Oregon 9th Circuit Court Complicit In Fraud Against America
Sunday, February 7, 2016 11:11
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.
OREGON 9THCIRCUIT COURT COMPLICIT IN FRAUD AGAINST AMERICA
THIS LETTER IS BEING SENT AS A FRIEND OF AMERICA IN WISHES THAT THE CORRUPTION BE DEALT WITH AND TRUE ORDER BE RESTORED TO BOTH GOVERNMENT AND LEGAL SYSTEM OF AMERICA AS TO ENSURE LACK OF BLOODSHED IN THE EVENT OF ITS CONTINUANCE DUE TO THE EXASPERATION BY MOST AMERICANS OF AN ENTIRE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND LEGAL SYSTEM VIEWED AS DISGUSTFUL, DISHONEST, AND OUT RIGHT CORRUPT!
THERE IS NO PLACE FOR GREED IN A GOVERNMENT BY, OF, AND FOR THE PEOPLE!
FOR THEIR TO BE ANY ALLOWANCE OF MONEY WITHIN GOVERNMENT, IN REGARDS TO BACKING BY LOBBYISTS, BANKERS ETC CAN ONLY LEAD TO BILLS PASSED THAT ARE NON CONSTITUTIONAL AND PAID FOR! A TRUE GOVERNMENT CAN NEVER BE FOR SALE….. ONLY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS WORK IN THAT FASHION!! IT IS TIME FOR SENATORS, CONGRESSMEN, AND EVEN PRESIDENT TO DECIDE IF BEING A CORPORATION THAT HAS ONLY A FOCUS OF BENEFITING ITS MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION IS RIGHT TO BE USED IN A MANNER TO DEFRAUD AMERICA? YOU HAVE A CHOICE TO REPRESENT YOUR CORPORATION, OR TRULY REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA!
What we have here is a Court Case that REEKS of RICO and a complete DISGUST in the Judicial System! Likewise, what we have is a COMPLETE DISTRUST in the MOTIVATION of each and every Judge, Lawyer and Attorney in this country that are registered as SERVANTS to the English Crown – “THIS INCLUDES YOU”! The BAR as every one of you is clearly aware, stands for the British Accredited Registry!! Does anyone of you deny this fact or claim ignorance to the substantiated fact? Please explain to the American People how someone can have a fair trial when you the judge, the prosecution, and even the court appointed Lawyers/Attorneys are all paid for by a fake government, as every city government, state governments, and even the Federal Government for which they proclaim themselves legit lack the credibility due to each one being a corporation, or rather sub corporation derived from the federal government that ILLEGALLY established themselves as a government as set forth with the ACT of 1871 and the making of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION with clearly the intent to defraud AMERICA and later even more confirmed as such with the TREATY of VERONA. Even in the event that someone pays for their own attorney / lawyer they still serve the English BAR and this is also an outright CONFLICT OF INTEREST, which was why the law was never meant to be copyrighted, in which to force defendants to use a lawyer only approved by the BAR! This was the reasoning behind both JURY NULLIFICATION and the use of COMMON LAW! NOT THE CORPORATION LAW BEING USED FRAUDULENTLY AGAINST AMERICANS AS ACTUAL LAW! CORPORATION LAW IS FOR USE BY AND FOR A CORPORATION…. NOT THE COMMON MAN AS THE COMMON MAN HAS NO SIGNED CONTRACT WTH THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION — PERIOD!
The courts have defrauded the American People out of GREED to increase their own wealth and the wealth of the English Crown! The sham of this whole issue is the fact that every single one of you wearing that Roman Robe of Dishonesty are either clearly aware of this fact or are extremely ignorant; both of which clearly presents an issue that should disqualify any judge within the BAR association from judging anyone! THIS MY FOLKS IS WHY THE CONSISTUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS CALLED FOR THE USE OF “CITIZEN GRAND JURYS” NOT JURYS THAT COULD BE PICKED AND MANIPULATED BY JUDGES THROUGH DECEPTIVE MEANS!
Please answer to the American People why you, the judges, refuse to let the jurors know their true power of NULLIFICATION for instances where they can see that the LAWS are either UNCONSTITUTIONAL or being used as in the case of the Hammonds in a way for which a Law was not intended or originally passed!
Please answer how any common man can believe that in any way they will get a FAIR trial when the Legal System is part of the same Federal System that is bringing the charges? Thus, a special Citizens Grand Jury will be required and ALL the JUDGES that have been involved with the FEDERAL LAND GRAB will be EXPOSED, TRIED, and SENTENCED! They like will be prosecuted at the FEDERAL LEVEL of course! However, they will be tried under Common Law, not Administrative Law, not Admiralty Law, and certainly not any other made up legal system used to protect JUDGES from their ILLEGAL activities!
