1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Whats going on in Oregon?

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by joec, Jan 3, 2016.

  1. chas

    chas Well-Known Member

    Not the BLM, they are a federal agency and are here to help us citizens :rolleyes:
     
  2. ped

    ped Banned

    BLM lets you camp 6 month for $180. pretty fuckin awesome.
     
  3. chas

    chas Well-Known Member

    So they let you pay them $180 to camp on public land that your tax dollars pay for them to manage? FUCKING AWSOME!!!
     
    cgordon3 likes this.
  4. Britt

    Britt Well-Known Member

    Wow $1 a day....man that's like a deal....do they have any Section8 Camping where I can be paid to camp???
     
  5. dsapsis

    dsapsis El Jefe de los Monos

    I realize you already have this all figured out, but no matter how you slice it, your claim of "forestry gave permission"i s false, as is your assertion that Oregon doesn't issue burn permits. The only areas where ODF has burn authority is in forested areas in the north part of the county (in and around the Malhuer NF). And no, it doesn't just apply to slash disposal; understory broadcast burning also qualifies. Burns city fire is not the local (wildland) fire protection district. The contract you allude to is for structure protection. I am pretty sure that area doesn't even have a local WFPD -- it all defaults to BLM for coverage (this is common in the rural west).

    Presuming the initial fire was legal, it became illegal as soon as it left the boundary of their land, as anyone who conducts Rx knows. It appears that there was at least sufficient evidence to allow a jury to reach a guilty verdict regarding the case of destroying evidence of an illegal take, which for convenient purposes, it seems you have ignored. So, that leaves with with a final application of government fraud, because, well, obviously man!, it's government. Gotcha.
     
  6. Sweatypants

    Sweatypants I am so smart! S-M-R-T... I mean S-M-A-R-T!

  7. klebs01

    klebs01 Well-Known Member

    There wasn't a jury trial. There was a plea deal that included a clause that the sentence is not appealed. It was the government that then appealed the sentence and the Bundy's have no recourse to appeal the revised sentence due to the original plea agreement. Pretty messed up dealing by the government.
     
  8. Mongo

    Mongo Administrator

    And? We weren't talking about the occupation, just the sentencing of them for lighting fires. Good on them for turning themselves in and staying away from the whackos in the protest.
     
  9. dsapsis

    dsapsis El Jefe de los Monos

    cite please.
    "A jury sitting in Pendleton, Oregon found the Hammonds guilty of the arsons after a two-week trial in June 2012. The trial involved allegations that the Hammonds, owners of Hammond Ranches, Inc., ignited a series of fires on lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on which the Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them for their cattle operation." cite
     
  10. ped

    ped Banned

    The USFS does indeed. It's called workcamping. You act as a host for the summer season, then collect unemployment the rest of the year. LMFAO
     
  11. klebs01

    klebs01 Well-Known Member

    I did misread. They were convicted on two of the nine original counts, to which they admitted to commiting. They did enter into a plea deal though, that included an agreement to not appeal the 2012 sentences. The government then appealed the sentences. Still messed up.
     
  12. dsapsis

    dsapsis El Jefe de los Monos

    The plea deal involved the Hammonds agreeing to the verdict, and in response to the sentencing offer from the government. The way you have framed this, the underlined seems attributed to a deal that asserts the government would not appeal the case. The government did no such thing:

    "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." source

    I'm sensing a pattern here.
     
  13. JTW

    JTW Well-Known Member

    Because you are the one who said they were idiots for running from the law. Turning themselves in is not running from the law.
     
  14. Mongo

    Mongo Administrator

    First mention of them as idiots - "Yes they are good, when done properly, not by two idiots. No matter how lucky the idiots got." In response to a comment about controlled burns being legal and good.

    I never said they ran from the law. Chas is the one who brought that up for no reason - "What made them idiots? I didn't see anything that said they were idiots?

    hell if they were idiots, I would have expected them to be sitting in the park building with the others. Instead they reported for their time. Doesn't sound like a a couple of idiots to me? Doesn't matter if they feel or know if the sentencing and the process is wrong."

    I responded with what you took exception to which is I've read a lot that made me think they were idiots and calling them idiots has nothing to do with running from the law. So yeah, still not getting your point.
     
  15. chas

    chas Well-Known Member

    I never said that Sean said that they were idiots for running from the law. I asked him what he felt made them idiots, still haven't seen an actual answer, just reference to "stuff" that was read that pointed to them being idiots. Of course what's great about all this is that there is plenty of stuff to read that they were not idiots, guess it all depends on the sources slant of the "facts".

    I was using that as an example of what an idiot would do in the situation they found themselves in. Reporting for their term was actually very smart. Let their legal team find a way to appeal it and then come back on the government for damages.
     
  16. Mongo

    Mongo Administrator

    Setting a backfire without being in touch with the people fighting the main fire is one major idiot move. I can list more, like the other fire....
     
  17. Orvis

    Orvis Well-Known Member

    If I'm remembering right, the Northern Europeans were only traveling through looking for proper digs to call home. There is evidence that our own Native Americans have been living here for over ten thousand years. I believe you are correct in that they did come from Siberia.
     
  18. Orvis

    Orvis Well-Known Member

    BUT! Was there any begetting?
     
  19. fastfreddie

    fastfreddie Midnight Oil Garage

  20. Orvis

    Orvis Well-Known Member

    Actually it had nothing to do with Russia. It had to do with several things that were happening at the time. Indian troubles, Spain's failure to make it work for them, then Napoleon's failure to make it work for him either, and the US's offer to buy the port areas which turned into a hell of a deal since Napoleon wanted to unload the whole package. I was reading about this time in US history just a few weeks ago and how the Indian affairs got involved in the issue of Louisiana and Texas with what Jefferson was doing with, and to, the Indian nations of the area.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase
     

Share This Page