The Hammond family is pictured above. The Federal government under the Obama administration has difficulty determining who is an Islamic terrorist, but they have had absolutely no problem prosecuting members of the Hammond family as terrorists, as part of a land grab effort by the Federal government. Here are the details, via David French of National Review Online:
Watching the news yesterday, a person could be forgiven for thinking that a small group of Americans had literally lost their minds. Militias are marching through Oregon on behalf of convicted arsonists? A small band of armed men has taken over a federal building? The story practically writes itself. Or does it? Deranged militiamen spoiling for a fight against the federal government make for good copy, but what if they’re right? What if the government viciously and unjustly prosecuted a rancher family so as to drive them from their land? Then protest, including civil disobedience, would be not just understandable but moral, and maybe even necessary.
****************
By the 1990s, the Hammonds were among the few private landowners who remained adjacent to the Refuge. The protesters allege that the government then began a campaign of harassment designed to force the family to sell its land, a beginning with barricaded roads and arbitrarily revoked grazing permits and culminating in an absurd anti-terrorism prosecution based largely on two “arsons” that began on private land but spread to the Refuge.
While “arsons” might sound suspicious to urban ears, anyone familiar with land management in the West (and to a lesser degree, in the rural South and Midwest) knows that land must sometime be burned to stop the spread of invasive species and prevent or fight destructive wildfires. Indeed, the federal government frequently starts its own fires, and protesters allege (with video evidence) that these “burns” often spread to private land, killing and injuring cattle and damaging private property. Needless to say, no federal officers are ever prosecuted. The prosecution of the Hammonds revolved mainly around two burns, one in 2001 and another in 2006. The government alleged that the first was ignited to cover up evidence of poaching and placed a teenager in danger. The Hammonds claimed that they started it to clear an invasive species, as is their legal right. Whatever its intent, the fire spread from the Hammonds’ property and ultimately ignited 139 acres of public land. But the trial judge found that the teenager’s testimony was tainted by age and bias and that the fire had merely damaged “juniper trees and sagebrush” — damage that “might” total $100 in value. The other burn was trifling. Here’s how the Ninth Circuit described it: In August 2006, a lightning storm kindled several fires near where the Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven responded by attempting back burns near the boundary of his land. Although a burn ban was in effect, Steven did not seek a waiver. His fires burned about an acre of public land. In 2010 — almost nine years after the 2001 burn — the government filed a 19-count indictment against the Hammonds that included charges under the Federal Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which mandates a five-year prison term for anyone who “maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States.”
At trial, the jury found the Hammonds guilty of maliciously setting fire to public property worth less than $1,000, acquitted them of other charges, and deadlocked on the government’s conspiracy claims. While the jury continued to deliberate, the Hammonds and the prosecution reached a plea agreement in which the Hammonds agreed to waive their appeal rights and accept the jury’s verdict. It was their understanding that the plea agreement would end the case. At sentencing, the trial court refused to apply the mandatory-minimum sentence, holding that five years in prison would be “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses” and that the Hammonds’ fires “could not have been conduct intended [to be covered] under” the Anti-terrorism act: When you say, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles where there are houses up those ravines? Might apply. Out in the wilderness here, I don’t think that’s what the Congress intended. And in addition, it just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality. . . . It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me. Thus, he found that the mandatory-minimum sentence would — under the facts of this case — violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” He sentenced Steven Hammond to two concurrent prison terms of twelve months and one day and Dwight Hammond to one prison term of three months. The Hammonds served their sentences without incident or controversy.
We know who the terrorists are here. Innocent Americans terrorized by government or by big companies. What happened to land of the free? The right to life is gone. Liberty is under duress and the pursuit of happiness? The only ‘happiness’ well protected by many laws are the immoral desires and perversions.
an example of lawfare
.
Lot of that going around these days.
.
Contempt for the law too.
“Lawfare” works both ways– deciding not to enforce laws has also
become a way our betters advance their agendas.
.
An example: in 2012, a whistleblower at banking giant HSBC gave documents
to the federal government detailing the bank’s participation in money
laundering for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels, terrorist groups, and Iran.
The SEC and other agencies had been investigating HSBC on such charges
for years, and now had damning evidence. What happened? The government
declined to prosecute, and not one HSBC executive was indicted, let alone served
a minute of jail time. Why? As Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer explained,
if the government had pursued their case against HSBC, it would have
inevitably resulted in HSBC’s loss of their banking license, and that was deemed
unacceptable. Evidently HSBC is not only too big to fail, it’s too big to prosecute.
.
HSBC was fined $1.9 billion for it’s actions, which sounds like a lot except when
one reflects on the fact that that’s only about five weeks of the bank’s profits.
(Not gross, but profits). No one at HSBC was charged with a crime, and the
only HSBC employee who lost his job was the whistleblower.
.
The rule of law is in deep trouble when enforcement is selective, based purely
on its usefulness to Washington’s agenda.