There are 8 issues of the Hammonds Case which clearly demonstrate that the Hammonds achieved anything BUT a fair trial, much less an honest trial:
1. Jurors not notified of their NULLIFICATION rights
WIKIPEDIA DEFINITION: Jury nullification - occurs in a trial when a juryacquits a defendant, even though the members of the jury may believe that the defendant did the illegal act, yet they don’t believe he or she should be punished for it. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with breaking, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case. A jury can similarly unjustly and illegally convict a defendant on the ground of disagreement with an existing law, even if no law is broken (although in jurisdictions with double jeopardy rules, a conviction can be overturned on appeal, but an acquittal cannot).
A jury verdict that is contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. If a pattern of acquittals develops, however, in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.
In the past, it was feared that a single judge or panel of government officials may be unduly influenced to follow established legal practice, even when that practice had drifted from its origins. In most modern Western legal systems, however, judges often instruct juries to serve only as “finders of facts“, whose role it is to determine the veracity of the evidence presented, the weight accorded to the evidence,[1] to apply that evidence to the law, and to reach a verdict; but not to question the law or decide what it says. Similarly, juries are routinely cautioned by courts and some attorneys not to allow sympathy for a party or other affected persons to compromise the fair and dispassionate evaluation of evidence during the guilt phase of a trial. These instructions are criticized by advocates of jury nullification. Some commonly cited historical examples of jury nullification involve jurors refusing to convict persons accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act by assisting runaway slaves or being fugitive slaves themselves, or for breaking the refusal of American colonial juries to convict a defendant under English law.[2]
Juries have also refused to convict due to the perceived injustice of a law in general,[3][4] or the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases.[5] There have also been cases where the juries have refused to convict due to their own prejudices such as the race of one of the parties in the case.[6]
The fact is that if judges, such as yourselves, were not afraid of jurors refusing to prosecute or sentence a person under the knowledge that a law is unjust or is being used in a matter for which it is not or was not intended then there wouldn’t be an issue with NULLIFICATION!
Many Americans see this refusal of informing the JURORS of their right and responsibility as it refers to NULLIFICATION in it itself as JURY TAMPERNG BY THE COURTS/JUDGES! FRAUD
I believe Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia stated it best when , asked at a Senate hearing about the role of juries in checking governmental power, seemed open to the notion that jurors “can ignore the law” if the law “is producing a terrible result.” He added: “I’m a big fan of the jury.” I’m a big fan, too. I would respectfully suggest that if the prosecutors in New York bring fair cases, they won’t have to worry about jury nullification.
THE SAME APPLIES IN THE HAMMOND CASE!
One must remember that Jury nullification is not new; its proponents have included both John Hancock and John Adams. Likewise, one must remember that Jury NULLIFICATION was useful against UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS and the USE OF LAWS in ways for which they were written was not their INTENT!
The doctrine is premised on the idea that ordinary citizens, not government officials, should have the final say as to whether a person should be punished. As Adams put it, it is each juror’s “duty” to vote based on his or her “own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”
Nullification has been credited with helping to end alcohol prohibition, laws that criminalized gay sex, and numerous other laws against those protecting slaves during their escapes; as just a few examples. In fact recently in Montana prosecutors were forced to offer a defendant in a marijuana case a favorable plea bargain after so many potential jurors said they would nullify that the judge didn’t think he could find enough jurors to hear the case. (Prosecutors now say they will remember the actions of those jurors when they consider whether to charge other people with marijuana crimes.)
THE DAYS OF CALLING THINGS A CRIME AND CHARGING AMERICANS IN SUCH WITH A NOTED AIM OF HAVING THEM SETTLE AS TO INCREASE THE COFFERS TO THE COURTS IS COMNG TO A HALT! A PRIME EXAMPLE IS SIMPLE TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS WITH NO PHYSICAL OR PROPERTY DAMAGE. A CRIME MUST HAVE SOMEONE WHO HAS SUSTAINED A LOSS DUE TO ANOTHERS ACTIONS; AS YOU OR ANY JUDGE SHOULD BE WELL AWARE! YET, THE COURTS MAKE MILLIONS PER YEAR OFF OF UNSUSPECTING AMERICANS THAT ARE IN ALL PRETENSE AND PURPOSE BEING HUSTLED BY A CORPORATION MASQUERADING AS A LAWFUL LEGAL SYSTEM WITHIN A GOVERNMENT; WHICH IT IN ITSELF IS ALSO A CORPORATION MASQUERADNG AS A LEGAL GOVERNMENT!
