Hammond's get grazing rights back despite arson

[AvidIndoorsman]

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.

Presidents brother gets hammered, gets behind the wheel, kills a mom and her kids.

The president givens him a pardon. The pardon protects him from prosecution, but the pardon only exists because a specific crime is committed.

Should the presidents bro be hired as a bus driver?

Obviously not a federal crime but you get it.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

@JLS
10. Effect of a pardon

While a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of your conviction. Therefore, even if you are granted a pardon, you must still disclose your conviction on any form where such information is required, although you may also disclose the fact that you received a pardon. In addition, most civil disabilities attendant upon a federal felony conviction, such as loss of the right to vote and hold state public office, are imposed by state rather than federal law, and also may be removed by state action. Because the federal pardon process is exacting and may be more time-consuming than analogous state procedures, you may wish to consult with the appropriate authorities in the state of your residence regarding the procedures for restoring your state civil rights.

Pardon After Completion of Sentence

www.justice.gov

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Presidents brother gets hammered, gets behind the wheel, kills a mom and her kids.

The president givens him a pardon. The pardon protects him from prosecution, but the pardon only exists because a specific crime is committed.

Should the presidents bro be hired as a bus driver?

Obviously not a federal crime but you get it.

I get it, and you'll notice I didn't speak to whether the Hammonds should or shouldn't get the grazing lease back, and I won't. That is part of the administrative contract process, which should be followed to a "T". It wasn't, hence the clown show we now have.

 

[OntarioHunter]

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.

I was pretty sure the refuge case was not thrown out but went to local jury and they acquitted on the grounds that Bundy was exercising his right to protest. Sound familiar? I seem to recall it was the old man's episode in Nevada that got thrown out of court for withholding evidence.

 

[ImBillT]

I was pretty sure the refuge case was not thrown out but went to local jury and they acquitted on the grounds that Bundy was exercising his right to protest. Sound familiar? I seem to recall it was the old man's episode in Nevada that got thrown out of court for withholding evidence.

That may be correct. I was just going by the Wikipedia entry on the Hammonds, so we all know how accurate that is. The Bundys appear to be some real nut jobs.

 

[Irrelevant]

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.

No, you're wrong. None of your deflections have anything to do with the fact that they have violated their leases in the past. I don't care what you think the gov't should be doing differently, start a knew thread for you complaints.

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.

And I am damn sure one of those citizens that they're representing and I am friggin' pissed that the last's presidents corruption lead to these piss ants getting to continue to abuse my public lands.

If you signed a lease with your neighbor, and he violated that lease, are you telling me it would be your fault? GMAFB There's no a single reason by these convicts should get to graze public lands ever again.

 

[1_pointer]

My prediction; some folks are going to really get pissed when they are issued a grazing permit after this next round of review.

 

[ImBillT]

No, you're wrong. None of your deflections have anything to do with the fact that they have violated their leases in the past. I don't care what you think the gov't should be doing differently, start a knew thread for you complaints.

And I am damn sure one of those citizens that they're representing and I am friggin' pissed that the last's presidents corruption lead to these piss ants getting to continue to abuse my public lands.

If you signed a lease with your neighbor, and he violated that lease, are you telling me it would be your fault? GMAFB There's no a single reason by these convicts should get to graze public lands ever again.

Start a new thread for my complaints? The complaint was directly related to the case the thread is about.

The last presidents corruption? What did the last president receive in exchange for their pardon that would show that his decisions had been corrupted? Obama pardoned enough people that we could probably find some we had some problems with. The majority of these presidential pardons are decided by someone else. It’s likely that the former president skimmed through the case as lightly as I did, and it’s also likely that two major factors is the pardon being grated were A) the first judge, who had nothing to do with Trump, thought the minimum sentences were excessive, and B) they got released, sent home, and second judge(under the Obama administration) decided to re-sentence them, and while the Bundys tried to intimidate the government into a different outcome, the Hammonds distanced themselves from the Bundys and went peacefully back to prison.

As far as ever being able to get a grazing permit again, I don’t know how I feel about it. When person A does something that is probably not ok, and person B responds by doing something that is definitely not ok, but was in response to the questionable provocation, then it’s really hard for me to bring the hammer down with full force on person B.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Start a new thread for my complaints? The complaint was directly related to the case the thread is about.

