Hammond's get grazing rights back despite arson

I don't think most people would be found to have standing to appeal since you have to demonstrate harm. I'm pretty sure WWP will appeal, and they will have standing, but still might lose because while they may have been able to legally deny it, that doesn't necessarily mean it was illegal to issue it. Back to the interpretation of the decision maker. They will have to show that the permitee does not have a satisfactory record of performance, and it will be up to the judge to decide. The previous administration knew that if they got it through the new administration would either have to support it, or demonstrate again how the government is out to get ranchers by reversing the decision.
 
I wondered if there were other applicants, seems like they might have the best argument if they meet the criteria.
 
What a convoluted mess.

A long time friend grew up near Fields. Just like all people, they are resistant to change, particularly when it threatens their livelihood. The apparent anti government sentiment is sometimes very real and is sometimes just an artifact of frustration with the bureaucratic machine.

Partisan theatre such as this plays into the continued frustration, and exacerbates the perceived or real governmental incompetence. It’s not good for anyone at all.

The Hammonds were pardoned and deserve the opportunity to move on. That doesn’t mean rules and processes should be circumvented to make things even. That’s bullshit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fighting wildfire properly is a science. And the officials who make the firefighting decisions have the experience and education to know how to best strategize the attack. Clearly the Hammonds do not have that knowledge ... they nearly burned up a bunch of firefighters. On big fires agencies will often hire ("pick up") locals to help out. If the Hammonds wanted to do their part they could have showed up in fire camp and offered their services. Instead they went onto federal land and lit a fire. It was my understanding they lit fires to get rid of evidence of their poaching activities. It was not an issue of them trying to do a good thing.
A co-workers husband was one that the Hammonds targeted in the fire. So sad, Burns will never be the same since the occupation.
 
The Hammonds were pardoned and deserve the opportunity to move on. That doesn’t mean rules and processes should be circumvented to make things even. That’s bullshit.
It is honestly hard to tell which side of this issue you are on, with that comment. Pardons are widely considered a circumvention of the rules and processes. The award in Jan of the grazing rights to the Hammonds bypassed the 15-day comment period, which is another rule/process circumvented.
 
It is honestly hard to tell which side of this issue you are on, with that comment. Pardons are widely considered a circumvention of the rules and processes. The award in Jan of the grazing rights to the Hammonds bypassed the 15-day comment period, which is another rule/process circumvented.
It doesn't matter which side I'm on. My comments weren't intended to support or denounce the Hammonds.

A pardon is a pardon, whether one agrees with it or not. Unless it was obtained illegally or unethically (bribe), then it is what it is and the pardoned gets a clean slate. Period. End stop.

The administrative process is an entirely different animal. It needs to be followed, and wasn't. When it's not followed, it creates avenues for litigation, which costs the taxpayers money. It also makes agencies look like a clown show, and further perpetuates the illusion of bureaucratic incompetence.
 
What a convoluted mess.

A long time friend grew up near Fields. Just like all people, they are resistant to change, particularly when it threatens their livelihood. The apparent anti government sentiment is sometimes very real and is sometimes just an artifact of frustration with the bureaucratic machine.

Partisan theatre such as this plays into the continued frustration, and exacerbates the perceived or real governmental incompetence. It’s not good for anyone at all.

The Hammonds were pardoned and deserve the opportunity to move on. That doesn’t mean rules and processes should be circumvented to make things even. That’s bullshit.
And what makes it an even more convoluted mess is the regional cult religion has its oar inserted. And if you think those guys don't manipulate regional politics with a very strong and self serving hand, you haven't spent much time in that country. When local people think THEIR God is on the side of both crooks and crooked bureaucrats, administering justice or fairly managing public resources becomes pretty much impossible.
 
I don't think most people would be found to have standing to appeal since you have to demonstrate harm. I'm pretty sure WWP will appeal, and they will have standing, but still might lose because while they may have been able to legally deny it, that doesn't necessarily mean it was illegal to issue it. Back to the interpretation of the decision maker. They will have to show that the permitee does not have a satisfactory record of performance, and it will be up to the judge to decide. The previous administration knew that if they got it through the new administration would either have to support it, or demonstrate again how the government is out to get ranchers by reversing the decision.
Basically a no win situation for the govt no matter what it did. Sounds like it's hopeless out there.
 