In some jurisdictions, like Washington, prosecutors have responded to jurors who are fed up with their draconian tactics by lobbying lawmakers to take away the right to a jury trial in drug cases. That is precisely the kind of power grab that the Constitution’s framers were so concerned about!
JURY NULLIFICATION provides an important mechanism for feedback. Jurors sometimes use nullification to send messages to prosecutors about misplaced enforcement priorities or what they see as harassing or abusive prosecutions. Jury nullification prevents our criminal justice system from becoming too rigid–it provides for justice and works to prevent a crooked criminal system from profiting off of the improper use of laws!
THIS WAS CLEARLY THE CASE WITH THE HAMMONDS AS THE OUTCOME WAS RIGGED BY THE JUDGE TO NOT ONLY EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND HISTORY OF ABUSE BY BLM AGAINST THE HAMMONDS AND OTHER RANCHERS; IT ALSO PREVENTED THE FACT OF WHO STARTED THE FIRE THAT THE HAMMONDS HAD TO START THE BACK BURN AGAINST IN ORDER TO SAVE THEIR PROPERTY (WHICH WAS IN FACT BLM REPRESENTATIVES AND THERE ARE WITNESSES AS SUCH). THE PROSECUTOR WITH BACKING OF OREGON ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHO HAS CLEALRY BEEN SHOWN TO LACK ANY NTEGRITY OR MORALITY IN HER OWN LIFE, THREW 9 COUNTS AT THE HAMMONDS IN HOPES THAT AT LEAST ONE COUNT WOULD STICK; WHILE OF COURSE HAVING THE JUDGE WITHHOLD THE KNOWLEDGE AND RIGHT OF THE JURY IN THEIR USE OF NULLIFICATION DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE HAMMONDS WERE BEING CHARGED AS TERRORISTS FOR FIRES, WHICH BY THE WAY WERE ORIGINATED ON THEIR OWN PRIVATE LAND, AND THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS LAND ALLOTED AS THEIR GRAZING LAND UNDER PERMIT!
COMMON SENSE HERE: WHY WOULD THE HAMMONDS HAVE ANYINTENT TO HARM THEIR OWN ALLOTED GRAZING LANDS FOR THEIR LIVESTOCK? CLEARLY NO MALICIOUS INTENT CAN EVEN BE INFERRED AS THS WOULD AFFECT THEIR OWN LIVELIHOOD!
2. Jurors were not Peers of the Hammonds
WIKIPEDIA DEFINITION: Peer – People who are equal in such respects as age, education or social class, group, colleague, etc., as in peer group or social peer-to-peer processes.
One must remember that “PEER” is derivedfromitshistoricalcounterpart in EnglishCommon Law! Likewise, peer has NEVER meant people from a surrounding geographic area, as these are not PEERS. Peers are those around you from which one derives pressure to conform in one fashion or another. Thus, the HAMONDS were NOT even afforded a jury of their peers; as peers would have been other ranchers and or farmers in the surrounding area – NOT people from a city environment as these persons would NEVER be in a position as to apply PEER PRESSURE on the HAMMONDS, or for that matter even relate to those being charged!
3. Prosecution allowed 6 days vs 1 day of the defense to produce facts
A PERSONS BEING CHARGED WITH A CRIME ARE SUPPOSED TO BE AFFORDED A FAIR TRIAL!
IS A PERSON WITH ANY COMMON SENSE TO INFER THAT A PROSECUTION BEING ALLOWED 6 DAYS TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND A DEFENSE ONLY ALLOWED 1 DAY, WHILE ALSO EXCLUDING: THE JURORS FROM MAKING KNOWN THE HISTORY OF THE PLAINTIF, ACTUAL EYEWITNESSES, IN REGARDS TO THE EVENT THAT CAUSED THE HAMMONDS TO REACT?
AGAIN I PUT IT TO YOU JUDGES, WHO MAKE CLAIMS TO BE FAIR AND UNBIASED, “DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A FAIR UNBIASED TRIAL TO YOU, OR RATHER A SETUP/RAILROADING BY THOSE WORKING FOR THE CLINTONS IN REGARDS TO THEIR SCHEME TO DEFRAUD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND SELLIING OF THE MINERAL RIGHTS ON THE SAME LANDS OWNED BY THE HAMMONDS THAT THE BLM HAS BEEN AGGRESSIVELY GOING AFTER WITH ACTIONS TO FORCE THEM SELLNG OF THEIR PRIVATE LAND?”
