Hospitals & Asylums
Oregon Refuge Appeal to Court Legal Education regarding Hammond Arson
Statute HA-4-1-16
By Anthony J. Sanders
sanderstony@live.com
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 BundyÕs, 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 HammondsÕ 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 Òmandatory minimum
sentenceÓ 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 ÒbriberyÓ 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, ÒWhoever,
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 bothÓ.
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 veteranÕs
homes and outbuildings, and possibly the so called lightning caused wildfires, incited
by ¤81 Arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction.