Posted on 01/03/2016 9:31:09 AM PST by Lazamataz
Appreciate a ping if you don’t mind.
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.
So I wonder what next? Since Bundy is likely not backing down... I.m curious if they’re actually in the HQ.
The time to act will be clear to everyone. I’m starting to think there will not be an election in 2016. With a civil war brewing with black vs whites, Muslims vs Americans.
I think we will all know.
Have they “made it clear” or have they been frightened and/or seriously threatened? Doesn’t make sense any more than the questionable “evidence” against them in the first place.
“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 long game, November:
No electricity, no elections.
“The worse, the better†(for Obama).
.......................................................
Might be better to have no electricity and count the ballots by hand. That way, there could be check and double checks on the outcome instead of a machine determining our future according to how it has been “wired.”
Good eye on this. As others have said it is a buffalo jump.
“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.
~~~~~~~~~~
Do you not understand what a "backfire" is, how it works, and why it was effective? (Backfires are a standard wildfire-control tool.)
There already was a dangerous wildfire burning, and the BLM had neither equipment nor personnel at the fire site to fight it.
The only way the (very few in number) ranchers could stop the wildfire was with a backfire. They used it -- and it worked.
Instad of prosecuting them as terrorists, the BLM should have honored them as heroes -- for stopping the wildfire.
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.
This would be a bad time to contribute to the propaganda value of anything. It would also be a bad time to dare some crazy @$$#013 to call an air strike in on you.
sorry ... caught up in the moment ... thanx
I’ve been told they also were poaching and using fire as an evidence destroyer. There’s a lot of info flying around and it’s tough to discern the facts.
I distrust the government to begin with, so my own bias may hinder me.
Yup, and history is repeating itself. It will come down to less than 1/3 of the population defending our Culture and our way of life while the others sit back in their cozy little fireside chats and profit by the sacrifice of others.
It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.
Samuel Adams
>......speaking of brushfires....................
I lived in Southern California for 17 years (quite some time ago).
Whenever there was a wildfire, it was common practice for the local fire departments in Southern California to start a backfire as a means of depriving the approaching wildfire of fuel, thus slowing down the advancing wildfire.
Like you said, backfires are used as a wild-fire control tool.
If you think “knowing the constitution” is the only criteria for becoming president, you are sadly mistaken. In fact, I would suggest memorizing the Constitution is about the ONLY thing I find Cruz has to any depth. I prefer Trump who is attacking the major issues facing our country NOW, and getting our Constitutional America back depends on his success. I want a person who can get ‘er done, not someone who will drag us through an infinitesimal number of steps before anything-if ever- is accomplished.
“I’d rather have a good plan today, than a perfect plan three weeks from now.” Gen. George S. Patton
Try to sober up. Aamon Bundy and his merry band of hotheads are out in the woods 50 miles from town in an unoccupied building. How is that doing the Hammonds any good? They likely have been told by their attorneys that they have a good chance to get out on an appeal.
Nobody is arguing that the govt has not committed a travesty agains’t these people but they did it legally. Nobody is storming their ranch and shooting their cattle. There are no sniper rifles trained on their front door. They have said they don’t want any help. The community is not out in the streets and their own state militia isn’t going to get involved. Its a no win BS stunt.
The real fight is going to be when the BLM tries to take 90,000 acres of private property on the Texas side of the Red River and give it to Oklahoma. Now that’s going to be a fight worth fighting for.
It isn't uncommon for a prosecutor to go with the highest possible charge in order to encourage a plea bargain. Here, they were able to make the highest charge stick when the defendants didn't cop a plea.
Since there has been much misinformation posted by either militia types or government agents provocateur (not sure which) let's all get on the same page.
Defendants took the case to trial, and lost.
Defendants agreed to not appeal in exchange for the government dismissing other charges.
The charges upon which the defendants were convicted has a mandatory minimum.
The judge sentenced the defendants to less than the statutory minimum.
DOJ appealed the sentence to the 9th Circuit, which vacated the sentence as "illegal".
On remand, the trial court entered a legal sentence in compliance with the law.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1656649.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.