4. BLM lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Hammonds under any federal law
As in accordance with the CONSTITUTION the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (FAKE) lacks any jurisdiction as the Land in Horney County is not owned by the BLM or the supposed federal government. This land in Oregon is PUBLIC land, not FEDERAL land, and thus the jurisdiction of any action would fall under Oregon Law. One must remember there is extensive evidence to support the fact that the current government is NOT A GOVERNMENT OF AMERICA, but is in fact a CORPORATION defrauding the American people into believing it is a government. However, Washington D.C. is proof of this Corporation as this land was given to these criminals for their corporation, and the laws of this corporation apply only within their own boundary of that 10 by 10 mile of land called Washington D.C. Sorry to burst your bubble but the LIE can no longer be hidden from the Public!
Under Oregon Law the County Sheriff in 2001 refused to prosecute, and the fire in 2006 was only one acre and it is even debatable if the fire started on the Hammond Ranch, much less the fact that this fire was started as a back burn to extinguish the fire started by the BLM (two eyewitnesses) from destroying the Hammonds property. There is extensive history of the BLM starting many fires which have forced MANYranchers to sell what was left of their properties to the BLM (illegally extorted)! Likewise, not once was anyone from the BLM ever thrown in prison or even made to pay for the damage caused by their fires that jumped onto private rancher’s lands! (IN THOSE CASES LIVESTOCK AND PHYSICAL PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED BY THE BLM!) The Court Systems working for the Land Grabbers (fake government) and their private foundations such as the Clinton Foundation which has to date profited over 31 million dollars in selling the Public land, (stolen private land), mineral rights to foreign nations (a right that is not given by the CONSTITUTION for any FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) to even do with the lands as designated PUBLIC! Likewise, Let us also show that under Oregon Law both of the counts for which the Prosecution had finagled through deceptive means to have a jury approve of would not have been allowed due to Statute of Limitations in regards to Arson.
§ 164.325¹
Arson in the first degree
(1) A person commits the crime of arson in the first degree if:
(a) By starting a fire or causing an explosion, the person intentionally damages:< < as proven there was no intent
(A) Protected property of another;
(B) Any property, whether the property of the person or the property of another person, and such act recklessly places another person in danger of physical injury or protected property of another in danger of damage; or
(C) Any property, whether the property of the person or the property of another person, and recklessly causes serious physical injury to a firefighter or peace officer acting in the line of duty relating to the fire; or
Arson in the first degree is a Class A felony. [1971 c.743 §144; 1991 c.946 §1; 2005 c.706 §4]
(b) By knowingly engaging in the manufacture of methamphetamine, the person causes fire or causes an explosion that damages property described in paragraph (a) of this subsection.
(2) Arson in the first degree is a Class A felony. [1971 c.743 §144; 1991 c.946 §1; 2005 c.706 §4]
§ 164.315¹
Arson in the second degree
(1) A person commits the crime of arson in the second degree if:
(a) By starting a fire or causing an explosion, the person intentionally damages:< < again no intent was proven
(A) Any building of another that is not protected property; or
(B) Any property of another and the damages to the property exceed $750; or
(b) By knowingly engaging in the manufacture of methamphetamine, the person causes fire or causes an explosion that damages property described in paragraph (a) of this subsection.
(2) Arson in the second degree is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §143; 2001 c.432 §1; 2005 c.706 §3]
Arson in the 2nd degree is a Class C felony charge that carries a potential sentence of up to 5 years in prison and fines up to $125,000
§ 164.335¹
Reckless burning< < only possible charge possible if within the Statute of Limitations!
(1) A person commits the crime of reckless burning if the person recklessly damages property of another by fire or explosion.
(2) Reckless burning is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §142]
This is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail and fines reaching $6250.
|
CRIME CLASSIFICATION
|
MAXIMUM SENTENCE / PENALTY
|
|
Class A Felony
|
20 years / $375,000 fine
|
|
Class B Felony
|
10 years / $250,000 fine
|
|
Class C Felony
|
5 years / $125,000 fine
|
|
Class A Misdemeanor
|
1 year / $6,250 fine
|
|
Class B Misdemeanor
|
6 months / $2,500 fine
|
|
Class C Misdemeanors
|
30 days / $1,250
|
§ 131.125¹ Time limitations:
(5)A prosecution for arson in any degree may be commenced within six years after the commission of the crime.
AS NOTED THIS NEGATES BOTH OF THE COUNTS FOR WHICH THE HAMMONDS WERE CHARGED, AS ONE TOOK PLACE IN 2001, THE OTHER IN 2006, AND YET THEY FINALLY FILED CHARGES AND TOOK ACTION IN 2012-2013. WHY? BECAUSE THEY HAD FINALLY REALIZED THAT NO MATTER WHAT THE HAMMONDS WERE NOT GOING TO GIVE THEIR LAND TO THE FOREIGN FOR-PROFIT BLM CORPORATION! AT THE BEST CASE WOULD BE JUST ONE COUNT DEPENDING ON THE ACTUAL DATE OF THE FIRE IN 2006 VERSES THE ACTUAL DATE OF FILING CHARGES BEING IN 2012 OR 2013.
