Hospitals & Asylums 








Oregon Refuge Appeal to Court Legal Education regarding Hammond Arson Statute HA-4-1-16


By Anthony J. Sanders


The Hammonds are believed to have reported to federal prison today, Monday January 4, 2016.  The 74 year old father and son ranchers are arbitrarily accused of arson, having served one year in jail each, were subsequently unconstitutionally sentenced to another five years, or so, in October 2015, reportedly under the Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty act that is even worse spoken than the Hammonds have been with federal officers in the past.  In consultation with federal botanists I provisionally assure the Supreme Court of the United States that the Hammonds present no threat of recidivism.  Their Aboriginal burning techniques and life threatening words to officers of the law are not considered to be educated behavior in Oregon where everyman has been threatened with up to $5,000 for violation of burn ordinances.  How the Hammonds were subjected to a $400,000 fine and more than a year in jail can only be the result of a miscarriage of justice for which these American ranchers are due just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, statute of limitations and incidental to the cruel and unusual Fifth Amendment double jeopardy violation of October 2015, compensation for their entire time spent behind bars, but not their trial, under Art. 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that is believed to instantly satisfy the demands of the Bundy’s, who have occupied a federal Wildlife Refuge with more than 150 armed militants clothed in the robes of nonviolent repossession of public land for private use under the Homestead Act expiration of 1900.  US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) scientists believe the militants express the most ignorant forms of human land usage in a way that might be negotiable under current laws, but no one can deny that the demands of these private federal hostage crisis negotiators regarding the Hammonds’ release are right and the affected United States agency must civilly defend themselves against the overzealous prosecution that victimized the Hammonds, to be diplomatic and actually free the Hammonds from the wrongful clutches of federal prison, to instantly cause these independent first amendment militants, their children and cattle, to instantly disperse under time honored hostage negotiation rules.  Otherwise can these 150 private people find it in their hearts to let the scientists get their land back and peacefully negotiate a shared land usage plan under federal law that might have overstayed their welcome.


The Hammonds were found guilty in 2012 of setting a series of fires including a 2001 blaze intended to cover up evidence of deer poaching that went on to burn 139 acres (56 hectares) of public lands, according to federal prosecutors and another one in 2006 below an encampment of wildfire fighters.  In retrospect, the prosecution seems to have ignored the statute of limitations, that a person not be convicted after one or two years of an offense that did not result in the death of any human being.  The Hammonds managed to defend the Aboriginal burning techniques for a while before they were ruled cruel and unusual by federal scientists.  Federal arson statute is so bad no reasonable federal prosecutor could use it without the rural conscience provided by Chapters 477 and 478 of the Oregon Revised Statute to protect the majority of retirement age veterans from PTSD regarding the insured loss of one home sans applicable federal arson statute.  They were initially sentenced to 12 months in prison, below the federal minimum for arson, but a U.S. district judge in October raised the sentences to five years.  This subsequent “mandatory minimum sentence” offends the Fifth Amendment double jeopardy concept, no militant could ignore, as well as Washington v. Blakely (2004) that abolished mandatory minimum sentencing so that no constitutional lawyer of the past decade could ever allow any other case to blind them.  The anonymous appellate decision in the Hammond case seems to have been made under the influence of the October 2015 infringement of interjurisdictional immunity that was celebrated with the false arrest and detention of a former UN General Assembly President and Chinese billionaire on bribery charges.  Our bribery applications therefore must now be re-directed to the demands of more than 300 economists and 600 churches that the White House legalize marijuana and abolish federal police “bribery” to save $10-14 billion annually.  As the law currently stands at the federal appeals court in San Francisco, the Hammond convictions are entirely in jeopardy, or the federal government shall suffer their well-deserved civil eviction, whereas no one wants any federal police bribery in their local jurisdiction, and the local community might not unanimously welcome federal narcing scientists to get their land back under the FAO Voluntary Guidelines of Land Tenure.  The Hammonds were due to report to prison today.  The Hammond ranch borders on the southern edge of the Oregon refuge, a bird sanctuary in the arid high desert in the eastern part of the state, about 305 miles (490 km) from Portland.  Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, encompassing 292 square miles (75,630 hectares), was established in 1908 by U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt as a breeding ground for greater sandhill cranes and other native birds.


The doctrine of inter-jurisdictional immunity recognizes the powers of one level of government must be protected against intrusions, even incidental ones, by another level.  Local custom regarding burn ordinances does not include ruining the defendants, who invariably prove to be apt pupils, whether or not they are actually charged an affordable fine.  Although we are very happy that the Oregon federal court recognizes that human rights citation can win cases, that might otherwise be considered unconstitutional, at least by the offending constitutional authorities, federal arson statute is so poorly constructed that the federal bar must know to cling to the interjurisdictional immunity of the reasonable state burn ordinance that has taught every rural man their lesson under Chapters 477 and 478 of the Oregon Revised Code.  Why prosecute the national propaganda into recidivism when state arson statute might educate a pyromaniac of the sort the Hammonds have not been publicly proved to be?  The doctrine of federal paramountcy obviously does not apply to federal arson statute that could rightly be said by many elder veterans to violate the Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act without having actually being known to have harmed any living person or animal in the course of many arsons of insured buildings without any suspects.  Federal jurisdiction for arson seems to be highly limited to the homes of veterans under the Uniform Code of Military Justice as it applies to Arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction under 18USC§81 that states, “Whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns any building, structure or vessel, any machinery or building materials or supplies, military or naval stores, munitions of war, or any structural aids or appliances for navigation or shipping, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be imprisoned for not more than 25 years, fined the greater of the fine under this title or the cost of repairing or replacing any property that is damaged or destroyed, or both. If the building be a dwelling or if the life of any person be placed in jeopardy, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both”.  Congress should probably legislate a less explosive arson statute for the common crime of arson, that might enable the federal government to enforce state arson statute and educational burn ordinances, but has not.  The federal bar and fire insurance is entirely reliant upon state arson statute and educational burn ordinance and when it comes to federal prison ordinary arson is simply not admissible under the United States Code.  State criminal law did not prosecute, the offenders did not re-offend, federal prosecutors exhausted the statute of limitations long before they came to the realization that there might have been an infraction of state penal arson statute.  In other words, it was not the Hammonds who smelled like pigs under paragraph 16 of the Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors in the insured arson of Navy and Marine Corp veteran’s homes and outbuildings, and possibly the so called lightning caused wildfires, incited by §81 Arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction.