Posted on 01/04/2016 12:47:14 PM PST by taraytarah
Amid peaceful protests and the occupation of a national wildlife refuge building in Oregon, Glenn Beck said Monday that ranchers Steven and Dwight Hammond should not go to jail again but the judge who originally sentenced them should.
"They received their sentence. They went and they served their sentence. They paid their due, as according to a judge," Beck said on The Glenn Beck Radio Program. "If the judge broke the law, then the judge needs to go to jail."
Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, have been charged with arson for fires they said they lit in 2001 and 2006 in order to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires. The fires crossed into federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, but the Hammonds ultimately contained and extinguished them.
Three years ago, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, who is now retired, sentenced the father, Dwight Hammond, to three months in prison and the son, Steven Hammond, to one year.
Hogan had reduced the Hammonds' sentences from the five-year minimum required because he said it would have violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, adding that it would have been "grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here."
In October of last year, after both men had served their sentences, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken deemed the father-son duo's time served to be too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison Monday, Jan. 4, to serve out the remainder of the five-year minimum sentence...
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
The Feds could persuade the State of Oregon to press state charges against the Hammonds. There is no double jeopardy between the Federal Govt and the state governments as far as prosecuting the same crime.
I was in a hurry this am but I remember reading for the first time that the ranchers were accused of poaching and the fires were set to destroy evidence??? All of the “news stories” that come up now quote what appears to be a CNN story from a day or 2 ago and I know that
IT HAS TO BE TRUE WHEN YOU SEE IT IN PRINT
And lazy @ss writers always accept anything that CNN says is true. Can someone from the area direct me to some contemporaneous stories from the trial that either prove or disprove these allegations?
More Bill Clinton garbage.
The fires occurred in 2001 and 2006. When was the trial, if the appeal was 2014? Was the case prosecuted under Bush or Obama? Was is the Statute of Limitations for these offenses?
Nothing here makes sense. These are bs offenses, especially to prosecute under this code section.
With Beck there is no cure for stupid. The Feds want the Hammond’s ranch so I feel fairly sure they are behind this resentencing.
Do you have any experience with grass fires? Even when lit by fire departments for the purpose of fire control, they sometimes get out of control and spread beyond their intended area. I know of at least one Federal Installation in which this exact thing happened. They made a mistake. Nobody charged them with felonies, though the feds did end up having to pay for the damages they caused.
At the state level, I know of dozens of such instances in the last decade.
And to criminalize an accident? To give someone a FELONY in the absence of mens rea? To thereafter deprive them of their rights to own guns?
What they are being persecuted for is not giving the Federal Potentates sufficient respect regarding their "I'm in Charge" attitudes.
This looks like a vendetta attack on these men. At worst they should have been fined. Maybe after they had been fined, if they still persisted, then perhaps jailing them becomes a reasonable option.
If there is more to this than I have heard so far, i'll revise my opinion, but up till now it looks like someone is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
This prosecutor indicted our Republican constable, Republican county commissioner our Republican county judge and our Republican District Attorney. Maybe you think that could not be done - well, yes it can. Those men had to go through trials and they were all found innocent.
Let me tell you this case. This Republican constable came upon a house trailer broken down in the middle of the road, around a curve. The man pulling the trailer had left. It was a rainy night and that trailer had to be moved or cars were going to hit it coming around that curve. The constable called our Republican County Commissioner whose district that was in. The Commissioner got a large piece of road equipment from his equipment yard, think it was a back hoe, to push it off the road. The old trailer was falling apart and some bit of damage happened while pushing it off the road.
So, this prosecutor filed a “hate crime” case against our Constable and Commissioner for damaging this trailer - it was owned by a black person so the prosecutor accused them of a “hate crime”. They, of course, had no idea a black person owned the trailer and it would not have mattered - the trailer had to be moved.
Our District Attorney was accused of spending some money in his budget without having it approved. That involved money from the state and a state official had to come to tell the court that money was spent exactly according to law. So, he was innocent.
During this time, this prosecutor would call certain people to testify before a grand jury trying to find something on this District Attorney. One of the people called was a computer person who was a friend of mine. She went to the grand jury and testified. The people on the grand jury said they did not believe her. They called her again and she testified and they said they did not believe her. They called her again, and we talked and decided she should take the 5th since they were not going to believe her anyway. So, she went and took the 5th and the grand jury (by the way the grand jury was picked by this district judge - they were her relatives and people who worked for her relatives), had a fit she took the 5th. She walked out of there and they did not call her again.
I had a townhouse in another county and went there to stay to avoid getting a summons to the grand jury. The sheriff asked my husband (he was the county chair) where I was. He said I was in another town and had no idea when I would be back. I had no information that would help the grand jury indict someone and it was evident, they would not believe me anyway.
A few years later, that female Democrat district judge was removed from office by the state commission that deals with judges. She was totally corrupt. I no longer have any respect for judges.
LOL... Hear, hear!!
Where did you hear that the feds wanted their ranch? If this is true, this clarifies a great deal of what has happened.
contact = contract
“Actually it protects individuals from being tried twice for the same crime.”
It also protects individuals against sentence increases once the sentence is served. Very rarely are sentence increases allowed even with the judge being in error with sentencing. The only exceptions have been when judges have corrected their sentencing errors immediately, before the defendants began serving their sentence. Re-sentencing after time served is where double jeopardy comes into play.
Beck has a point. If the first judge violated the law on sentencing guidelines then why isn’t he in trouble for that? Because the FedMob has an agenda and prosecution is selective based on that agenda.
Yes it should. The government is pushing this because they want their land.
The feds have been after that ranch for 30years.
“Technically, re-sentencing is not (quite) double jeopardy.”
Only if the judges correct their sentencing errors quickly an immediately, before the sentence is served.
Where did you hear this? Who is saying this?
This prosecutor indicted our county judge for watching sexual material on his county computer. There were NO rules for anyone watching anything on a county computer. He had to go through a trial for that.
I once wished I could be a lawyer but after that experience with lawyers and that judge, I would not be able to associate with those people.
I don’t think that a court can have a do over after the first sentence has already been served. That is why it is double jeopardy.
Very interesting videos, thanks for the links. Of course, it goes much further than these ranches. So, for example, it’s the same reasons (access and control of the natural resources) for the present conflict in Ukraine and for the western leaders hatred of Putin : I suspect that after the fall of the Soviet Union all Russia’s resources were meant to come under the hands of the same clique (Soros Biden Bush etc etc) but Putin spoiled that party, just as these ranchers are spoiling their party plans over here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.