M.O.W.C.A.

There is a point in which one can be too close to something, so that objectivity cannot be obtained or arrived at, and the emotions countervail any attempt to render a proper analysis of the situation. I pray that is not the case here. In the case of U.S. v. Hollis Wayne Fincher, there are many things that have occurred which cause one to seriously reevaluate the idea that we actually have a justice system. I would that this be not the case, but the evidence weighs heavily against my desire.

So it is with this latest round of hearings and subsequent rulings. On Thursday, the 26th of February, Judge Jimm Larry Hendren ruled on the remand from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals concerning Mr. Fincher’s In Forma Pauperis status. That this ruling would be against Mr. Fincher was to be expected, knowing that Judge Hendren would rule against Mr. Fincher if he could at all. Moreover, since the 8th Circuit enshrined into law a fiction by ruling the appraisal and its unchallenged introduction into the record to be valid and a “fact,” it was expected that climbing Mount Everest would be easier that Judge Hendren ruling in favor of Mr. Fincher. What was not expected was the vendictive language employed by Judge Hendren in ruling against Mr. Fincher. It is as if Judge Hendren has a personal vendetta against Mr. Fincher.

How can I say this? Consider the following quote from the Order issued on the 26th of February:

Evidence taken at a previous hearing shows that after Fincher was convicted — and while he was facing sentencing with the prospect of a fine that could be as much as $250,000 — his family consulted attorney Jack Butt about the preparation of a deed conveying the Property to the Finchers’ two daughters. Transfer was accomplished by the Quitclaim Deed of January 29, 2007. Recited consideration was $1.00 and “other good and valuable consideration.” The Quitclaim Deed further recites “NO REVENUE STAMPS REQUIRED. TRANSFER IS BY GIFT.”

Although both the Finchers and their daughters denied that the prospect of the fine had anything whatsoever to do with this conveyance, Fincher admitted that he wanted to get the property “out of my hands,” and Fields admitted that they discussed the fact that if there was a fine and Fincher did not pay it, the Property could be taken to pay it. At an earlier hearing, Fincher placed in evidence a letter from Butt to Assistant United States Attorney Chris Plumlee. The letter references a conversation between Butt and Plumlee about the fact that Fincher had been convicted; that he owned “a family farm in northwest Arkansas which has been in the family for many generations”; and that Butt had “been requested by the family to accomplish a transfer that would ensure its continued ownership by the family.” The testimony of Fincher and Fields, and the Butt letter, along with the close temporal coincidence of Fincher’s conviction and the conveyance, are clear and convincing evidence that Fincher was trying to divest himself of the Property so that it would be unavailable to pay a fine in his criminal case. The Quitclaim Deed was fraudulent as provided in A.C.A. §4-59-204(a)(1), because it was made with actual intent to hinder the government — should it become a creditor by virtue of a fine — from receiving payment. It was fraudulent as provided in A.C.A. §4-59-204(a)(2), because it was made without receiving reasonably equivalent value and Fincher reasonably should have believed that he would incur a debt (a fine in the criminal case) beyond his ability to pay when it became due.¹

Now here is a novel thing, tell the government exactly what you are going to do, so you can defraud the government with the action you just told them you were going to do. The logic is convoluted beyond belief. The really interesting thing about this is that Wendy Johnson, the Assistant U.S. District Attorney KNEW about the transfer of the land, and raised absolutely no objection at the Sentencing Hearing:

The fine range is twelve thousand five hundred dollars to a hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars. Ms. Johnson, I have in mind a departure on the fine range. I am not persuaded, given Mr. Fincher’s circumstances and that of his family, that he is able to pay a fine within the range. I think it would be an unduly harsh — hardship on him and his family, and I have in mind of awarding him a fine of one thousand dollars, which is a considerable departure out of that guideline range. And I’ll certainly hear your objection if you have any.
MS. JOHNSON: I have no objection, Your Honor.²

Now, in case you ask, who is Chris Plumlee? Well, he is the wet behind the ears attorney who assisted Wendy Johnson at Wayne’s trial.

THE COURT: The Court calls up for trial by jury the case of the United States of America versus Hollis Wayne
Fincher. The matter comes on today for trial by jury pursuant to previous Orders of the Court. Is the United States present and ready to proceed?
MS. JOHNSON: We are, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ms. Johnson, good morning.
MS. JOHNSON: Good morning.
THE COURT: I understand you and Mr. Plumlee will be representing the United States. Is that correct?
MS. JOHNSON: That’s correct, Your Honor.
MR. PLUMLEE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Plumlee, good morning.
MR. PLUMLEE: Good morning.³

In fact, it was Chris Plumlee who took the lead in questioning Mr. Fincher at the in-camera hearing:

THE COURT: Any cross?
MR. PLUMLEE: Yes, sir.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PLUMLEE:
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Fincher.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Fincher, I’d like to talk a little bit about the militia. What are — what was the date it was founded?⁴

Now, can we believe that Chris Plumlee totally neglected to tell Wendy Johnson that Hollis Wayne Fincher just transferred 120 acres of property to his two daughters, knowing full well that people who are awaiting sentencing may be fined, and may try to hide assets to avoid fines?

