ThreeCorners - 2016-01-31 11:16 PM  Finicum is a right handed shooter. He wore a right handed hip holster. At the scene, he was reaching to his left side. According the the TWO THAT WERE THERE, he was unarmed. His guns are still at the reserve!

Bibliafarm - 2016-01-31 7:28 PM So he built his home on leased land.. and when they wanted it back .. he lost it.. makes me wonder why build on that part.. or am i confused..  

Bear - 2016-01-31 9:59 PM This is the best explanation I've read so far. It all seems to fit. As much as I feel their plight, I just think LaVoy made the same mistake so many inner city thugs have made. In those instances, there were similar claims that the cops murdered the thug, same as LaVoy. I'm not saying he's some thug, but he made the same fatal error in judgement, and the claims that he was murdered are the same. If he was murdered, then there should be enough evidence to lead to an indictment. This is definitely worth reading.

MS2011 - 2016-02-01 8:20 AM


You're confused.  They're not building homes on the leased portion.
Research land grabs.  It's being fought in TX right now.
 

jbhoot - 2016-02-01 7:34 AM I agree with this.

Red Raider - 2016-02-01 10:35 AM I've read on this thread many references to the notion that going through the courts or trying to fix government through the legal process is not working.  Case in point, many of you are focused on passing around the petition to free the Hammonds and have attention brought to their situation.  I think that's great and it's a good thing.  The problem I see with this is that it's a bandaid fix to a bigger problem that has the potential to bring abuse to citizens over and over.  



I say band-aid fix because you guys are basically asking that an exception be made to a law that actually needs to be rewritten.  Finney posted earlier about the problems with mandatory minimums and I can tell you, anybody involved in criminal prosecutions and defense have some pretty strong viewpoints on this one issue alone.  As a current defense attorney and ex-prosecutor, I generally hate them.  I think it takes away from a jury's right to assess a proper punishment and it keeps common sense from entering the situation when it is needed. 



I know people are upset about the Hammonds being forced to go back to jail but it's the law.  Asking for their situation to be resolved only helps them.  It doesn't do anything for hundreds of other people the BLM can target and try under this same law.  So while you are signing that petition on behalf of the Hammonds, you really also need to be concentrating on contacting your legislators on having that particular law -- especially the minimum range -- revisited and rewrote.  That's real change.  That's how you actually do it.  If not, you'll be one of the millions complaining that going through the court's doesn't work and nothing will ever get changed unless we bring violence or man-power into the situation.  No -- you need to learn how to fight right before you can say it's not working.  God Bless you all but you're not fighting right.  Keep fighting but learn and understand and recalibrate when you know how to do it better.

 

Red Raider - 2016-02-01 10:35 AM

I've read on this thread many references to the notion that going through the courts or trying to fix government through the legal process is not working.  Case in point, many of you are focused on passing around the petition to free the Hammonds and have attention brought to their situation.  I think that's great and it's a good thing.  The problem I see with this is that it's a bandaid fix to a bigger problem that has the potential to bring abuse to citizens over and over.  

I say band-aid fix because you guys are basically asking that an exception be made to a law that actually needs to be rewritten.  Finney posted earlier about the problems with mandatory minimums and I can tell you, anybody involved in criminal prosecutions and defense have some pretty strong viewpoints on this one issue alone.  As a current defense attorney and ex-prosecutor, I generally hate them.  I think it takes away from a jury's right to assess a proper punishment and it keeps common sense from entering the situation when it is needed. 

I know people are upset about the Hammonds being forced to go back to jail but it's the law.  Asking for their situation to be resolved only helps them.  It doesn't do anything for hundreds of other people the BLM can target and try under this same law.  So while you are signing that petition on behalf of the Hammonds, you really also need to be concentrating on contacting your legislators on having that particular law -- especially the minimum range -- revisited and rewrote.  That's real change.  That's how you actually do it.  If not, you'll be one of the millions complaining that going through the court's doesn't work and nothing will ever get changed unless we bring violence or man-power into the situation.  No -- you need to learn how to fight right before you can say it's not working.  God Bless you all but you're not fighting right.  Keep fighting but learn and understand and recalibrate when you know how to do it better.
 

Red Raider - 2016-02-01 9:26 AM I agree with this too and I watch police videos of stops, shootings and other stuff for a living.  He had many chances to do a different thing to protect his life and didn't do one of them at any time.  It's sad but it's what happened. 



