Posted on 06/19/2002 1:28:52 PM PDT by Donald Stone
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:40 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
As prosecutors in Anne Arundel County prepare to ask a grand jury whether an FBI agent who mistakenly shot an unarmed man should be indicted, they face a confusing legal roadmap stemming from one of the most divisive events in recent FBI history - the deadly standoff at Ruby Ridge, Idaho.
When the 11-day siege at separatist Randy Weaver's cabin ended in August 1992, state prosecutors in Idaho took the rare step of bringing involuntary manslaughter charges against the FBI sharpshooter who shot and killed Weaver's wife.
(Excerpt) Read more at sunspot.net ...
Relying on U.S. Attorneys to prosecute unlawful conduct by federal agents is ludicrous.
Having personally sued 7 of Bill Clinton's U.S. Attorneys for alleged racketeering, I know from personal experience trusting any U.S.Attorney to prosecute political corruption and or government misconduct is ridiculous.
Ira H. Raphaelson, a former U.S. attorney in Chicago and one of the lawyers who represented the attorneys general, said yesterday that federal criminal and civil justice systems are the proper place to review the actions of a federal agent.
"You can't have 50 states determining what is the standard of conduct for federal agents," Raphaelson said.
And of course that would apply to rape as well, a useful new tool for federal investigators who want compliance from a citized- do as they say, or they have the legal right to rape his wife or daughters without any concern for having to answer to state charges for their conduct. And if the victims protest or resist, they can be killed, and no state charges can be brought for that, either. I wonder how long it will be until people begin hanging federal employees and shooting their family members in retaliation...Of course, it's quite possible that it's already begun....
" -archy-/-
However, that might mean that we would have a circuit split that would lead the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue. If I had to bet, I would bet that the Supreme Court would not agree with the Ninth Circuit either. The conservatives on that court tend to be quite statist and law-and-order also, plus they love to reverse the Ninth Circuit.
However, the facts in this Maryland case are outrageous enough that the Supreme Court might surprise me.
The Bolsheviks have come to Washington, indeed... Last time I checked, the above statement is the defining characteristic of Federalism (or, more precisely, Federal Republicanism), which, last I also checked, was the Form of Government proscribed for the United States.
If Mr. Raphaelson doesn't like it, he's welcome to move to a Centralist, Socialist nation such as Bulgaria or France, where he would be free to rule the whole of the land by Fiat From Above. We have no use for such people here.
:/ ttt
Hey. I have an idea. What if all 50 states agreed to join a union. For hypothetical discussion, let's call it the United States. Then suppose they write up their agreement and ratify it. And suppose that they explicitly state that the federal government has only those powers that are granted and no more. And finally, don't include the power to take someone's life by mistake while searching for a bank robber.
Hmmmm... Somehow, I don't think that would work either.
The states are the creators of the federal government, therefore, its superior. As superiors, except in specifically delegated circumstances, the states do set the standard of conduct for "federal agents".
Boonie Rat
MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66
Here is more info:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/702085/posts
I'm not sure that there is One Constitutional Guarantee that's not now subordinate to that Act. To further drive that nail, we also have the War Powers Act, that is also being used to enhance that Power.
His spin on judge-made law, about how there would be no good over the last century and a half without it, no doubt was the crowning moment of his blustering his way past his now-fellow nationalizing socialist law prof's.
I’m no lawyer but I was under the impression that the FLEOs had protections from liability unless they were guilty of gross negligence. I don’t know why he wasn’t brought up in Federal court on that. He acquired and killed the WRONG and UNARMED target… I don’t think it gets more gross than that.
If I were firing upon a fleeing robber and inadvertently killed a six year old, I’ll bet there would be no trouble finding me guilty of gross negligence… then again I’m not a FLEO.
Bush #1 appointee?
If Mr. Raphaelson doesn't like it, he's welcome to move to a Centralist, Socialist nation such as Bulgaria or France, where he would be free to rule the whole of the land by Fiat From Above. We have no use for such people here.
"...a partner in O'Melveny & Myers LLP's Washington, D.C. office, where he also co-chairs the firm's White Collar and Regulatory Defense Group. He assists clients in finding creative solutions to commercial disputes, and in the increasingly complex criminal and regulatory enforcement environment, often in situations where federal and state authorities, the media, plaintiffs' bar and Congress focus on the same client or incident..."
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.