Hendren Piles On

In Communist China, when the government executes you they send your family a bill for the bullet. Judge Jimm Hendren's court in Arkansas works much the same way. First he appoints attorneys, then he refuses to permit them or you to put your defense before the jury, then he sends you the $8,300 bill for the court-appointed attorneys that he did not permit to defend you. At least that is the way he did it for Hollis Wayne Fincher.

Fincher is currently rotting in prison after living an honest life for 60 years. His "crime" was possession of a machine gun without a license from the federal government. Since freemen have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the government cannot ban these weapons outright. Instead, the law he was convicted on derives its authority from the Constitution's interstate commerce clause (Congress shall have the power to regulate interstate commerce). Such a law should have no bearing in this case since Fincher made the guns himself, never carried them out of the state, and never engaged in any commerce with the weapons. Too bad a jury never got a chance to hear that or any other defense from the government lawyers that Fincher is now being required to pay.

The Morning News Article is here, but don't expect to get Fincher's side of the story from it. Still, the chronology is disturbing. Fincher did not transfer the property until two weeks after his conviction, long after the Judge had already decided that Fincher could not afford his own attorney and so appointed ones from the state. Everyone knew that Fincher owned the land in question, it was in the papers. It was brought out in the trial and in the pre-trial. The judge had to know about the land. Now, suddenly the judge decides that Fincher's transfer of the property to his daughters - after his trial and conviction mind you - is somehow evidence that Fincher was trying to hide his wealth so that he would not have to pay for his own lawyer.

Hendren's logic appears chaotic and irrational. Bad logic often springs from bad motives. I cannot judge his motives, but this sure looks like a petty and vindictive retroactive move by a judge who does not like the criticism he has earned from his abysmal performance in this case.