THIS MEANS THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE / PENALTY WOULD BE 1 YEAR OF PRISON WITH A MAXIMUM $6,250 FINE. INSTEAD THE PROSECUTORS KNEW THAT THIS WOULD NOT FORCE THE POSSIBLITY OF A SALE SO THEY USED A LAW IMPLEMENTED FOR TERRORISTS AGAINST THE HAMMONDS WHERE THEY COULD THROW THEM INTO PRISON FOR 5 YEARS MINIMUM AND CHARGE THEM 400,000.00 IN HOPES THAT THIS WOULD FORCE A SALE, AS CLEARLY SEEN BY THER STIPULATION OF A PLEA DEAL WHERE THE BLM COULD BE FIRST BUYERS AND BUY THE RANCHERS LAND AT PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR! AS NOTED IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SENTENCING RESULTS! LIKEWISE, DUE TO THE FACT THERE ARE TWO WITNESSES TO THE FACT THAT THE FIRE THAT THE HAMMONDS STARTED WAS TO KEEP THEIR PROPERTY SAFE FROM A FIRE THAT WAS STARTED BY CORRUPT BLM REPRESENTATIVES GIVE CLEAR DOUBT WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ONLY FIRE IN 2006 THAT WAS QUESTIONABLY CHARGED AGAINST THE HAMMONDS!
5. Oregon Law which had jurisdiction due to location of the supposed crime was forgone for the only reason of trying to make the Hammonds an example to anyone wishing to stand up against the “FEDERAL” land grab that has clearly been established over the last three decades!
AS NOTED BECAUSE THE FIRE WAS ON PUBLIC LAND WITH OREGON THE PROSECUTION FALLS UNDER OREGON’S ARSON LAWS – NOT NO FEDERAL TERRORIST CHARGE!
6. Under Oregon Law the Hammonds would only had been able to be charged with one count involving the burning of only one acre via a back burn, but then the BLM who there are eyewitnesses of states it was the BLM that started the fire on the Public land from which the Hammonds were forced to start a back burn to protect their property! (A CLEAR SETUP!)
HOWEVER THE BLM THROUGH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND CORRUPT JUDGES APPOINTED BY THE CLINTONS ENSURED THAT THE HAMMONDS WERE PROSECUTED AS TERRORISTS UNDER A LAW THAT ONLY APPLIES TO WASHINGTON D.C. PROPERTY 10 BY 10 MILE OF LAND OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION, MASQUERADING AS THE GOVERNMENT OF AMERICA (PERPETUATING FRAUD AGAINST AMERICA)!
S. 735 (104th): Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
THERE IS NO ONE THAT CAN CONVINCE ANYONE WITH COMMON SENSE THAT A RANCHER STARTING A FIRE ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY, AS ADMITTED IN COURT BY EVEN THE BLM, TO SAVE THEIR RANCH IS IN ANYWAY A TERRORIST OR SHOULD BE CHARGED AS ONE!THE COURT JUDGES INVOLVED IN THIS CORRUPTION SHOULD BE PROSECUTED FOR THEFT THROUGH FRAUD AND EACH ONE BE FORCED TO PAY BACK TO THE HAMMONDS TWICE THAT FROM WHAT THEY STOLE $800,000.00 PER EACH JUDGE INVOLVED!
THE COURTS INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUDED THE JURORS WHEN THEY REPRESENTED THE HAMMONDS AS BEING CHARGED WITH MALICIOUSLY DAMAGING THE UNITED STATES PROPERTY BY FIRE! ONE MUST NOTE FIRST AND FOREMOST THAT THE UNITED STATES OR RATHER THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT OWN THAT LAND. THAT LAND IS PUBLIC LAND – AS SET FORTH BY THE CONSTITUTION! THE SECOND ISSUE IS THAT THEY MISLED THE JURORS TO BELIEVE THE WERE BENG CHARGED FOR ARSON WHEN THE TRUTH IS THEY WERE BENG CHARGED AS TERRORISTS, WHICH WAS CONVENIENTLY WITHHELD BY THE JUDGE AND THE COURT AS THE JUDGE HAD FORBIDDEN THE DEFENSE TO LET THAT INFORMATION BE KNOWN TO THE JURORS! THIS RIGHT HERE INDICATES NOT ONLY BIAS, BUT ALSO FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE COURTS! THEN AGAIN THE JUDGE DOING THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING WAS APPOINTED BY THE CLINTONS, WHO JUST HAPPENED TO SIGN THAT SAME TERRORIST LAW INTO EFFECT THAT WAS USED AGAINST THE HAMMONDS, AND WHO JUST ALSO HAPPENS TO BE THE ONES PROFITING FROM THE BLM STEALING OF RANCHERS LAND BECAUSE THEY HAVE TAKEN IT UPON THEMSELVES TO SELL THE MINERAL RIGHTS TO FOREIGN NATIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR OVER 31 MILLION IN DONATIONS SO FAR TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION!
