Armed Protesters take over Fed owned Building

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/index.html

Yep. Another chapter in the Cliven Bundy saga. Protesters have taken over a Federal building in Oregon, claiming the government is using unfair tactics to try and get them to sell them their farmland. Shit hit the fan when ranchers where arrested for arson. The ranchers claim they where doing it to kill off invasive crops and to prevent wildfires. The protesters think the arrest was the government trying to punish ranchers.

Shit gonna go down folks

 

[Bork Laser]

When a sentence is rendered and served, it's done. Legally, I'm not quite sure a court can just pull you back after time was served and demand you serve more.

Yeah that kinda sketch to me. Dont get me wrong these guys are assholes but if a judge fucks up your sentence and then when you get out they say you gotta serve more time is pretty shit. Unfortunately issues like that are gonna get swept under the rug because of the stunt these guys pulled.

 

[Morbid Boredom]

Speculation time:

I can make fun of the Moolitiamen till the cows come home, but they're cunning. They asked for people to send supplies -are they hoping someone who attempts to help them gets hurt or killed by the feds so they have more (figurative) ammunition?

Additionally, the preserve encompasses a lake and surely there must be some woodland critters for them to hunt. They may be able to extend their stay.

 

[Long Sun]

They really can't. Double jeopardy. After it's been legally fulfilled and the person's been let out, they've paid their dues according to the legal system. You can't charge them for the same crime under a different name just to try and send them back. Hell, China doesn't even do that.

They can.
here what happen. 1) The trial Judge sentence the defendant to below the mandatory minimum(I tend to disagree with mandatory minimums but meh). 2) the Prosecution appeal that decision (as they had every right to and perhaps a duty) 3) the appellate court agreed that the minimum sentence applied a re-sentence the accused. Its not double Jeopardy, even in the board sense that the US defines it because they were never convicted on a new offense only sentence to the correct time for what they were convicted of .

I should say in rubs me the wrong but I does not engage double jeopardy

 

[Derbydollar]

When a sentence is rendered and served, it's done. Legally, I'm not quite sure a court can just pull you back after time was served and demand you serve more.

The judge that gave a sentence below a minimum should have been disciplined instead, although mandatory minimums are ass. They were convicted under a "terrorism" law passed after Timothy McVeigh that stated any fire started on federal lands was "terrorism". The Bundys absolutely have a lot to complain about, legitimately.

They really can't. Double jeopardy. After it's been legally fulfilled and the person's been let out, they've paid their dues according to the legal system. You can't charge them for the same crime under a different name just to try and send them back. Hell, China doesn't even do that.

Doesn't Habeas Corpus exist for this very reason? I've been wondering why they haven't gone that route. Maybe they have and I haven't realized it, or it doesn't apply to this situation for some reason?
I'm not super knowledgeable on the subject, but it seems like the reasonable route to take.

Either way, mandatory minimums and re-sentencing seem at the very least poor ideas to me.

 

[Doctor Professor Timon]

They can.
here what happen. 1) The trial Judge sentence the defendant to below the mandatory minimum(I tend to disagree with mandatory minimums but meh). 2) the Prosecution appeal that decision (as they had every right to and perhaps a duty) 3) the appellate court agreed that the minimum sentence applied a re-sentence the accused. Its not double Jeopardy, even in the board sense that the US defines it because they were never convicted on a new offense only sentence to the correct time for what they were convicted of .

I should say in rubs me the wrong but I does not engage double jeopardy

Nope, they're not charging him with the same offense. They're literally charging him on a new offense. With the same thing. Putting him back in jail for a crime he committed and spent the time for, just calling it something new. He hasn't even been to TRIAL on this new charge.

 

[Long Sun]

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/e...convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.” The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced “in compliance with the law.” In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.

so the original served sentence was unlawful those they were resentenced to the legal required sentence with credit for the time they already spent in jail.
also
https://popehat.com/2016/01/04/what-happened-in-the-hammond-sentencing-in-oregon-a-lawsplainer/
it was an appeal and a resentence

The government appealed the sentence, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and sent the case back, instructing the trial court to impose the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. The Court found — rather convincingly, given the precedent — that a five-year sentence for arson does not violate the Eighth Amendment:

Appeal of sentences are allowed

Was it unusual for the government to appeal the sentence, or for the Hammonds to be returned to jail after serving the original sentence?