The last presidents corruption? What did the last president receive in exchange for their pardon that would show that his decisions had been corrupted? Obama pardoned enough people that we could probably find some we had some problems with. The majority of these presidential pardons are decided by someone else. It’s likely that the former president skimmed through the case as lightly as I did, and it’s also likely that two major factors is the pardon being grated were A) the first judge, who had nothing to do with Trump, thought the minimum sentences were excessive, and B) they got released, sent home, and second judge(under the Obama administration) decided to re-sentence them, and while the Bundys tried to intimidate the government into a different outcome, the Hammonds distanced themselves from the Bundys and went peacefully back to prison.

As far as ever being able to get a grazing permit again, I don’t know how I feel about it. When person A does something that is probably not ok, and person B responds by doing something that is definitely not ok, but was in response to the questionable provocation, then it’s really hard for me to bring the hammer down with full force on person B.

Give me a break! Trump pardoned them to curry Mormon votes in Oregon. Or local support for his bogus election fraud rebellion. And I'm sure it worked. Or he just did it out of spite. That would certainly fit his character. He's built his political career on being spiteful.

And what did person A do that provoked person B? Investigate him for running an illegal guiding operation on federal land. Poaching. So person B lights up the place to destroy the evidence. Forget about the 50' easement BS excuse. That's a smokescreen. The Hammonds don't think the rules apply to them and locals applaud them like they're Robin Hood.

 

[Oak]

Mormon votes in Oregon?

 

[QuazyQuinton]

Mormon votes in Oregon?

By pardoning the people who are not Mormon and leaving the Mormon people in prison it will make more Oregon Mormon people vote for Trump. Make sense now?

(I could be wrong, but I've never heard of a connection between the Hammond's and the Mormon church. Also I don't know if any of the Mormon players in the story are actually still in prison. Nonetheless, that's how much sense that comment makes.)

QQ

 

[MarvB]

Lol not sure that would resulted in any difference even IF they ALL voted

 

[OntarioHunter]

P

By pardoning the people who are not Mormon and leaving the Mormon people in prison it will make more Oregon Mormon people vote for Trump. Make sense now?

(I could be wrong, but I've never heard of a connection between the Hammond's and the Mormon church. Also I don't know if any of the Mormon players in the story are actually still in prison. Nonetheless, that's how much sense that comment makes.)

QQ

Let's wait for the gal who lives in the area to chime in. Maybe she can help shed some light on the religious factionalism. Sagebrush Rebellion links to the church and the refuge occupation are no secret. I am not sure if the Hammonds are Mormon but the Mormon faction of the Rebellion made them a cause celebre.

By pardoning the Hammonds Trump was clearly trying to send a message of encouragement to the renegades in eastern Oregon. He feeds on breeding dissention. Even if it was done before the election, I'm sure he didn't think pardoning the Hammonds would swing Oregon (that would be unreal to expect) but I'm sure he calculated it would cause further division. I can't really can't see any productive reason for pardoning the Hammonds, let alone helping them out by renewing their leases. Would it have ruined them if they were left in jail and lost their leases? Almost certainly. But businesses fold up every day due to mismanagement. And yes, their owners' families take it on the chin. No one's fault but the owner/managers. I see no reason why a couple of felons and their families should get preferential treatment ... except that pardoning was anticipated to be politically favourable to someone. No doubt the present administration is as guilty of the same vote buying as the last if it granted the lease to the Hammonds. They are pandering to renegades. No less disgusting than pandering to the anti-police rioters last summer.

 

[ImBillT]

Lol not sure that would resulted in any difference even IF they ALL voted
View attachment 176076

No kidding. What was he gonna do? Flip Nevada? That’s the only state there that it might have helped. He expected to win AZ anyway.

 

[ImBillT]

Give me a break! Trump pardoned them to curry Mormon votes in Oregon. Or local support for his bogus election fraud rebellion. And I'm sure it worked. Or he just did it out of spite. That would certainly fit his character. He's built his political career on being spiteful.

And what did person A do that provoked person B? Investigate him for running an illegal guiding operation on federal land. Poaching. So person B lights up the place to destroy the evidence. Forget about the 50' easement BS excuse. That's a smokescreen. The Hammonds don't think the rules apply to them and locals applaud them like they're Robin Hood.

You’ve gone far enough down the Trump hate rathole that I’m not sure you can hear me.

The majority of pardons issued by any administration get little to no actual review by the president, and the volume of pardons issued has been increasing for a while. Whether Trump carefully examined the Hammond case or not, I don’t know. The idea that he did it because he’s corrupt and trying to steal Morman votes, or encourage a few idiots to do something stupid seems laughable to me. I’m not big fan of pardons. Certainly some folks are wrongfully convicted or get excessive sentences, and I like the idea that they can have those thing corrected, but I don’t know that presidential pardons do that very often, or very effectively. There are probably better legal means for such things.

