Not true. As I pointed out on one of the other threads (but didn't link to you, so you may not have seen it), this isn't a Sentencing Guidelines issues. It's a statutory minimums issue. The original judge didn't like the Statutory Minimum set by Congress for the offense for which the defendants were convicted, so he sentenced them to less. DOJ appealed, and prevailed at the 9th Circuit. The trial court then had to sentence them as mandated by Congress.
If folks think the minimum is too high, they should take it up with their congressmen. Generally, conservatives are opposed to attempts by federal judges to write their own laws in defiance of Congress. So we know who the conservatives aren't in this matter.
“The original judge didn’t like the Statutory Minimum set by Congress for the offense for which the defendants were convicted, so he sentenced them to less. DOJ appealed, and prevailed at the 9th Circuit”
True, but this should have settled the question for any future cases. It offends a basic rule of justice that a person goes to prison for a rational sentence, serves without incident, and is released,,,only to be sent back for more prison.
The case should have clarified the judges right to do deviate in a future case, but it shouldn’t affect these two guys. That’s simply wrong.
“The original judge didn’t like the Statutory Minimum set by Congress for the offense for which the defendants were convicted,”
Also, it was morally wrong that these two guys were charged under a terrorist law. That is what offended the judge.
Sorry for the ‘not true’. I should have said ‘not accurate’ since the wording I used made it sound intentional, and I’m quite sure it wasn’t.
This appears to be a copy of the 9th Circuit opinion.
http://www.landrights.org/or/Hammond/Hammonds%20Appeal%209th%20district%20court.pdf
or here:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1656649.html
“Turning now to the merits, we hold that the district court illegally sentenced the Hammonds to terms of imprisonment less than the statutory minimum. A minimum sentence mandated by statute is not a suggestion that courts have discretion to disregard. “
Interesting background. Thanks. Still was handled quite poorly.
The government agreed to the original sentences in writing.
Some homosexual at the DOJ in DC decided to appeal anyway, and the degenerate homosexuals on the Ninth Circuit railroaded the Hammonds for another 4 years.
This would NOT be happening if the Hammonds were black, Hispanic, or muslim.
This point cannot be emphasized enough.
All Americans need to understand what has happened here.
These are political prisoners.
“Not true. As I pointed out on one of the other threads (but didn’t link to you, so you may not have seen it), this isn’t a Sentencing Guidelines issues. It’s a statutory minimums issue. The original judge didn’t like the Statutory Minimum set by Congress for the offense for which the defendants were convicted, so he sentenced them to less. DOJ appealed, and prevailed at the 9th Circuit. The trial court then had to sentence them as mandated by Congress. “
The victims did the sentence they were served...for a trumped up charge. Now, after the fact a federal judge comes in and decides burning a firebreak to protect a dry land from fire is terrorism...that is justice to you? Screw you and your government.
The question is one not of whether the sentencing guidelines are too high for "terrorism", but should those guidelines have applied to this situation.
Was the intent of the Hammonds to terrorize? If so, who was 'terrorized' by setting a backfire to stop a fire from burning their property?
Who was terrorized by a controlled burn that got loose (seems to me the BLM has some of those on its records, so was the law equally applied to those responsible for BLM controlled burns that 'got away'?
That answer is "No."; no parties were charged with terrorism, arson, or likely suffered so much as a reduction in pay grade.
The injudicious application of terrorism laws here is the problem.