7. The fact that 3 of the 5 judges involved in this case were appointed into their positions by the Clintons who are directly profiting through the actions of the BLM in regards to their Clinton Foundation!
THE FACT THAT 3 OF THE 5 JUDGES MAKING THE DECSION IN THIS COURT CASE WERE AND ARE APPOINTED BY THE CLINTONS WHO ARE PROFITING BY THE ACTIONS OF THE BLM CLEARLY OUTLIES THAT THERE IS CLEARLY RESONABLE DOUBT AS TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THE FACT THAT THESE JUDGES WERE ALLOWED TO PROSECUTE THIS CASE IS HIGHLY SUSPECT OF RICCO BEING INVOLVED, EXTORTION BEING INVOLVED, AS WELL AS FRAUD BEING INVOLVED!
THE JUDGES IN QUESTION IN REGARD TO THIS CASE WERE:
District Judge Ann Aiken
District Judge Stephen J. Murphy III
Circuit Judge Richard C. Tallman
8. Resentencing used as Harassment
U.S. Attorney for Oregon, Amanda Marshall, during her appeal made it extremely clear and even out right stated” her goal was the resentencing not to reopen the case or even to challenge the trial court’s findings of guilt! RESENTENCING IN WHICH SHE REARGUED THE WHOLE CASE PROVES THAT SHE WAS RETRYIING THE CASE, MEANING OUTRIGHT THAT THE HAMMONDS WERE PROSECUTED TWICE, AND THUS SENTENCED FOR THE SAME SUPPOSED CRIME TWICE (WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW UNDER DOUBLE JEOPARDY)!
ONE MUST REMEMBER THAT THE 9TH CIRCUIT DEEMED THAT THIS CASE WOULD NOT BE ALLOTED ORAL ARGUMENTS!
Thus let’s address the same 4 points that Amanda Marshall submitted:
• Lack of constitutional authority – Marshall first challenged the district court judge’s authority under the Constitution to give Hammonds a sentence shorter than the five-year term required by the Anti-terrorism Act. Judge Hogan had said that a five-year sentence would have violated the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution by inflicting “a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here…”
WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED WAS THAT THESE JUDGES DID NOT HAVE LEGAL JURISDICTION TO PROSECUTE A SIMPLE RANCHER UNDER ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS! LIKEWISE, THE PROSECUTING OF THE HAMMONDS UNDER ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS FOR STARTING FIRES ON THEIR OWN LAND AND ONE OF THE TWO COUNTS CLEALRY OUTSIDE THE ESTABLISHED OREGON ARSON LAW UNDER § 164.335¹ Reckless burning< < only possible charge possible if within the Statute of Limitations! AS WHERE CAN ONE ASSUME MALICIOUS INTENT WHEN STARTING A FIRE ON ONE’S OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY? The Second Count in 2006 is questionable if it met the statute of limitations in regards to time limit.
• Offenders need not be terrorists – The government’s appeal stated, “the fact that they are ranchers who set fire to rangeland and not terrorists adds nothing to the analysis.” LETS GET THIS RIGHT THOSE CHARGED UNDER TERRORISM LAWS ACCORDING TO THIS ATTONREY NEED NOT BE TERRORISTS TO BE TRIED AS A TERRORIST! THE GOVERNMENT EVEN OUT RIGHT ADMITTED THAT THE HAMMONDS WERE RANCHERS, NOT TERRORISTS! THUS, ONE MUST ASK WHY WERE THE HAMMONDS ALLOWED BY THE JUDGES TO BE CHARGED AS TERRORISTS AT ALL? THIS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT ON THAT FACT ALONE, WHICH ONCE AGAIN PROVES THE FRAUD THAT WAS TAKING PLACE BY THE COURTS/JUDGES IN THE USE OF EXTORTION ON THE HAMMONDS TO GIVE THEIR PROPERTY UP TO THE BLM, LIKE THAT OF MANY RANCHERS BEFORE THEM! JUDGE HOGAN HIMSELF HAD EVEN REFERRED TO THE HAMMONDS AS “PILLARS” OF THEIR COMMUNITY; OF WHICH MARSHALL EVEN NOTED THAT IN THE APPEAL!
