Replies

Actually, I think the Hammonds should not have been charged at all.

Perhaps, but without being on the jury and hearing both sides I don't think any of us can say for sure.

What I do know is that they were found guilty by a jury of their peers and ultimately sentenced according to the law.

“Perhaps, but without being on the jury and hearing both sides I don’t think any of us can say for sure.”

Quite true. In reading through some of the transcripts, I saw that the defense was acting in good faith-perhaps too trusting.

By contrast, the FAA suspended Dwight’s pilot’s license, in 2010, IIRC. How the FAA got in on this, I don’t know.

Because a few posters got on a high horse with me about what an idiot I am, I went looking and found ‘retaliatory animus.’ The feds have persecuted this family for YEARS. I doubt they’re alone in having this done to them, as many people are targeted.

And that’s my ultimate concern. THIS administration goes after people like none before-except the Clintons. To wit: the dead pools. That’s why I thought 0bama would have a hard on with one of his drone strikes against Americans, especially with that mountaintop cabin there in Oregon now.

Or with the elderly Hammonds’ home. How brave. Going after people in their 70s. Probably to line their pockets with mining shares and profits. Just imagine: 0bama, Wyden and DeFazio-sporting ghetto chains and grills.

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.