Absent a waiver, both the government and the defense have the right to appeal a sentence. Federal prosecutors generally must seek approval from "main Justice" — the Department of Justice in Washington D.C. — before appealing a ruling. That's so the feds don't make what they see as "bad law" by appealing "bad cases," and so the feds' legal stance remains relatively consistent across circuits.

Once again such appeals happen

The U.S. v. Hammond appeal, reversal, and resentencing are not remarkable in the context of federal criminal law. Maybe they should be, but they aren't. Any suggestion that the proceedings represent a departure from the norm are incorrect.

 

[Datiko]

I like how the media uses "Federal building" and makes it sound like this is happening in a city. I came across a quote from an official who was questioning how they even got to the place because it was so remote. One even asked "did they have a keychain?". Its some protesters doing the same type of thing the occupy movement has been doing. The only difference is that these people were serious enough to bring weapons.

 

[Morbid Boredom]

I like how the media uses "Federal building" and makes it sound like this is happening in a city. I came across a quote from an official who was questioning how they even got to the place because it was so remote. One even asked "did they have a keychain?".

The Bundys are better off with it being a "Building", that's more attention-grabbing than "trespassing on federal land". You know who trespasses on federal land? Drunk teens looking for a place to make out.

Its some protesters doing the same type of thing the occupy movement has been doing. The only difference is that these people were serious enough to bring weapons

I sincerely hope they're treated with the same amount of respect as OWS -they didn't change a fucking thing.

 

[Datiko]

I sincerely hope they're treated with the same amount of respect as OWS -they didn't change a fucking thing.

Because they didn't bring guns duh. I mean non-violent protests do not produce much if the "oppressor" has sufficient power.

 

[Trapped_Fairy]

I just find it hilarious that these idiots think they're total badasses for taking over an unmanned building in the woods and its giftshop. I mean seriously, if you talk like you're some big revolutionaries at least have the balls to try a serious target

 

[KingGeedorah]

True and Honest patriots

 

[TyrannoNinja]

These guys are terrorists, plain and simple. Not particularly bold terrorists, granted, but they wouldn't be carrying all those guns if they didn't want to intimidate someone. Bring forth the tear gas!

 

[Zoobles]

so the original served sentence was unlawful those they were resentenced to the legal required sentence with credit for the time they already spent in jail.

The original sentence was lawful because it was prosecuted by a district attorney and processed according to state law. A federal minimum is for federal charges, so if the DA wanted the "federal minimum," he should have persuaded the US Attorney to press federal charges and file for a change of venue before the arraignment. America wasn't founded on district attorneys having de-facto double jeopardy loopholes, that's why our fifth amendment exists.

 

[Long Sun]

The original sentence was lawful because it was prosecuted by a district attorney and processed according to state law. A federal minimum is for federal charges, so if the DA wanted the "federal minimum," he should have persuaded the US Attorney to press federal charges and file for a change of venue before the arraignment. America wasn't founded on district attorneys having de-facto double jeopardy loopholes, that's why our fifth amendment exists.

Two points here
1) I have been unable to find anything that points to state charges everything points to Federal Charges from the beginning. Please provide a link to a source. What did happen is the Trial Judge found the sentence unconstitutional the appellate court overturned that finding and therefore they were sentenced subjected to minimum sentence

Spoiler: source

http://www.tsln.com/news/17302049-113/story.html

Dwight and Steven Hammond (father and son operators of the family ranch) admitted to having started the above fires. In determining the Hammonds’ sentences, Judge Hogan had decided that applying the “mandatory minimum” of five years cited in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act would “shock the conscience…” He referenced the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, which states, “Excessive bail shall not be required…nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

To call for five years’ imprisonment, he said, “would result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here…” He said that Hammonds’ actions “could not have been conduct intended under [the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act]…” Judge Hogan used his discretion under the Eighth Amendment to sentence Dwight (now 74) to three months in prison, followed by three years’ “supervised release.” ....
The government appealed the judge’s decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and that court agreed that Judge Hogan’s ruling must be remanded back to another judge. The Hammonds appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in hopes of overturning the Ninth Circuit decision, but their case was not taken up by the high court.

additional source http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...sf/2015/10/controversial_oregon_ranchers.html

2) The US has separate sovereign doctrine in any event (not that I agree that it reasonable) so even if they were acquitted by a State court they could be charged with a federal offense https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/separate_sovereigns_doctrine

Spoiler: Tangentially Related

Aside from the National Guard, I've never seen a way to register a militia with the state or the feds. I've always wondered how feasible it is to create a well-regulated militia that falls under the Second Amendment. I guess nowadays, the NG is the only option for militias.