AS STATED “THIS WHOLE CASE REEKS OF RICO!!!”
THE NEXT ARGUMENT IN THIS SECOND TRIAL WAS MARSHALL’S ARGUMENT THAT THE HAMMONDS HAD MALICIOUSLY DAMAGED FEDERAL PROPERTY BY FIRE AND THAT LIVES WERE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY FIRE!
THIS AGAIN IS HER TRYNG TO RETRY THE CASE AS SEEN BY ANYONE WITH COMMON SENSE! THE TRIAL HAD ALREADY FOUND THAT THE FIRES HAD ENDANGERED NO ONE! IT IS QUITE APPARENT THAT MARSHALL WAS ATTEMPTING TO REOPEN THE FACTS DESPITE THE ENDANGERMENT ISSUE HAVING BEEN ALREADY DECIDED DURING THE TRIAL, AND FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE HAMMONDS!
THE LAST POINT BY MARSHALL WAS SIMILAR MINIMUM SENTENCING IN ISSUES FOR BOTH THEFT AND DRUG POSSESSIONS! IN THS PONT SHE CITED TWO EXAMPLES IN WHCH THE SUPREME COURT HAD “AFFIRMED MUCH LENGTHIER SENTENCES” FOR “FAR MORE INNOCUOS CRIMES.”
HOWEVER ONE OF THE TWO EXAMPLES SHE NOTED WAS SENTENCED UNDER THE “THREE-STRIKES LAW”. IN OTHER WORDS THE FIRST TWO TIMES FOR THAT OFFENSE THE PERSON DID NOTDO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SENTENCING! YET, HERE WE ARE TO ASCERTAIN THAT THE HAMMONDS AS EVEN NOTED BY THE JUDGE AS “PILLARS OF THE COMMUNITY” SHOULD BE SENTENCED FOR THE FIRST CHARGE WITH A MINIMUM MANDATORY SENTENCING WHEN IT TOOK A REPEAT OFFENDER OF THEFT AND OTHER CHARGES THREE TIMES BEFORE BEING REQUIRED TO DO A MANDATORY SENTENCING REQUIREMENT!
LIKEWISE, THE OTHER CASE IN WHICH MARSHALL CITED OF A CONVICTION OF COCAINE POSSESION (THIS CASE AGAIN WAS NOTED WITH THE CRIMINAL HAVING MULTIPLE CHARGES OVER THEIR HISTORY AND THE PERSON WAS NOTED AS HAVING AN AMOUNT NOTED FOR THAT OF SELL AND DISTRIBUTION)! THIS IS TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE HAMMONDS IN WHICH THEY BURNED THEIR OWN PRIVATE LAND, 2001 BEING TO MAKE THEIR LAND AS PERMITED A BETTER GRAZING ENVIRONMENT FOR THEIR CATTLE (BEYOND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION TO EVEN BE PROSECUTED UNDER STATE LAW), AND 2006 WHERE IT IS EVEN QUESTIONABLE WHO BURNED THE ONE WHOLE ACRE,(ONCE AGAIN WHERE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION ON THIS COUNT IS EVEN QUESTIONABLE), AND WAS DONE WITH THE PURPOSE TO SAVE THEIR PROPERTY FROM AN ONGOING FIRE ALREADY A ABLAZE, WHICH WAS NOT STARTED BY THE HAMMONDS! SHOULD THEY HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO SIT BACK, TAKE NO ACTION AND LET THEIR RANCH GET BURNED DOWN? TWO EYEWITNESSES STATE IT WAS IN FACT HE BLM THAT STARTED THOSE FIRES WHICH JEOPARDIZED LIVES, LIVESTOCK, AND PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE HAMMONDS!
THUS, FOR ANY JUDGE WITH COMMON SENSE TO RESENTENCE THE HAMMONDS BACK TO A 5 YEAR MINMUM SENTENCE IS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE. HOWEVER, THEN AGAIN ONE MUST REMEMBER THAT 3 OF THE 5 JUDGES INVOLVED WERE PERSONNALY APPOINTED BY THE SAME BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON THAT ARE PROFITING BY SELLIING THE MINERAL RIGHTS OF THESE RANCHERS LANDS TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO THE TUNE OF NOW OVER 31 MILLION DOLLARS IN DONATIONS TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION!
THE PEOPLE OF THE LAND AND CONSTITUTION ARE TIRED OF THE CORRUPTION RUNNING RAMPANT IN BOTH GOVERNMENT (AND ALL THEIR ABC SUB-CORPORATIONS), AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM WHICH HAS PROVED ITSELF RIGGED TO DO NOTHING MORE THAN ILLEGALLY FLEECE AMERICANS OF THEIR WEALTH!!! THE LEGAL SYSTEM HAS EXPOSED ITSELF AS SUCH OVER AND OVER AGAIN! THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA ARE LEARNING THE TRUTH AND ARE JUST STARTING TO STAND UP!
