- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 7,362
- Reaction score
- 1,342
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
We don't know that the government didn't do anything. All we know is that to have allowed all the fence cutting, vandalism, arson and threats to FWS and BLM employees that went on and for as long as it did...it's obvious they didn't do enough. Some of the locals said the Hammonds started a lot of fires on BLM land and blamed it on lightening. So just because they only got charged for two fires doesn't mean they start a lot more.
Huh? We know the Government (BLM specifically) prevent the Hammonds access to the water rights the Hammonds owned. BLM even challenged it in court and lost. Despite losing in court, BLM and FWS fenced in that water source to prevent the Hammonds access. BLM and FWS have denied the right of access granted to the Hammonds on roads in the wildlife refuge. Hammonds ignored BLM and FWS threats over right of access and water rights. BLM canceled half of the Hammonds grazing rights the following year.. Btw, that was just in the 1990s. Then on top of that BLM/Federal Government served Hammonds with a court order to build a fence around their ranch to keep their cattle of Federal lands despite Oregon being a free range state and despite agreement between Oregon and the Federal Government when it came to transfer of lands.
Yeah.. BLM is so innocent (civil law), cept for you know those things that are on Court records that I listed above.
Some of the locals? You mean the locals that have family members that work for the FWS/BLM and stand to gain if the Hammonds are off the land? Yep.. you can trust their honesty, right? Btw, under the rule of law, only way you are actually guilty of something is actually being convicted. They only have two "arson" convictions. But I guess to you.. guilty is assumed and nobody should be afforded the right of being innocent.
So under your view of the law.. since I accuse you of being a mass murder.. you are guilty of mass murder. But that's liberal logic for you.
2001 - The Hammond's informed the BLM after they started a fire to hide the poaching on BLM land.
US Government alleged they were poaching. They weren't convicted of poaching or even seen as poaching by the jury. But you fail basic concepts of understanding the difference between accusations and conviction.
2006 - They didn't call the BLM at all. I doubt the BLM would've given them permission for a back burn during the middle of a burn ban, anyway. So instead they flew over the area and saw the fire fighters camp and then started fires right next to them which forced them quickly evacuate.
And the BLM asked the local police to investigate and the local police laughed at BLM. BLM had no case in 2006 at all. It's why it sat in a file for 5 years until a new US Attorney took over. That new US Attorney had a name to make for herself.. and she did but she also was forced to resign for judicial and ethical "crimes".
Getting sentenced to five years in prison suggests the Hammond's were indeed convicted. It would be interesting to know if there are less lighting caused fires during they're incarceration.
Yes, they were convicted and I never said they weren't. Rather I've said from the start that the Hammonds served their time in 2012/2013 but BLM need leverage to get the Hammonds to agree to "Right of Refusal" (basically it allows the BLM to buy their land over anybody else and prevents transfer of land from Father to Son) which the Hammonds refused for years. BLM went to the US Attorney to force the minimum mandatory as leverage to get "Right of Refusal" . Problem is once it's in the hands of DoJ top brass it's hard to pull back a case and the Hammonds are victims of double jeopardy and a zealous BLM/FWS who want their land which sits in an area that the BLM/FWS need to expand.