Spoiler: quick point

there are state defense forces which would likely be covered in a strict interpenetration of Militia and they are separate from the National Guard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

 

[The Knife's Husbando]

These guys are both idiots, and terrorists.

If the government really was the totalitarian dictatorship that stomped on every personal right these "militia" nuts claim it is, they'ed be in one of two places: dead or in jail. Instead of being armed to the teeth and occupying public land.

There very existence disproves their claims.

Also, can you guess why they got together and "stormed" an unoccupied building in the middle of nowhere? Simple. It's a gun-free zone. Who does that remind you of?

 

[AnOminous]

When a sentence is rendered and served, it's done. Legally, I'm not quite sure a court can just pull you back after time was served and demand you serve more.

A sentence can be appealed by either side. The only reason they were released is because this occurred before the appeal was complete. The sentence was clearly, flagrantly wrong as the mandatory minimum was five years. The appeals court simply applied the minimum.

These guys are both idiots, and terrorists.

If the government really was the totalitarian dictatorship that stomped on every personal right these "militia" nuts claim it is, they'ed be in one of two places: dead or in jail. Instead of being armed to the teeth and occupying public land.

The government would be entirely within its rights just to drop a thermobaric device on the land and remove the "patriots" from it, then save the money that would be spent prosecuting them replacing the building.

 

[AnOminous]

The original sentence was lawful because it was prosecuted by a district attorney and processed according to state law. A federal minimum is for federal charges, so if the DA wanted the "federal minimum," he should have persuaded the US Attorney to press federal charges and file for a change of venue before the arraignment. America wasn't founded on district attorneys having de-facto double jeopardy loopholes, that's why our fifth amendment exists.

But this is complete bullshit. The state would have never had any jurisdiction whatsoever to prosecute over federal crimes over the destruction of federal property on federal land.

The case was brought by the federal government, under 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1) which states:

"Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both."

U.S. District Court Judge Michael Hogan instead decided to deviate not from guidelines sentences, but the statutory minimum, which he just can't do. The U.S. appealed in a timely fashion to the Ninth Circuit, which it is entitled to do, over the clear error. The Ninth Circuit remanded to the U.S. District Court for re-sentencing in accordance with the law.

The case went back to Judge Ann Aiken, who resentenced to the minimum, as required by law.

 

[Long Sun]

But this is complete bullshit. The state would have never had any jurisdiction whatsoever to prosecute over federal crimes over the destruction of federal property on federal land.

The case was brought by the federal government, under 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1) which states:

"Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both."

U.S. District Court Judge Michael Hogan instead decided to deviate not from guidelines sentences, but the statutory minimum, which he just can't do. The U.S. appealed in a timely fashion to the Ninth Circuit, which it is entitled to do, over the clear error. The Ninth Circuit remanded to the U.S. District Court for re-sentencing in accordance with the law.

The case went back to Judge Ann Aiken, who resentenced to the minimum, as required by law.

Thanks for that really great overview for what took place

This the only point was there was the unconstitutional argument (8th amendment) which the the Ninth Circuit threw out very forcefully.

I disagree about never any state jurisdiction I'm sure there is some statue about controlling fire on one's land or something likely that which could be used that could be used but I will wait for evidence as to the rather outlandish claims that are made otherwise

 

[Zoobles]

But this is complete bullshit. The state would have never had any jurisdiction whatsoever to prosecute over federal crimes over the destruction of federal property on federal land.

The sheriff has authority to charge and prosecute for state crimes on BLM land through a memorandum of understanding with the BLM.

 

[*Asterisk*]

The government doesn't want another Waco.

It'll happen one day anyway, given the ludicrously militarized state and outlaws we have in this country. But these guys are in an isolated shack with no electricity in the middle of winter and aren't even part of a significant movement given that Cliven Bundy's pick-cotton speech killed his cause célèbre status faster than a virgin butthole loses its innocence in the presence of David Koresh.

It'll be childishly easy to blockade these guys until they cry uncle, and nobody'll have to die.