361 Russell Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
To
follow up on my comment, “The reason the Hammonds are in prison is because of
two uninformed people. One being the Hammonds attorney, and the other – a
former attorney now judge who sentenced them.”
Here’s
the statute that wholly exempts the Hammonds:
“Whoever, willfully and without authority,
sets on fire any timber, underbrush, or grass or other inflammable material
upon the public domain or upon any lands owned or leased by or under the
partial, concurrent, or exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or under
contract for purchase or for the acquisition of which condemnation proceedings
have been instituted, or upon any Indian reservation or lands belonging to or
occupied by any tribe or group of Indians under authority of the United States,
or upon any Indian allotment while the title to the same shall be held in trust
by the Government, or while the same shall remain inalienable by the allottee
without the consent of the United States, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section shall not apply
in the case of a fire set by an allottee in the reasonable exercise of his
proprietary rights in the allotment.”
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645,
62 Stat. 788; Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, § 6254(j), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat.
4368.)
The
Hammonds were imprisoned for a crime they did not commit. I strongly urge you
to lead your colleagues to a full Congressional investigation of Dwight and
Steven Hammond’s unjust conviction.
Thank
you,
Retired
General Manager National Western Livestock Show and Rodeo
________________________________________________________________
Equal
Standing Bill
Equal Protection from Personal Attack (Malicious
Deprivation of Constitutional Rights) Act by Federal Employee
Please Note: This can be
modified to incorporate any existing constitutional rights protection law; and
re-adapted to any and all domestic resource production.
Whereas the Legislature
finds that the Livestock Sector of the Agriculture Industry of the State is a
critical and significant portion of the Agriculture Industry of the State and
necessary for the continued health, prosperity and well-being of the people of
the State, and,
Whereas a significant
number of Livestock within the State spend a significant part of their lives on
Federal Range lands, and,
Whereas the US Supreme
Court has held that Stockwater Rights, Range Rights, Right-of-Ways, and
Improvements, appurtenant to or associated with Range Allotments are Property
Rights protected
under the Fifth Amendment
of the US Constitution, and,
Whereas Federal
Employees are required by the Fifth Amendment and Executive Order 12630 to
consider the Takings Implications of their decisions and actions on the
Property Rights of Ranch or Range Allotment Owners before taking those actions,
Therefore, be it
resolved that whenever any Federal Employee acting under Color of Law, takes
any action harmful to any Ranch or Range Allotment Owner in the State that
deprives that Owner of any property rights without first giving due
consideration to those rights by:
1) accessing property with permission,
2) conducting
a thorough Takings Implication Assessment,
3) giving the Owner due
process, and
4) paying just
compensation as required by law,
that Federal Employee
shall be deemed to be in violation of the Constitutional Rights of the Ranch or
Allotment Owner and acting outside the scope of any federally delegated
authority, and therefore, outside the protection of any federal immunity from
prosecution and therefore guilty of the crime of Malicious Deprivation of
Constitutional Rights and shall be subject to both civil and criminal
punishment under the Laws of the State.
The violation of this Law shall be punishable as a Felony carrying a
fine of up to $500,000 dollars and 5 years in prison for each separate offense.
No comments:
Post a Comment