Hammonds Pardoned.

[Bright Raven]

This is noteworthy. See underlined.

The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out "Strike Anywhere" matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to "light up the whole country on fire." One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/east ... ars-prison

I read all that hearsay a bunch of times. You think there was a axe to grind in that testimony, or paid testimony by the DA?

Vince. Having worked in the Justice system most of my career. Justice is not like math or physics. It is a judgement. That is where the famous line - Arbitary and Capricious originated. The fact is, the Hammonds were convicted by a jury. That is the highest threshold there is short of Devine Judgement.

 

[True Grit Farms]

This is noteworthy. See underlined.

The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out "Strike Anywhere" matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to "light up the whole country on fire." One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/east ... ars-prison

I read all that hearsay a bunch of times. You think there was a axe to grind in that testimony, or paid testimony by the DA?

Vince. Having worked in the Justice system most of my career. Justice is not like math or physics. It is a judgement. That is where the famous line - Arbitary and Capricious originated. The fact is, the Hammonds were convicted by a jury. That is the highest threshold there is short of Devine Judgement.

The Hammond arson case was a court case culminating from 20-year-long legal disputes between Harney County, Oregon ranchers Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, his son Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, and federal officials.[1] In 2012, both Hammonds were charged with several counts in relation to two fires in 2001 and 2006, and eventually convicted of two counts of arson on federal land. Knowing they would face the statutory minimum of five years, the men waived their right to appeal these convictions in exchange for dismissal of several unresolved charges. After this mid-trial agreement was entered, the Hammonds were sentenced to a few months in jail, which they served. In 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated these sentences because they were shorter than the statutory mandatory minimum. The Ninth Circuit remanded to the district court for resentencing. The district court subsequently re-sentenced both Hammonds to the mandatory minimum of five years in prison, with credit for time served.

I'm sure your right, but all this was all done by a judge not a jury. The Hammonds waived their right to appeal, so their judge friend could get them off easy. It didn't work out as planned. I've tried to find how the jury voted and can't seem to find it anywhere.

 

[Bright Raven]

I read all that hearsay a bunch of times. You think there was a axe to grind in that testimony, or paid testimony by the DA?

Vince. Having worked in the Justice system most of my career. Justice is not like math or physics. It is a judgement. That is where the famous line - Arbitary and Capricious originated. The fact is, the Hammonds were convicted by a jury. That is the highest threshold there is short of Devine Judgement.

The Hammond arson case was a court case culminating from 20-year-long legal disputes between Harney County, Oregon ranchers Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, his son Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, and federal officials.[1] In 2012, both Hammonds were charged with several counts in relation to two fires in 2001 and 2006, and eventually convicted of two counts of arson on federal land. Knowing they would face the statutory minimum of five years, the men waived their right to appeal these convictions in exchange for dismissal of several unresolved charges. After this mid-trial agreement was entered, the Hammonds were sentenced to a few months in jail, which they served. In 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated these sentences because they were shorter than the statutory mandatory minimum. The Ninth Circuit remanded to the district court for resentencing. The district court subsequently re-sentenced both Hammonds to the mandatory minimum of five years in prison, with credit for time served.

I'm sure your right, but all this was all done by a judge not a jury. The Hammonds waived their right to appeal, so their judge friend could get them off easy. It didn't work out as planned. I've tried to find how the jury voted and can't seem to find it anywhere.

Vince. US District Federal Court in criminal trial requires a unanimous verdict. So you are looking for something that does not exist.

 

[True Grit Farms]

Let's try this, with a mid - trial intervention and a guilty plea on lesser charges how did a JURY find them guilty? This was all buddy buddy stuff till Washington got involved.

 

[Bright Raven]

Let's try this, with a mid - trial intervention and a guilty plea on lesser charges how did a JURY find them guilty? This was all buddy buddy stuff till Washington got involved.

Vince, my good friend.

This thread is about a Presidential Pardon. It was politically motivated. Which is fine. Most are! What you are seeking is Justice. This was not about Justice, it was pandering to his political base. Don't look so naive.

 

[True Grit Farms]

I really didn't care one way or the other about the Hammonds. I posted this because it pertains to cattle, and individual rights. They were guilty of burning OUR property. I'm debating if the Hammonds were found guilty by a jury. Buddy buddy stuff doesn't work in a jury trial.

 

[Bright Raven]

I really didn't care one way or the other about the Hammonds. I posted this because it pertains to cattle, and individual rights. They were guilty of burning OUR property. I'm debating if the Hammonds were found guilty by a jury. Buddy buddy stuff doesn't work in a jury trial.

I can promise you this. Anything you can get past the judge is fair game. It is not a place for sissies.

 

[Bestoutwest]

The jury heard the all evidence from both sides and voted to convict, end of argument. Did Hammonds appeal? No, because they made a deal to serve the sentence for the arson convictions in exchange for the prosecution to drop further criminal charges.

The problem is, though, is that juries don't hear all the evidence. There is a lot that is inadmissible for one reason or another, which is manipulated by both sides. I feel like they are guilty as well, but this isn't a violent crime that paints a definitive picture. My wife was on a jury for a fraud/Ponzi scheme case. It was quite ambiguous as to their guilt. They were found guilty, but it was difficult to really prove intent in a case where it's not blatantly obvious. Which is where I believe this case falls.