I know people have posted that the Sheriff was two-crossing them on saying he was somewhere and was at the roadblock scene.  I'm glad that they actually planned this in a remote area instead of having a major shootout in town by other people and where innocent people could be shot in cross-fire.  The Feds and other agencies made the determination to act on this day and at this time.  They knew the potential for something bad was going to happen -- hence the bird in the sky filming stuff when typically it would all be done on ground because they knew people would be analyzing everything done that day.  They chose a remote area and held back traffic on that road in case a chase ensued and thank God -- did you see how Lavoy was driving all over the road when he was running?  I remember watching the video the first time and thinking "Wow, I hope to God nobody is coming up that road."  The Sheriff asking them to come to the meeting was one of many ways that they were trying to avoid a Waco Situation and do this on a more peaceful level.   

 

MS2011 - 2016-02-01 10:43 AM
 This case is weird in how the sentencing has come about. 

I do want to clear up some confusion:  this case was the product of both a jury trial and a plea agreement.  The Hammonds chose to take the guilt/innocence phase to a jury who convicted them on some of the charges.  While the jury was deliberating, the Hammonds and the State came to an agreement on punishment and that is where the plea agreeement part comes in.  In that plea agreement, the Hammonds agreed to be sentenced to the five year minimum and for the sentences to run at the same time (concurrently) so that they did not serve five on one and then five on another. 

When the sentencing hearing took place, the Hammonds agreed to the five year minimum and the Judge accepted that plea.  The Court, however, took it's own initiative and found that imposing such a sentence would be a violation of the 8th Amendment (freedom from cruel and unusual punishment) and lessened the sentence on it's own.  That is highly unusual.  What you typically see in criminal cases is that someone is sentenced and as part of the appeal process, you argue that the sentence is cruel and unusual in the appeallate courts and have the law declared unconstitutional.  In this case, the Judge skipped that huge step and just said "I'm finding it against the law and am changing it."  The Judge really doesn't have the authority to do this because that's not the process the case must take to have such a law challenged, declared unconstitutional and a new, more appropriate sentence entered. 

So what the Judge basically did was screw everything up.  By short-circuiting things, it made it where the Hammonds did not have the ability to challenge the law on appeal because they were given a more appropriate punishment and they couldn't get it changed that way.  The prosecutors were stuck with an issue of the law being violated by a Judge who went rouge and they had to challenge the sentence as part of their job.  This lessor sentence was really against the law. 

So what's happened now is that the State has filed legal paperwork to have the appellate court review what this Judge did, that Court said "Oh, that's wrong.  That Judge can't do that" and the case was sent back for re-sentencing in front of that first Court the way it should have been all along.  That's why the Court is now saying we have to follow the law and impose this minimum sentence that should have been done all along. 

In short, the Judge messed everything up but it wasn't done in a malicious way.  In trying to do the right thing and return some common sense to the system, the Judge was trying to knock out a few steps in this instance and actually give the Hammonds something that they were not entitled to by law.  This Judge was really sympathetic to their plight.  The way it was done is just not how you do that by law and that's what's now being corrected by the Hammonds serving this five year sentence.  Hopefully their attorneys now can start filing that paperwork to have this statute declared inconstitutional on the basis of that mandatory minimum being a cruel and unusual punishment and we can see some changes that way. 
 

Red Raider - 2016-02-01 10:08 AM
I only want to correct you on the fact that it was not the State that pushed this issue:
Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM, and her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank Papagni exemplified further vindictive behavior by filing an appeal with the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight’s and Steven’s return to federal prison for the entire 5 years.
This is a good summary of the time frame (I think it was posted early on this thread?) it's also interesting to note that the refuge or the blm, it says in this, have the 'first right of refusal' in the event it's ever sold:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/
 

musikmaker - 2016-02-01 11:00 AM I'm glad you're glad that they decided to murder someone on the sly instead of where they actually took the stand...I know that was said of David Koresh during the Waco killings so I can understand the sentiment...except, of course, I will never give the feds a 'free pass' to kill anyone who's not a threat to anyone except the government. 

The 'potential' the fed was afraid of (and still are) is the 'spread of the virus'...they said it themselves. People asserting the Constitution...which, as an attorney, you likely know very well that it's not welcome in the courts, people have been charged with 'contempt' for daring to bring it up to certain judges.

It's possible that Lavoy was driving erratically because they were being shot at.

