yessir, it does. . it was jabuttrick who gave us the
advice, so we could ask him. -- j
.

That's curious, because of the following:
1) the new case was brought five years after the original was over and done.
2) the new case brought up charges based on terrorism, which weren't in the original case at all. My understanding is that the terrorism charges must accompany the originals because they are crimes of motive - not crimes of commission.

It stinks to high heaven if you ask me.

that's what I thought, but one of our gulch lawyers
explained that it was appropriate for the prosecutor
to appeal the case to get a longer sentence, and
they succeeded. it sux. -- j
.

"forgot" would be putting it gently. The more you dig into the actuals of the case, it looks like collusion. I only wish the Hammonds had had a better lawyer and appealed to have the case thrown out.

That is effectively what the judge does. He nullifies the jury's role completely and guarantees biased "justice" ONLY for the federal prosecutors.
(It's the opposite of what jury nullification should do, that is, prevent corruption of the justice system.)

But that was part of the problem in the first place: the Hammonds had already been tried! The Federal government came in using terrorism charges to go after them a second time. Not only were the charges trumped up, it was double jeopardy!

See this for a great backstory:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2...

And that was when they weren't diverting them to flood out the ranchers in the first place.

That would have been great, but the judge in the case tampered with the jury by booting anyone who had been a rancher. They actually had to bring in outsiders because they claimed they couldn't find "non-biased" jurors. Those who they brought in were city-slickers ignorant of range-management practices.

Yes, and there were three serious problems with the conviction. One, it was double jeopardy. The Hammonds had already been tried and served minor time for setting the backfire. That the judge allowed the second case was a miscarriage of justice. Second, the actual trial was rigged. The government prosecutors were given nine days to make their case and the Hammonds were cut off after one. Also, the primary witness - the Hammonds' grandson - should never have been allowed to testify because he's mentally unstable. Third, they tampered with the jury pool by disallowing any ranchers from sitting on it - those who know how to manage land using backfires.

The whole case was an example of just how bad the system has degenerated.

Spot on.

Can anyone whisper "jury nullification"?

The Hammonds were convicted for a minimum 5 year sentence under a "terrorism" law. Their actions were described as "arson" to rationalize the "terrorism" accusation. Lighting a grass back-fire to stop a bigger fire isn't "arson" either.

The refusal of the higher court to consider this abomination only multiplies the injustice, taking it to the highest levels of sanction.

Trying to directly take on the Federal government with a defiant "occupation" out of frustration over having no recourse is hopeless and only sets them up for more persecution -- like the Federal ambush-murder and the rest of the grasping for the maximum punishment mentality intended to intimidate everyone.

Adding insulting injury to injury by smearing them in the media so that few ever hear what has been happening only serves to further bury the Hammond story and the century of progressive Federal lands tyranny.

Agree with the Bundy group's methods or not, it is obvious (to us) that they and those supporting either them or the more passive peaceful protests are being driven to distraction by this nightmare universe of compounded injustice of A is non-A. Their plight is being generally ignored and they become more desperate as what little they try to do is further used against them to drive the stake in deeper. It truly is a nightmare universe.

The FEDS also illegally diverted the creeks away from the private lands so that these ranchers and farmers lost their water rights.

Supremely corrupt.

The charge was not terrorism but arson. But the really outrageous thing about it is that neither the 9th Circuit nor the Supreme Court was willing to even consider upholding the trial judge's ruling that the mandatory minimum sentence in the statute violated the 8th Amendment.

The Constitution is supposed to protect us against this stuff. But it doesn't work if the judges tasked with applying it are all biased and evil. At that point it really is necessary to open the fourth box. The Bundys were right. I was wrong to say their action was premature.

Yes, it's an absurd punishment, just as burning to death was an absurd punishment for the innocent people at Mount Carmel, and death by an FBI assassin's bullet was absurd punishment for Vicki Weaver who was guilty of nothing.
This is what the statists do to innocent people when they have power.

at least these folks get their day in court, as compared
with LaVoy Finicum who was killed. . it's sad that the feds
are so arbitrary and heavy-handed with us commoners. -- j
.

"They incarcerated the Hammonds for 5 years over a trumped up "terrorism" charge for lighting a grass back-fire as a fire break without a permit"
It's absurd: a five-year sentence of a fire that didn't hurt anyone and was set to protect their property. The AS quote applies.

They incarcerated the Hammonds for 5 years over a trumped up "terrorism" charge for lighting a grass back-fire as a fire break without a permit. So why not "conspiracy" for a protest in a public parking lot that no one goes to in the middle of nowhere in the winter?

Under tyranny, whatever government does is legal because it is government. They have so many overlapping, contradictory laws and regulations that they can "get" anyone for anything they want. How long before this forum is deemed part of a "conspiracy"?

"'Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?' said Dr. Ferris. 'We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against—then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.'" - Atlas Shrugged

Semi life? I thought that only applied to viruses.
Wait a minute, now that I come to think of it........