Are Wendy Johnson and Chris Plumlee that stupid? Even if Ms. Johnson were not totally up to speed, surely it would have rung a bell with her at the Sentencing Hearing that a DOWNWARD departure in the fine, to the tune of $11,500.00 could not be warranted as the Finchers transferred 120 acres of land not 3½ months before?

Perhaps it is that Judge Hendren is spinning the facts just a bit here.

To be continued . . .

1. pp. 8-10, IFP Order, dated 02/26/2009 [↩]
2. pg. 751, Transcript [↩]
3. pg. 107, Trial Transcript [↩]
4. pp. 440-441, Trial Transcript [↩]

The following video is presented for various reasons, not the least of which is a unique view of a Spectre strike at night (Just when else did you expect them to operate?). You can do two primary things with this video:

Be entertained

OR

Get educated

You can notice the way the video appears, and what stands out (like the white figures running) and how easy it is to detect moving individuals on the ground. Notice how the vehicles appear, and what the buildings look like.

Then notice the “drone” sound and the angle of the camera with respect to the ground. You should be asking yourself why it is that the insurgents don’t seem to notice the droning of the AC-130 overhead. Also notice that the angle changing as they go through the “pylon turn” orbiting above and off to the side of the target area.

Notice what happens when they hit the first vehicle — quite large secondary explosions. This happens with several of the targets hit.

Beyond that, there is the segment where they target a running individual – notice that running down the road in the open is not a wise idea.

Also notice they picked up a tunnel entrance with the LL/IR sensor.

There are a number of other things to watch and listen to on the audio. Pay attention to the crew and combat controller coordination, firing commands, etc.

In other words, get an education, study it — learn from it.

You can review the AC-130 specifications here.

You just might need the information one day.

The following video is of several IAF strikes against Hamas targets in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.

There are a number of things in this video to note that are of interest to anyone potentially involved in a combat zone in urban areas.

Immediately it should be noted that the “camouflaged” anti-aircraft gun on the rooftop (which is a flat rooftop) is not so camouflaged from the sensors and LL/IR TV of the aircraft/drone that the camera is mounted on. For camouflage to be effective, it must actually mask what one is trying to hide. In this case, it is obvious that Hamas does not understand that principle.

About 18 seconds into the video, the scene shows a mortar mounted on a rooftop. Typical with Middle Eastern houses, this roof has low (about waist to chest high) walls around it. I’m relatively certain the operators of the mortar forgot all about eyes in the sky, or they thought the walls would hide them sufficiently. Guess what? That only works IF your opponent doesn’t have airpower and virtually constant surveillance. Notice also that you can clearly see the mortar discharge, launching the shell.

30 seconds into the video the scene switches to a truck mounted AAA unit. Again, its not really clear the terrain around the truck, but sitting still and firing blithely away without regard to the ever-present opposition air force, is a sure recipe for getting sent out of this world. And, that is the predictable result as the missile approaches from the left at high speed, and slams into the truck.

Following is some pretty generic shots of mortars/missiles Hamas tried to hide between houses. However, I think Hamas really doesn’t get the fact that metal tubes full of solid propellant/explosives have a fundamentally different IR signature than your typical small shrub or trash can. One would have to be quite creative to actually hide such a thing.

56 seconds into the video is a tunnel strike. There are large secondary explosions indicating the presence of propellant/explosives in the tunnel. This does raise a question for anyone:

How is it Israel knows where the tunnels are?

There are a few ways I can think of, one of which is ground-penetrating radar. I’m pretty certain most of the tunnels are not more than 50 feet below the surface. This is certainly within reach of ground-penetrating radar. A tunnel will show up prominently on the display, even when “filled” with explosive. A second way is good ole HUMINT, which is boots on the ground actually locating the tunnel, through some social interaction. Third, unusual activity in and around the area. Generally the volume involved in smuggling significant quantities of anything will reveal that a passageway is present simply because of too many persons, with too much movement, in too regular a pattern.

There are a couple more tunnel strikes with impressive explosions.

2:08 into the video shows a rocket located immediately adjacent to a mosque building, and a subsequent rocket launch near the mosque. According to the Geneva Convention (which Hamas is not a signatory) you cannot do this. However, one must remember that in war, “rules” frequently are thrown down, if not thrown out altogether. In this case, Hamas is virtually “daring” Israel to strike the rocket launcher so Hamas can gain the propaganda advantage by accusing Israel of deliberately targeting a mosque.

The video ends with showing a rocket launcher and the IAF apparently in the process of striking the launcher.

From the point of view of studying how vulnerable ground targets are to airpower, this video gives good indication that not a whole lot is actually hidden from prying eyes. One of the things I frequently note on all IDF strike videos is the remarkable laxity in Hamas in attempting to effectively hide their movements from airspace threats.

Thus, one of the basic lessons to take from the video is: Ignore airpower at your peril.