The Farmington, N.M., swastika-branding incident is the first test case for America's new hate crimes law. (Photo Credit: CC BY/Blake Emrys/Flickr)

The state of race relations between Navajo and Anglos in Farmington, N.M., may have hit low tide once more, thanks to the swastika-branding actions of three young men. According to Associated Press, the three white men attacked (after allegedly kidnapping) a mentally disabled 22-year-old Navajo man. They shaped a coat hanger into a swastika, heated it on a stove and branded the symbol into the Navajo man’s arm. Now the perpetrators are the first in the United States to be accused under the updated version of a 2009 hate crimes law.

Swastika-branding not the only damage

According to Farmington authorities, the horrific swastika-branding wasn’t all that the three men did to their victim. They also used markers to write various messages on the Navajo man’s body, including “KKK,” “White Power,” a pentagram and a graphic depiction of a penis. The actions of the offending trio have run afoul of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The offenders could face 10 years in prison if convicted. The sentence could be extended to life if the government can prove  kidnapping was involved in the swastika-branding incident.

Changes to hate crimes law paved the way

In its original form, U.S. law regarding hate crimes required the victim to be taking part in a federally protected activity such as voting or attending school in order for hate crime charges to apply. Recent changes, thanks to the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (Matthew Shepard Act for short), have eliminated that requirement, and the Farmington swastika-branding incident is the first case to be heard after the changes. Protection from violence based upon gender, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity are added civil rights protections guaranteed by the law.

Pact to improve race relations

Just this month, Farmington leaders and elders of the Navajo Nation met at Farmington City Hall to sign a historic pledge in which both sides promise to work toward bettering race relations. The predominantly white city of Farmington has a decades-old history of conflict with the Navajo.

Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission Chairman Duane “Chili” Yazzie recognized that only through education will violence be quelled. Farmington Mayor Tommy Roberts said that while “there will always be people who just don’t get it,” the overall climate of race relations can change over time.

Sources

Associated Press

Media coverage when the swastika-branding first occurred

What are the requirements to get a New Mexico payday loan?

1. You need to be 18 years old or older to apply
2. Must be a legal U.S. citizen
3. Employed for the past three months and currently working
4. Have a valid social security number
5. Must be a legal U.S. resident

How can I contact the loan company for any questions?

Go to the lender’s website and find their contact section. There you can find the agency’s number, mailing address and e-mail information. Use any of that information to contact the loan company directly.

How much money can I get from the payday lender?

The most money anyone can get for a short-term payday loan is $1,500, but in some cases, you can even get a personal loan of up to $2,500. The amount of money the average person gets is about $1,000. It is calculated by the individual loan agency using the information you submit on your application and the amount of money you make at your current job.

Can I be in the military and still get this loan?

Being in the military does not disqualify you from getting the loan; you have the same opportunity as a civilian does.

Where can I get cash today?

You can apply for a New Mexico payday loan here, right below this article. All you have to do is fill out the short application form that takes less than five minutes to fully complete.

Start your New Mexico payday loan application HERE!

Fastbucks and the New Mexico Attorney General are stuck in a legal battle. Image from Flickr.

In New Mexico, the lawsuits are flying between the Attorney General and loan company Fastbucks. Attorney General Gary King filed a lawsuit against Fastbucks last year. Fastbucks has counter sued. At issue? New regulations on payday lending that Fastbucks successfully fought in court in 2006.

The original lawsuit against Fastbucks

The lawsuit that started this tete-a-tete in New Mexico was filed by Gary King against Fastbucks and one other instant payday loan company. The suit, which was originally scheduled to go to court on July 6, was a civil suit. The suit claimed that Fastbucks was responsible for “unconscionable” loans. The judge ordered that Fastbucks and the New Mexico Attorney General were to attend mediation, but the Attorney General did not attend the session.

Fastbucks’ countersuit

In the Roswell district court, Fastbucks filed a countersuit to the Attorney General’s civil suit. Fastbucks alleges that the Attorney General is suing them to “create legislation with litigation.” The suit also alleges that the case has been filed as a reaction to the failure of the legislation to pass in 2006. This lawsuit does not yet have a court date set. It is possible that the New Mexico Attorney General may file for the judging of the suit to be moved. Because the counter suit was filed in a different district than the original suit, there may be issues of jurisdiction.

The essential arguments

The arguments in the New Mexico case come down to the question of “unconscionable trade practices.” The Attorney General of New Mexico claims that these instant payday loans charge too much money for the lending service they provide. Fastbucks and other stores that deal in payday advances say that they are being unfairly targeted for providing lending to high-risk customers. Providing an instant loan to high-risk lending groups is an expensive proposition, so the interest rates are high. Many states and attorney generals have been taking action against these businesses, saying they take unfair advantage.