From January 2009, the enemy has been the evil Christians, rural bitter clingers, blue collar angry white men, the private sector.
Clinton,
.
I believe the government wants the money and doesn’t value the jail time. It’s the headlines and the money. Two other aspects: one, management agrees to the money to avoid other/criminal consequences; and two, the fine is civil and consented to while a criminal conviction requires a higher level of proof, i..e, beyond a reasonable doubt versus the lesser civil standard for the ruling – I’m not a lawyer.
.
I was an analyst and managed to avoid the BS. In my former life I was involved in tracking banks in two cases wherein multi-million dollar fines were imposed for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and/or Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) related acts. In both cases, I felt the banks were not “guilty”, the charges were technical violations of an administrative nature reported years previously but raised by then-NY AG Eliot Spitzer (a pirate and reprobate). The banks paid-up to avoid civil trial (lesser burden of proof) and months of adverse press. The fines were not onerous compared to the bad press/reputational risks. In one case, the bank was in process of being sold and the seller-owner realized a capital gain of $63 million instead of $70 million. The big losers in that case were the bank’s employees. NB: in my case the NYS had criminal investigations against “bad players” in branches, but never brought charges. Spitzer had gotten what he wanted: publicity. It was obscene.
Money quote… in my opinion; “There were terrorist involved in this travesty against justice, and unfortunately we are paying their salaries.” Don McClarey.
If I had the authority I would link up Sam the Eagle for you Mr. M. Great comment.
Mr. McClary,
You are dead on right in your judgement re: this matter. After that incident with the Bundy’s in Nevada in the not too distant past, it become known publicly that Harry Reid’s son, who worked for a given Chinese company, wanted the Bundys off of that land so that his Chinese company could expand on the land. I knew from the first time I heard about this situation with the Hammonds that a political prosecution was taking place.
I have found that rarely does governmental anything to do with farms, ranches, animals, and/or agriculture have to do with what is right. It is all about profiting the liberal elites and/or pushing the agendas of environmentalist wackos and/or animal rights extremists.
There are a plethora of terrorist activities taking place in the U.S. that involve the animal rights activities in this nation. I researched this subject and interviewed people for almost 2 years on this matter, and then helped to pass legislation to address some specific abuses here in my state.
In the case of the Bundy’s the BLM agents, themselves, were committing legal animal abuse by denying those cows food, water, shelter, and necessary care. The BLM’s actions were particularly abusive with the calfs which were involved. No one who worked for the government was charged, of course.
There is no end to the corruption taking place in these matters under discussion. And corruption seems to exist at all levels: township, city, state, and national.
The ability to feed ourselves and have access to clean water is very much a health and a national security matter. Whoever controls the food and water, will in the end, control the population. This is true especially in times of war and/or crisis. So these matters affect much more than individual families losing their livelihoods and freedom to live how they wish.
The US gov’t controlling that land in the West impacts all of our energy costs, mineral sources, and water sources, entertainment/vacation options as well as food.
The land that the US gov’t controls should be returned to the states so that the resources therein could benefit the residents of each state.
What took place with the Bundys and what is now taking place with the Hammonds is pure tyranny.
More info about the US Attirney involved in this case.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/04/unbelievable-update-oregon-bundy-militia-standoff-the-federal-prosecutor-at-the-heart-of-the-hammond-family-problem/#more-110548
My regrets, but much of the legal profession is a malignancy which needs to be cut out. That’s the law faculties, that’s the federal courts, that’s many state appellate courts, that’s big law.
—
It is time to scarify the federal criminal code, rewrite the penalties therein to incorporate brief determinate sentences, and consider replacement of federal courts and prosecutors with enfranchisement of state courts and prosecutors. The federal court system and U.S. Attorney’s offices do not have, taken together, huge budgets. A 15% increase in the staffs of local superior courts and prosecutor’s offices could do the trick.
—
If we end up with a Cruz administration, can we please liquidate the Bureau of Land Management and its holdings? Contrive a compensation formula for the extant body of grazing permits and put the land on the auction bloc. The Forest Service properties are a tougher nut; you’d have to make land sales contingent on state constitutional amendments to remove property taxes on woodlands and marsh. As for the park land and refuges, deed it over to any state government which applies for it, bar the multi-state properties and trail systems and bar a few jewels like domestic battlefields and veterans’ cemeteries. As we speak, more than a quarter of the land area of the United States is held by the federal government. This is wholly unnecessary.
Require the BLM to be self-sustaining. Then the permits would be honored. 😀
Liberalism is much like syphilis that you don’t get to know its long-term effects until it’s too late.
You are going to want to watch this video. The BLM purposely burned cattle alive, purposely burned privately owned ranch homes & other facilities, set fires within 100
feet of trapped cattle who had already been injured by the fire, deliberately set fires that risked the lives of ranchers and an entire town. This is war on the American people by the federal government. I never realized it was this bad.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KHyZQrMZ7lA