely punitive BLM,opined on the waiver and the minimum sentencing for the terrorist charge. The original sentencing was done in the face of the terrorism charge because the judge and prosecutor closest to the case thought it obtuse.

Regardless, funny we have a government court handing out a decision that the plaintiff, a government agency, did not like so they appealed to another govrrnment court for the government agency's strangely punitive, case...muddied with their own conflict of interest.
Once again, it is obvious...

"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen"
 
Rrog

Rrog

Well-Known Member
No drones or other high profile assault. Agree completely. The passive approach is working so well. They just look like idiots with jack shit to do

And Bundy owes the govt a $1/2 million loan. I guess he didn't mind the government giving him a half a million. He also doesn't mind the government letting his animals graze for free. Such bullshit.

The dude needs to grow the fuck up
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
budlover13 said:
Ok, but if we give the government the right to parent, doesn't that mean they will "parent" us?

My boy is 16. Live in the house that I pay for, live by my rules. Help with the bills, get more freedom. Turn 18, and you get more freedom. BUT, still my house, my rules.

And that's where I feel we stand with our government. Except they pay the bills with my money. Yet it is still their house to rule even though I pay for it.

Hope that made sense. High as hell right now.

I see Rob's point about them being "masters" and us being slaves though. I mean, if we don't participate as they deem we should, the end result is them forcing you to participate or face violence.

And yes, I have the right to move. But I thought I was supposed to be able to stay and try to change things. Without fear of prison or death.
Click to expand...

I totally understand and am on the same track. That problem needs to be solved by the Population. The one candidate this time around that is not affiliated with the squeeze play that puts the same ole routine use the People get rich players running our corrupt government is Trump, that`s it. All and I mean All of the other candidates are in some kinda bed or play with the Two party system that deliberately cancels out any attempt to change the normal screw the folk get rich government we have today.

Right now our parents are on crack or alcoholics/moneygrabbers. We need parents that care, not parents that pay a babysitter and go out and play. The two party system and electoral college has to go, it works in favor of corruption and that`s why it`s allowed to stay by the corrupt. Trump is the first step in ridding us of this burden.

Obama can shed a tear all he wants, he still sold out to corrupt big pharma and screwed the American people of the healthcare program that solved all of our problems. I will never forget he did that to us. Obamacare/market didn`t have to happen, it works in favor of health insurance, not you and me. It should be the other way around like Obama had the first time before selling us out to big insurances.

Imagine if all those over charging high health costing companies went down the tubes,.....ya, they couldn`t either.
 
ricky1lung

ricky1lung

Well-Known Member
spandy said:
Our government isn't going to drone or missile any citizens of this country on American soil for an armed protest.

If they did, I would expect millions to be at the WH gates within days.
Click to expand...

I know.
It was a simplistic breakdown of firepower and capability.

If the general public is coerced into believing the armed individuals are "militants" or "extremists" they will pressure the gov to go in at any cost.
 
ricky1lung

ricky1lung

Well-Known Member
Rrog said:
But no way that can happen, as they are being properly characterized as cartoons and openly mocked. Even Fox News is mocking them

They will go home peacefully, shamed and embarrassed
Click to expand...

Hopefully that will be the case, I suspect it won't be though.
Some people are crazy enough to take over a gov building and shoot it out.

They are clever by saying they won't fire unless fired upon.
Difficult to prove who fired first when the fuzz takes back public land for the rest of the population to use and enjoy.
 
Rrog

Rrog

Well-Known Member
Starting a firefight would be about their only method to turn up the heat. However, if there's no one to shoot at, then what?

I think the Fed strategy is great. Let them take over and occupy a big stone outhouse in the middle of a bird sanctuary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top