Hundreds of Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

Here is one telling of it. Since I found it by googling, it must be true.

A jury convicted the Hammonds of the Section 844 charge, acquitted them on other charges, and failed to reach a verdict on additional charges. While the jury continued to deliberate on the remaining charges, the Hammonds and the government reached a deal: the Hammonds would not appeal the verdict and the government would recommend that the Hammonds could stay out on bail pending sentencing and that the government would recommend that their Section 844 sentences be served concurrently — that is, that though the Hammonds were convicted of multiple counts of Section 844, each carrying a mandatory minimum five-year sentence, the government would recommend that those five-year terms not "stack," but result in just one five-year sentence.
https://popehat.com/2016/01/04/what-happened-in-the-hammond-sentencing-in-oregon-a-lawsplainer/

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Heh, don't go holdin your breath while waitin for that, eh, Glenn?

I hear that. It would be like waiting for oatmeal to uncook; it ain't gonna happen.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Just don't add water.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Here is one telling of it. Since I found it by googling, it must be true.

A jury convicted the Hammonds of the Section 844 charge, acquitted them on other charges, and failed to reach a verdict on additional charges. While the jury continued to deliberate on the remaining charges, the Hammonds and the government reached a deal: the Hammonds would not appeal the verdict and the government would recommend that the Hammonds could stay out on bail pending sentencing and that the government would recommend that their Section 844 sentences be served concurrently.
https://popehat.com/2016/01/04/what-happened-in-the-hammond-sentencing-in-oregon-a-lawsplainer/

That's helpful, Ed. It shows that:

1. They weren't convicted of poaching, even assuming such charges had been filed, and
2. They didn't plead guilty to anything.

1 Reply

@layman,

Here's my vote on the charge that Bobby-boy is a fabricatin, wiseass punk:

Guilty, sho nuff.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Guilty, sho nuff.

Yup! Open and closed case. He hung himself with his own testimony.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Here's my vote on the charge that Bobby-boy is a fabricatin, wiseass punk:

Guilty, sho nuff.

This would have been a good time to use "shuckin' and jivin'".

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

This would have been a good time to use "shuckin' and jivin'".

Not true. In Layman's sentence, there is no context for which shuckin' or jivin' could apply.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

This would have been a good time to use "shuckin' and jivin'".

Good point, Gent. That too, of course.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
This would have been a good time to use "shuckin' and jivin'".

Not true. In Layman's sentence, there is no context for which shuckin' or jivin' could apply.

I coulda added a sentence, eh, Glenn, but I plumb missed my chance. Let me correct that now:

One bigtime shuckin and jivin muthafukka, sho nuff.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

One bigtime shuckin and jivin muthafukka, sho nuff.

Now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about!!

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Re: blatham (Post 6103190)
Not to be a smartass, but I think layman's reply to your citing the Dept of Homeland Security in which he, in turn, cited the FBI warrants a reply.

I don't take you for a smartass. But the fellow wilted off my radar days ago.

2 Replies

Morale at Oregon Standoff Collapses After Militia Member Goes AWOL, Drinks Away Donation Money
Source: US Uncut

The week-long Oregon standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, already the butt of many jokes, is already falling apart due to infighting between group members.

According to a Facebook video that he has since removed from his profile, Cai Irvin, one of the gunmen holding down the federal bird sanctuary, claimed that one of the “patriots” walked off the camp to stay in a hotel and drink away the donations he raked in to be part of the insurgency.

The man in question is identified as Joe O’Shaugnessy, otherwise known as “Capt. O,” allegedly a member of the Arizona militia. Capt. O had been arguing with others at the occupation and ended up checking into a motel room Wednesday night where other pseudo-supporters have been staying.

Infamous anti-Muslim organizer and fellow Arizonan militant John Ritzheimer, also present in Oregon for the standoff, went over to the motel to confirm O’Shaugnessy’s desertion. Ritzheimer found him drinking alcohol paid for with the donations given to him by fellow “patriots” wishing to support the effort, according to disabled National Guard member and group spokesperson Maureen Peltier.

