View Single Post
  #29  
Old 01-28-2016, 03:21 PM
The Unreasoner's Avatar
The Unreasoner The Unreasoner is offline
Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,382
The Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond reputeThe Unreasoner has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenzy View Post
Out of curiosity, fellow TLers in the legal field, what would these persons be charged with?
Here's what they will be charged with. I'd be interested in hearing about what they could have been charged with:
Quote:
Just as the arrest was cautious, so is the charge. In the federal criminal complaint which the FBI didn't obtain until after the arrests the U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon charges the eight defendants with a single count of conspiracy to impede an officer of the United States. That federal criminal statute doesn't see much use, and it's not one of the Justice Department's big guns: Its maximum penalty is only six years. To prosecutors, the virtue of such conspiracy charges are their flexibility: The government need only prove that two or more of the defendants agreed to prevent some federal employee from discharging his or her duty by force, intimidation or threat. Prosecutors don't have to prove they were successful.

...

The government's theory thoughtfully supported by the defendants' public relations strategy is that occupiers agreed to an armed takeover of federal buildings, thus preventing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees from carrying out their duties. There are a few references to unspecified threats against federal employees and some rumblings about how the occupiers would defend themselves against a raid, but the core of the complaint is modest and straightforward: These people got together with guns and took over federal buildings and now the employees can't do their jobs.

...
and something fun from the article:

Twenty years ago I prosecuted a tax protester who claimed as one does that the gold fringe on the courtroom flag made it an admiralty court. "I'll pretend you're a boat," the judge said dryly, and proceeded with the mundane business of the case. Professionalism and protection of rights, not trading drama for drama, is the way to handle a self-styled revolutionary. It won't entertain the media, but it will refute the assertion that the system can't get it right.
from http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...129-story.html
__________________
Exfeuck? Not quite...
Reply With Quote