Posted on 01/04/2016 3:52:15 PM PST by combat_boots
You may well be right on the reason for the reduced sentence.
I think it would be wise for you semimjo to go over to the conservativetreehouse website and read the entire case timeline because if the facts there are true then this case is truly one of miscarriage of justice. It really does stink to HIGH heaven.
It’s about the land and when the Hammonds were re-sentenced they were ordered to give the Gov’t first right to buy it and being in prison they will likely need to sell it. The Gov’t as they usually do will take a law and twist the words to fit there agenda as in charging them under a terrorist statute.
Also, Judges despise being (case)appealed. With this Judge retiring it opened the door for further unabated prosecution. The Judge took the easy way out by going along with the feds and then mitigating the case by reducing the sentences. He tried to have his cake and eat it too. Allegedly, the Judge didn’t allow certain favorable evidence into the trial so the jury could not make a good informed decision of course prosecutors are always straight up/s. If you don’t think that the attorneys, prosecutors and Judges don’t go out for lunch together you’re not living in the real world. In my line of work although I am not one of the aforementioned I’ve seen it and many other things.
Holy cow! Amanda Marshall is a total loon.
Just as an aside, the man she replaced as Attorney General, Dwight Holton, is the brother-in-law of Tim Kaine, former senator from Virginia. His father, Linwood Holton, was the first post-reconstruction republican governor of Virginia.
Kaine, of course, was Democrat Party Chair in the early part of the Obama administration.
Your picture of Justice Kennedy needs dusting. You better see to it.
Anecdotally. Do you think the OJ jury objected to the murder laws?
They might do for either reason. Do you have stats?
Besides, it isn't about "defying the will", which jury nullification may or may not do, it's about defying the written law which jury nullification doesn't.
What does that mean? If a jury fails to convict because they deem the law unjust, they defy both the will of the legislative body and the written law.
Without getting into the weeds, this case is a travesty, and IMHO you are part of the problem if you don't see that.
“. At that hearing, U.S. Chief District Judge Ann Aiken ordered the pair to finish”
Don’t I remember that judge for some other really bad decisions???
...oh, yes,...”However, she determined the interests of the fish outweighed those of the farmers.”
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2001/07/01/klamath-falls-bucket-brigade-protests-water-shutoff
Klamath Falls, 2001
These poor Hammond guys really drew the short straw on this deal!
Y A W N
Yep, and think about how many other Obama appointees like her are out there currently reviewing their case files spring loaded to act on precedent.
You are conflating what is universally noted as being wrong, murder, with unconstitutional federal powers and laws of property.
I would expect educated people to know the difference.....the OJ jury not so much.
I'm not saying that I would have voted to convict had I been on the jury, but I don't think any of us can have a very valid opinion without hearing all the evidence. I damn sure wouldn't rely only on the Conservative Treehouse account (or the fed's either).
If there was misconduct then it's the Hammonds's attorney's responsibility to bring that forward.
The fact is a jury found them guilty and I think those blaming the prosecutor and the courts for upholding the law are misguided.
You asked about jury nullification. Do you think it's only the tool of constitutionally literate patriots?
Dang. Good catch.
These people are, well, evil I guess.
In a manly pantsuit no less... let me guess... pink swastika?
Hi!!! Good to see you. I can’t remember where my car keys are, but I remember a judge from 15 years ago..go figure!
Thank you.
Regardless of the jury's motivation when they nullify they say "not guilty". They don't have the option to say "guilty, but we don't want to do anything about it because we think it's a flawed law". That's the difference.
Great idea! Wow, it's that easy.
Hey, how fat is your wallet? Because FedGov has a never ending supply of lawyers. And you, apparently gleefully, fund them against folks like these.
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.