I can see why the Hammonds would be upset that they couldn’t push their cattle across a piece of land they could throw a rock across, and I doubt they were offered an opportunity to swap for it, buy it, or anything else. That doesn’t excuse their actions, but it does make me less angry.

What are the penalties for poaching? Loss of grazing rights? If so, convict them of poaching and then take their grazing rights. I’m always amazed at how light poaching penalties are. Covering up evidence? Charge and convict them for that, then punish them with the normal legal punishment. This case is very convoluted. It seems that “conservationists” want to hurt the Hammonds for crimes they were never convicted of. They served time twice for the crime that they were convicted of and were pardoned(whether they should have been or not) and now these “conservationists” want them punished it a way that is not prescribed by law because they think they should not have been pardoned. Next time they violate their lease, give them the same punishment that anyone else would receive for that, and then move on. It looks like the Hammond cases had at least one judge and probably a prosecutor or two drop the ball.

 

[OntarioHunter]

You’ve gone far enough down the Trump hate rathole that I’m not sure you can hear me.

The majority of pardons issued by any administration get little to no actual review by the president, and the volume of pardons issued has been increasing for a while. Whether Trump carefully examined the Hammond case or not, I don’t know. The idea that he did it because he’s corrupt and trying to steal Morman votes, or encourage a few idiots to do something stupid seems laughable to me. I’m not big fan of pardons. Certainly some folks are wrongfully convicted or get excessive sentences, and I like the idea that they can have those thing corrected, but I don’t know that presidential pardons do that very often, or very effectively. There are probably better legal means for such things.

I can see why the Hammonds would be upset that they couldn’t push their cattle across a piece of land they could throw a rock across, and I doubt they were offered an opportunity to swap for it, buy it, or anything else. That doesn’t excuse their actions, but it does make me less angry.

What are the penalties for poaching? Loss of grazing rights? If so, convict them of poaching and then take their grazing rights. I’m always amazed at how light poaching penalties are. Covering up evidence? Charge and convict them for that, then punish them with the normal legal punishment. This case is very convoluted. It seems that “conservationists” want to hurt the Hammonds for crimes they were never convicted of. They served time twice for the crime that they were convicted of and were pardoned(whether they should have been or not) and now these “conservationists” want them punished it a way that is not prescribed by law because they think they should not have been pardoned. Next time they violate their lease, give them the same punishment that anyone else would receive for that, and then move on. It looks like the Hammond cases had at least one judge and probably a prosecutor or two drop the ball.

As I recall they were charged and convicted for starting the fire to cover up the evidence. If someone dropped the ball, why did they need a pardon to get out of jail? Appeal didn't work. Must have been a reason.

 

[QuazyQuinton]

As I recall they were charged and convicted for starting the fire to cover up the evidence. If someone dropped the ball, why did they need a pardon to get out of jail? Appeal didn't work. Must have been a reason.

You do know you're combining two different stories?

QQ

 

[Deleted member 20812]

 

[bisblue]

You do know you're combining two different stories?

QQ

I heard something similar as well, were the Hammond's not supposedly involved in some kind of poaching/unlicensed guiding and starting a fire to cover it up?
Edit:

The only public land the Hammonds should have access to is prison: Guest opinion

The Hammonds aren't "responsible ranchers" or victims of government "overreach." They are criminals who repeatedly violated the law and often avoided paying the penalties.

www.oregonlive.com

 

[OntarioHunter]

I heard something similar as well, were the Hammond's not supposedly involved in some kind of poaching/unlicensed guiding and starting a fire to cover it up?
Edit:

The only public land the Hammonds should have access to is prison: Guest opinion

The Hammonds aren't "responsible ranchers" or victims of government "overreach." They are criminals who repeatedly violated the law and often avoided paying the penalties.

www.oregonlive.com

Thanks for finding that and clearing things up. Those two Hammonds are walking garbage. Imagine getting that much federal money every year and continuing to play the antigovernment card. Self serving phonies. With their track record of violent behaviour they obviously couldn't be visibly associated with the Bundy Bunch's takeover of the refuge ... or they would be in jail forever. Find it hard to believe the Hammonds didn't orchestrate it. I gotta say, it does not sound like a neck of the woods I want to visit. Good luck to the tourism industry there! Very sad to see the Hammonds' violent antigovernment disease spreading. Turning Bundy and Hammonds loose sent the wrong message to hooligans across the country. Rewarding them with pardons AND lease contracts? What message does that send? Yikes!