Last edited:
The law would say otherwise. Words matter, and there is a big difference between a pardon and a commuted sentence.
SCOTUS would beg to differ: "The court also compared immunity, granted by Congress, and a pardon, explaining that the differences are “substantial.” Unlike immunity, the court reasoned, a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.”

from here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/01/the-supreme-court-and-the-presidents-pardon-power/
 
SCOTUS would beg to differ: "The court also compared immunity, granted by Congress, and a pardon, explaining that the differences are “substantial.” Unlike immunity, the court reasoned, a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.”

from here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/01/the-supreme-court-and-the-presidents-pardon-power/
You can argue semantics all you want. A person convicted of a felony, and then pardoned for that felony is made whole with all of their rights restored. This includes the right to own a firearm. The conviction stays on their criminal record, but for the purposes of societal freedom they are the same as you and I.

Your court reference has absolutely no relevance to any argument I was trying to make.
 
You can argue semantics all you want. A person convicted of a felony, and then pardoned for that felony is made whole with all of their rights restored. This includes the right to own a firearm. The conviction stays on their criminal record, but for the purposes of societal freedom they are the same as you and I.

Your court reference has absolutely no relevance to any argument I was trying to make.
Now I'm frustrated. You said words matter, but when you are shown that your words formed an incorrect statement, you say "semantics."

To summarize, you said, "...the pardoned gets a clean slate. Period. End stop." This is simply not true. They have a record as convicted felons. That's a dirty slate in my book.

I'm not saying they shouldn't get to vote or have a gun. I am saying that they should not be given grazing rights to the exact piece of land that they feloniously burned. Think of it this way, if you rented a piece of land to someone and they started uncontrolled fires on it, twice, would you give them a third chance?

You and I are owners of federal public land. I think if there are other people with an equal ability to use the land and pay the rent, why would I rent it to the guys that have twice proven that they are not responsible users?
 
If you can't treat our public land resources with respect, and follow your damn lease, then you don't deserve to acquire another lease.
But should the government own a 50’ wide strip between two private parcels, and ban the owner of those two parcels from crossing it...particularly when it had been crossed for decades prior to designating that 50’ to be part of a new wildlife refuge? Can someone say “land swap”?

Im confident that there is more to this, BUT prosecuting under anti-terrorist laws=bogus. Re-sentencing=bogus.

The Hammonds repeatedly separated themselves from the idiot Bundys. Good for the Hammonds.

Interestingly, it looks like the case against the Bundys was thrown out because the feds had been covering up exculpatory evidence. I’m with the judge, I don’t care what the Bundys did, if the feds are covering up exculpatory evidence, the case needs to go, and frankly, the feds who covered it up should be in prison. If we are to have faith in our justice system, they have to be just.

Nothing I’ve read about the Hammonds makes them look like grade A folk.
 
But should the government own a 50’ wide strip between two private parcels, and ban the owner of those two parcels from crossing it...particularly when it had been crossed for decades prior to designating that 50’ to be part of a new wildlife refuge? Can someone say “land swap”?

Im confident that there is more to this, BUT prosecuting under anti-terrorist laws=bogus. Re-sentencing=bogus.

The Hammonds repeatedly separated themselves from the idiot Bundys. Good for the Hammonds.

Interestingly, it looks like the case against the Bundys was thrown out because the feds had been covering up exculpatory evidence. I’m with the judge, I don’t care what the Bundys did, if the feds are covering up exculpatory evidence, the case needs to go, and frankly, the feds who covered it up should be in prison. If we are to have faith in our justice system, they have to be just.
What about whataboutism?
 
Now I'm frustrated. You said words matter, but when you are shown that your words formed an incorrect statement, you say "semantics."

To summarize, you said, "...the pardoned gets a clean slate. Period. End stop." This is simply not true. They have a record as convicted felons. That's a dirty slate in my book.
A pardon makes a convicted felon whole in terms of any remaining legal obligation to society, and returns to them all rights that were lost as a result of the conviction. Status as a convicted felon carries with it lost rights, such as the right to vote, right own/possess a firearm, sometimes travel freely, and so on. The fact it still says "felon" on the criminal record of a pardoned person is semantical at that point. It means absolutely nothing other than the paper it was written on.
 
What about whataboutism?
Whataboutism is not completely devoid of value, and your labeling it as such is not a reasonable excuse to avoid the issue. Whataboutism generally gets used in cases of blatant hypocrisy or lack of reason.

The US government was founded to function at the pleasure of its citizens. We are not subjects, but rather the government is supposed to be subject to us. I doubt that a fifty foot wide strip of land between two private parcels owned by the same family or individual served citizens in a way that land swap or easement would not have. That doesn’t excuse poaching or death threats.
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
110,809
Messages
1,935,247
Members
34,887
Latest member
Uncle_Danno
Back
Top