“Ritzheimer did call me – he’s ******* pissed, he’s mad, he’s upset. He told me to tell all of you that Joe O’Shaugnessy is a deserter and a coward,” Irvin said.

Read more: http://usuncut.com/news/oregon-standoff-member-caught-drinking-donation-money/

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

Good for him! He used that money that satisfied himself.

0 Replies

@blatham,

My suggestion was probably too optimistic anyway. Seems like PETA and the tree-huggers aint gunna try to defend the BLM neither.

Not after they sold wild horses to Mexicans to make horsemeat out of, and tryin to slaughter 600 endangered turtles, and ****, ya know?

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
I amended my statement from "pled guilty of" to "found guilty of".

Okay, then show me the source where you found that they were convicted of poaching. We know they were convicted of arson. But show me where they were convicted of poaching.
[/quote)

Glenn, you are dancing around the issue with meaningless queries. This zealous method of inquiry and misdirection might be necessary in a court of law, but we are not discussing the Scopes Monkey Trial and you don't strike me as a Clarence Darrow.

Those men were convicted of arson, personally I don't give a crap what their
rational was to set fire to acres of land that I and my fellow taxpayers maintain,
but I am incensed that moochers and lowlifes who refuse to pay taxes will set a fire that will cost the rest of us countless amounts of dollars, the lives of firefighters tasked to put out that fire, and destroys any wildlife that can't outrun the fire.

My question is, if someone finds the link to deer poaching, which nit are you prepared to pick after that?

One other thing, invent your own oatmeal-syle insult, use that determination we see in your nitpicking

3 Replies

@glitterbag,

Quote:

Those men were convicted of arson, personally I don't give a crap what their rational (sic) was to set fire to acres of land

Kinda changing your tune, now, aincha, Glitter? Just a short while ago you said you REALLY disliked them because they were POACHERS, as I recall, eh?

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

I am incensed that moochers and lowlifes who refuse to pay taxes will set a fire ...

You don't care now if they're "poachers," you just dislike the Hammonds because they are "moochers" and "lowlifes," eh?

On what basis do you assert that they are "moochers?"

On what basis do you assert that they are "lowlifes?"

On what basis do you assert that they "refused to pay taxes?"

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Quote:

Glenn, you are dancing around the issue with meaningless queries.

No, I asked someone to provide the source of a claim they made. Unfortunately, for them, they could not do so. And instead of admitting his mistake, he chose to become somewhat belligerent towards those who called him on it. It is also unfortunate that that rubs you the wrong way; unfortunate for you, but not for me. He also made reference to my saying that the Hammonds back the militia members. That was not true either.

Quote:

a fire that will cost the rest of us countless amounts of dollars, the lives of firefighters tasked to put out that fire, and destroys any wildlife that can't outrun the fire.

Actually, if you had done your homework, you would know that the Hammonds were fined for the amount that it cost to put the fire out.

Quote:

My question is, if someone finds the link to deer poaching, which nit are you prepared to pick after that?

And my question is, are you going to provide a source that says they were charged with poaching . . . or not?

Quote:

One other thing, invent your own oatmeal-syle insult, use that determination we see in your nitpicking

The important thing I will take away from that is that you are admitting to insulting me for the reason of catching your buddy in a couple of lies.

2 Replies

According to this source:

Quote:

The trial court’s 2012 findings can be summarized as follows: Dwight and Steven admitted to having started two fires, for which the court found them guilty. One of the fires was a prescribed burn in 2001 that, according the court record, accidentally spread onto 139 acres of BLM land.

https://wlj.net/article-permalink-11862.html

They are saying that the COURT FINDINGS say that the 2001 fire (139 acres) was a "prescribed burn" that was started on their own land and accidentally spread onto BLM land (not "for the purpose of hiding evidence of poaching).

The whole "hide the evidence" tale is suspect to begin with. What evidence? Why burn anything for that reason? Assuming it could be shown that deer had been shot, how would that prove the Hammonds did it?

0 Replies

Hundreds of Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know