The fed are pushing this issue to one that could be become even more deadly...as many know that the courts are not 'nuetral'. Especially not the federal courts.

 

Red Raider - 2016-02-01 9:35 AM I've read on this thread many references to the notion that going through the courts or trying to fix government through the legal process is not working.  Case in point, many of you are focused on passing around the petition to free the Hammonds and have attention brought to their situation.  I think that's great and it's a good thing.  The problem I see with this is that it's a bandaid fix to a bigger problem that has the potential to bring abuse to citizens over and over.  



I say band-aid fix because you guys are basically asking that an exception be made to a law that actually needs to be rewritten.  Finney posted earlier about the problems with mandatory minimums and I can tell you, anybody involved in criminal prosecutions and defense have some pretty strong viewpoints on this one issue alone.  As a current defense attorney and ex-prosecutor, I generally hate them.  I think it takes away from a jury's right to assess a proper punishment and it keeps common sense from entering the situation when it is needed. 



I know people are upset about the Hammonds being forced to go back to jail but it's the law.  Asking for their situation to be resolved only helps them.  It doesn't do anything for hundreds of other people the BLM can target and try under this same law.  So while you are signing that petition on behalf of the Hammonds, you really also need to be concentrating on contacting your legislators on having that particular law -- especially the minimum range -- revisited and rewrote.  That's real change.  That's how you actually do it.  If not, you'll be one of the millions complaining that going through the court's doesn't work and nothing will ever get changed unless we bring violence or man-power into the situation.  No -- you need to learn how to fight right before you can say it's not working.  God Bless you all but you're not fighting right.  Keep fighting but learn and understand and recalibrate when you know how to do it better.

 

musikmaker - 2016-02-01 11:26 AM

 

Red Raider - 2016-02-01 10:29 AM Don't attribute words to me that I didn't say.  I'm not "glad" that Lavoy is dead and that he didn't get a chance to air his grievances in court.  I don't think the government is perfect in how they act but I will give them credit for the things they do try to do right.  It could have been much worse for innocent people involved.  Saying that Lavoy screwed up by some of his actions is also an acknowledgement that he and his followers are not perfect either.  They made some bad choices.  I've never walked into court with a case that didn't have some f*ck-ups on both sides -- so I'm not afraid to point out those facts while still arguing overall that something isn't right.  That's reality and the arena I play in everyday.  I'm sorry that upsets you but don't say I'm glad about something happening when that's not the case.  



If the Feds really wanted this hidden, they could have easily covered it up much more than they are doing now.  They didn't have to have a helicopter in the air filming everything and they didn't have to disclose that film so early in the process.  Could they have done it better?  Hell, yes.  Why didn't they deploy those flashing devices on the first stop instead of shooting?  Why didn't they have more vehicles along that route that would have made it impossible for Lavoy to drive that far, pick up that amount of speed and come around a corner into a blind barricade?  Their choice, their mistake.  



The more people push this agenda that the courts aren't fair, the more they are going to find it to be true because you will see people not fighting at all because they've been convinced it's not so.  Part of what I have to do daily is shore-up people into at least believing they do have rights, even in an impossible situation.  It's usually not the rights they want or how they want the proceedings to go but it's not hopeless or impossible to combat.  When you say you can't get a fair shake in court, juries won't try to make it where that's possible because they've been programmed to see it one way.  I don't understand why people who are wanting change say stuff like this -- it's like shooting yourself in the foot.  



Making change through the courts is not an easy business.  It takes time and lots of it and the perfect case to do it with.  Those cases are possible one in a thousand at best.  Most court hearings aren't publicized and attorneys aren't making the news for huge rulings unless something goes wrong or it's outrageous in a fact basis.  Judge's like the one the Hammonds originally had are only making the news for causing controversy and not for the huge gains that actually took place.  You don't see a Judge flat out refusing to implement under a minimum sentence.  It's unheard of like an urban legend or myth.  The only news articles I read where a simple blurb about the sentencing itself.  No one looked further to report on what a huge deal it was to do something like that.  The changes are quiet but they are happening.      

Nevertooold - 2016-02-01 12:00 PM Does it not bother anyone else how our government picks and chooses on who can stand for their beliefs and who can't? We watched Ferguson and Baltimore get destroyed by thugs and the police were told to stand down and let them do it. We watched occupiers disrupt Wall Street. A handful of ranchers occupying a preserve that is shut down for the winter was just too much for them. I call total BS.