Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
btw: Understanding the government's ability to increase their power, right up under citizens noses, may go over some folks heads. Seeing as how 'all' property belongs to the United States and no one seems to have a problem with that, just goes to show how long freemen last. How the founding fathers intended the citizens to live and how we ended up are two very different ideals, just so you know.
Ehm - your Popehat cite calls the Hammond sentence routine.
Quote:
The U.S. v. Hammond appeal, reversal, and resentencing are not remarkable in the context of federal criminal law. Maybe they should be, but they aren't. Any suggestion that the proceedings represent a departure from the norm are incorrect.
Beg to differ. My brother got snagged on a stoopid marijuana MM sentence in 1991 and it's occupied a considerable amount of my time and energy ever since.
Which is good, but still does not mean that if the Bundy, Hammond situation had gone quietly into the night, that the media would have given it the attention it has received in open public debates and discussions. If they had just turned themselves in and gone to jail, that would have been the end and people would go to the greater articles of media attention for discussions.
But, people don't want to know that ... because if they did, they might want those tax dollars returned to them, then where would the government be with empty pockets and no workers to help fill them?
Well this people knows that and most Americans know that taxes are necessary for to pay the services the government provides. Now granted there are great differences of opinion regarding those services the government provides usually based upon what services they get as opposed to the serves given to others. For example the Finicums like taxes that pay them to be foster parents. The Bundy's like taxes that support ranch subsidies and small business loans and frankly I support my tax dollars that go to support them, but I also like my tax dollars going to the preservation of wild places but then I'm a collectivist - or at least so I have been told.
Then perhaps pick the citation you want? Popehat are law geeks - they know their stuff. That other blog has a pretty clear agenda. Am I to take it you're no longer relying on Popehat as an authority?
Which is good, but still does not mean that if the Bundy, Hammond situation had gone quietly into the night, that the media would have given it the attention it has received in open public debates and discussions. If they had just turned themselves in and gone to jail, that would have been the end and people would go to the greater articles of media attention for discussions.
Oh, I agree, because I am now far more aware of the insidious plots being hatch by western states to abscond with public lands so that they can be sold to the highest bidder to the detriment of the American people.
Help me out then. Why is the federal government looking for money from the ranchers?
Because the ranchers entered into a contract to pay the federal government to allow them to graze their livestock on federal land. If they had entered into a similar contract with a private landholder they would be paying anywhere between 50-90% more than they pay BLM in grazing fees.
The deal was for two 5 year sentences for arson to be served concurrently, not consecutively. And the government lived up to it.
you're right ...
Quote:
While the jury continued to deliberate on the remaining charges, the Hammonds and the government reached a deal: the Hammonds would not appeal the verdict and the government would recommend that the Hammonds could stay out on bail pending sentencing and that the government would recommend that their Section 844 sentences be served concurrently
and,
Quote:
At sentencing, the United States District Judge on the case refused to impose the five-year mandatory-minimum sentences required by Section 844, ruling that to do so would violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The court instead imposed sentences of twelve months and a day on the father1 and three months on the son.
however,
Quote:
The government appealed the sentence, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and sent the case back, instructing the trial court to impose the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. The Court found — rather convincingly, given the precedent — that a five-year sentence for arson does not violate the Eighth Amendment:
"People need to be aware that we've become a system where government is actually claiming and using and defending people's rights, and they are doing that against the people." Cliven Bundy
As if that would make a difference in the opinions of Americans.
Which is good, but still does not mean that if the Bundy, Hammond situation had gone quietly into the night, that the media would have given it the attention it has received in open public debates and discussions.
The Hammonds disavowed the Bundys.
Not that I'm a fan of either, just saying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