THE KILLING OF LAVOY FINICUM BY THE FBI, (ANOTHER PRIVATE CORPORATION), THAT HAS NO JURISDICTION EXCEPT FOR IN THAT OF WASHINGTON D.C. WILL BE HELD CULPABLE IN THEIR EXECUTION OF AN AMERICAN ON AMERICAN SOIL! THIS WILL NOT END WELL! YOUR CORRUPTION THAT HAS BROUGHT ABOUGHT THE BUNDY AND FINICUM GIVING LESSONS/CLASSES ON THE CONSTITUTION HAS YOU SCARED! IT HAS YOU SCARED BAD! THE KILLING OF AN AMERICAN FOR STANDING FOR THE TRUTH WILL BE YOUR DOWNFALL, AS THE PEOPLE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THE EXTORTION AND TYRANNY BEING EXERTED BY THIS FAKE GOVERNMENT!
GUESS WHAT, IF YOU WEREN’T INVOLVED IN CORRUPT PRACTICES YOU WOULD NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO FEAR! YOUR ARMAMENT OF ALL THE ILLEGAL ABC CORPORATIONS WILL NOT END WELL FOR AMERICA! NONE OF THESE CORPORATIONS HAS LEGAL AUTHORITY TO FORM GESTAPOS ON AMERICAN SOIL, OR AUTHORITY TO KILL ANY AMERICAN, MUCH LESS EVEN EXIST – OF WHICH YOU ARE CLEARLY AWARE!
IT IS THE ILLEGALITIES OF THE CURRENT FAKE GOVERNMENT (UNITED STATES CORPORATION), ILLEGAL ABC AGENCIES WHICH ARE NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION, AND OUTRIGHT CORRUPT LEGAL SYSTEM THAT IS BENG EXPOSED AND WILL EVENTUALLY LEAD TO YOUR DEMISE!! THE PEOPLE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF POWER, CONTROL, AND GREED BEING ASSERTED BY ALL OF YOU CLAIMING, BUT HAVING NO LEGAL AUTHORITY, OF BEING AMERICA’S LEGAL GOVERNMENT AND SYSTEM OF LAWS!
DO NOT PREACH THAT MAXIMUM FEDERAL SENTENCNG LAWS MUST BE FOLLOWED WHEN ILLEGAL ALIENS CAUGHT CROSSING THE BORDER INTO AMERICA ARE NOT REQUIRED OR MADE TO DO THEIR MINIMUM REQUIRED SENTENCES:
First-time offenders can be sentenced to a maximum of six months but are often sentenced to time served and deported.
Repeat offenders can receive up to two years in prison but generally get from 10 to 180 days.
THE HAMMONDS ARE ONLY BEING REQUIRED TO THIS INPRISONMENT AS A MEANS TO PRESSURE THE FAMILY TO RELEASE THE HAMMOND RANCH LANDS TO THE ILLEGAL CORPORATIONS AND THEIR BOSSES WHO ARE GREEDY AND PROFITING OFF OF THESE LAND GRABS!
THE FOUR FOLLOWING DEMANDS SHOULD BE INACTED IMMEDIATELY:
1. The Hammonds be immediately released from prison and be paid in full $800,000.00 by each of these judges who were involved in these illegal land grabs, as well as return of the court ordered $400,000.00 as a fee, (to include their clearly involvement …ie RICCO in the extortion and profiting off of illegal scam of ranchers and their lands)!
2. That these judges be charged as accessories in the murder of LaVoy Finicum, as his death is/was a direct causation by that of the illegality and imprisonment of the Hammonds!
3. That all FBI, (Hired Mercenaries by those involved in the cover-up of their illegal activities), be shut down and removed from Burns Oregon to DESCALATE the situation at the REFUGE and that all the FBI MERCENARIES involved in the ambush be charged with murder, to include those above them giving the order!. You have already produced a MARTYRE for freedom against your corruption (do you really want to produce a civil war of AMERICANS against CORRUPT CORPORATION masquerading as a government?)
4. That the LaVoy Finicum family be presented 31 million dollars for the killing of LaVoy by the FBI MERCENARIES. This 31 million can be acquisitioned from the profit by the Clinton Foundation which is at the base of the illegal activities driving the BLM land grab!
NESARA- Restore America – Galactic News
Source: http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2016/02/oregon-9th-circuit-court-complicit-in.html