 

[True Grit Farms]

The jury heard the all evidence from both sides and voted to convict, end of argument. Did Hammonds appeal? No, because they made a deal to serve the sentence for the arson convictions in exchange for the prosecution to drop further criminal charges.

The problem is, though, is that juries don't hear all the evidence. There is a lot that is inadmissible for one reason or another, which is manipulated by both sides. I feel like they are guilty as well, but this isn't a violent crime that paints a definitive picture. My wife was on a jury for a fraud/Ponzi scheme case. It was quite ambiguous as to their guilt. They were found guilty, but it was difficult to really prove intent in a case where it's not blatantly obvious. Which is where I believe this case falls.

It's very obvious to me that the Hammonds burned over 100 acres of our public property. The government drummed up more charges to try and make an example out of them, and did. But by the government making an example out of the Hammonds it backfired because of the Bundy bunch. Now the government looks like do do.
I still think the Hammonds pled guilty and made a deal before the jury found them guilty.

 

[ga.prime]

One thing I respect about the Hammonds is their rejection of Sovereign Citizen Bundy.

 

[ga.prime]

The jury heard the all evidence from both sides and voted to convict, end of argument. Did Hammonds appeal? No, because they made a deal to serve the sentence for the arson convictions in exchange for the prosecution to drop further criminal charges.

The problem is, though, is that juries don't hear all the evidence.

Ok, the jury heard all the admissible evidence. That they didn't hear inadmissible evidence goes without saying. If the jury heard inadmissible evidence, it would have been a mistrial.

 

[Bestoutwest]

One thing I respect about the Hammonds is their rejection of Sovereign Citizen Bundy.

There's a load of crap. They don't want to pay any taxes, but they want all the perks. No better than those that milk the welfare system.

 

[Bright Raven]

One thing I respect about the Hammonds is their rejection of Sovereign Citizen Bundy.

There's a load of crap. They don't want to pay any taxes, but they want all the perks. No better than those that milk the welfare system.

Sovereign Citizen Bundy.
It is nothing other than anarchy.

 

[Dave]

The Hammonds were charged with two fires burning 140 acres of BLM ground. This is in a county which is bigger than 6 different states and has a population of about 7,000. There are miles after miles of nothing but sage brush and rocks. One fire was 139 acres of BLM that was caused by a controlled burn on their own property which got away from them. The other one acre burn was part of a back fire they set to keep a wildfire that was burning on BLM property from coming on to their property. Neither fire was set on the BLM. And it was not their intent to burn on BLM land. They were previously convicted on this and served 6 months. The 6 months was not enough to keep the government happy so they charged them under a different law for the same act. That is mighty close to double jeopardy.
A few interesting facts of some relevance. They are the last ranch in that area holding out on selling out the wildlife refuge. They are the last ranchers on the Steens Mountains and the government and environmentalist want them off the mountains. The manager of the wildlife refuge and the BLM manager are married to each other. Through all of this the government somehow coerced them into signing an agreement saying that if they ever do sell the land it will be sold to the government. My wife owned a ranch in that county. She like most other ranchers in that area ate lots of deer meat which may not have been taken during season. She said why start a fire to cover up an out of season deer. Fire brings lots of attention by a lot of people in a hurry. A gut pile out in the sage brush is seen by nobody and the coyotes will have it all gone in a day or two. There was a reason the feds put the trial in Pendleton. Had it been held in Burns they would never have been convicted. Realize their ranch is nearly in Nevada and Pendleton is just south of Washington State.
Personally I don't care if it was political to pardon them. Because it was most certainly political to charge them in the first place.

 

[True Grit Farms]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/blogwest.o ... bundy/amp/
Pretty good read on the Bundy family.

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

Well said Dave.

 

[hurleyjd]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/blogwest.org/2014/04/21/understanding-cliven-bundy/amp/
Pretty good read on the Bundy family.

I just read the article posted and found it interesting. I was wondering why the government did not declare imminent domain and take all of Bundys property and water rights. After all if a professional league baseball team wants to expand they will declare imminent domain and take peoples homes that have been living in them for most of their life. They will not get enough money to replace the home somewhere else.

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/blogwest.org/2014/04/21/understanding-cliven-bundy/amp/
Pretty good read on the Bundy family.

I just read the article posted and found it interesting. I was wondering why the government did not declare imminent domain and take all of Bundys property and water rights. After all if a professional league baseball team wants to expand they will declare imminent domain and take peoples homes that have been living in them for most of their life. They will not get enough money to replace the home somewhere else.

So what? We gotta play ball.

 

[ChrisB]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/blogwest.org/2014/04/21/understanding-cliven-bundy/amp/
Pretty good read on the Bundy family.

I just read the article posted and found it interesting. I was wondering why the government did not declare imminent domain and take all of Bundys property and water rights. After all if a professional league baseball team wants to expand they will declare imminent domain and take peoples homes that have been living in them for most of their life. They will not get enough money to replace the home somewhere else.

Because that wouldn't fit the conspiracy theory.

 

[Bright Raven]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/blogwest.org/2014/04/21/understanding-cliven-bundy/amp/
Pretty good read on the Bundy family.

I just read the article posted and found it interesting. I was wondering why the government did not declare imminent domain and take all of Bundys property and water rights. After all if a professional league baseball team wants to expand they will declare imminent domain and take peoples homes that have been living in them for most of their life. They will not get enough money to replace the home somewhere else.

Because that wouldn't fit the conspiracy theory.

Isn't that the truth!