Oregon Malheur Trial

[morrand]

How about domestic terrorism?
......
Though I can see some technical reasons this might not work. Did they commit any "acts dangerous to human life"? Does attempting to influence a criminal sentencing qualify as "influencing the policy of a government"? There's also the matter of proving the "violation of criminal laws", though I think that would be easy if the laws of any state can be applied. I'm sure their arsenal runs afoul of gun ownership laws in more restrictive states.

Is this a route that could have been taken? Would proving it have been a bridge too far?

Whether it could legally have stuck or not, charging them with "terrorism" in any way would almost certainly have been a bridge too far. That is a very loaded term. With these defendants, I'm almost certain the last thing the prosecution would want to have done in a jury trial is to pave the way for a "terrorists...or freedom fighters?" defense.

[grixit]

I suspect we're going to see sovs comparing Malheur to Fort Sumter.

[Tuba Cain]

I suspect we're going to see sovs comparing Malheur to Fort Sumter.

Totally agree. This is already going down in the Sovcit Annals (that is to say, facebook) as some hybrid of the Alamo and the explosion of USS Maine.

[grixit]

Remember the Dildos!

[TheNewSaint]

Good article on Oregonlive discussing this issue:

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-stando ... _big-photo

Steve Wax, a former federal public defender who now directs Oregon's Innocence Project, said he had wondered at the outset of the arrests why prosecutors didn't seek a more serious charge, something that would have given the case more gravitas and signaled that the occupation broke the barriers of mere protest.

A charge of seditious conspiracy, for instance, alleges two or more people conspired to "by force to seize, take or possess any property of the United States" without authority. It brings prison sentences of up to 20 years.

I'm with Wax, the stated goal of the takeover was sedition, not to "impede government workers".

I couldn't agree more. I always found the conspiracy charge unsatisfying; their acts should have warranted much more serious charges than that. Seditious conspiracy would have worked. I wonder why the prosecution didn't try for that.

[TheNewSaint]

Whether it could legally have stuck or not, charging them with "terrorism" in any way would almost certainly have been a bridge too far. That is a very loaded term. With these defendants, I'm almost certain the last thing the prosecution would want to have done in a jury trial is to pave the way for a "terrorists...or freedom fighters?" defense.

Eh, you're probably right. Plus, I'm far from sure that their acts meet the technical definition. Seditious conspiracy would have been a better choice.

[NYGman]

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-stando ... nue_t.html

It was our duty to stand. We did it peacefully. We did it legally, and the jury's verdicts confirmed that,'' Bundy said during a phone call with The Oregonian/OregonLive from the Multnomah County Detention Center.

Not exactly what the Jury said. They did find not guilty of Conspiracy, but that is a far cry from their actions being legal. Just because the Jury didn't agree with the conspiracy charge, does not mean that they exonerated the Bundy clan and crew or that their actions were in fact legal It isn't a hard concept to grasp. Not Guilty isn't exactly a finding of innocence.

[Judge Roy Bean]

'Round here we'd a put in a bunch of things to make sure something stuck, for examples:

(1) Makin' a mess of stuff that wasn't theirs.
(2) Botherin' people they had no business botherin'.
(3) Stickin' their noses in where they didn't belong.
(4) Bein' a public nuisance.
(5) Wastin' law-enforcement resources.
(6) General jackassery.

That last one can get you 90 days all by itself.

[rogfulton]

Here's a NY Times article about the verdict.

[NYGman]

http://uproxx.com/news/oregon-militants ... -standoff/

Quoting the Declaration of Independence as your legal justification for future actions is genius.

[Jeffrey]

I realize this makes me a bad person but I look forward to that.

[TheNewSaint]

I realize this makes me a bad person but I look forward to that.

I don't. Their next stunt will just put more lives in danger, waste more government resources, and embolden more like-minded individuals.

[AndyK]

These self-proclaimed freedom fighters / sons of liberty clearly don't have a clue.

Just because they managed to evade a poorly-constructed charge doesn't prove (as they seem to interpret things) they were right.

In fact, whatever stunt they pull next will probably dealt with much more severely than was their occupation of the refuge. If they proceed with their blather about overthrowing the government, they won't have time to realize what is happening to them until it is over.

The government is better armed, more fit, more organized than they are and infinitely outnumbers them. One can only hope that they will initiate some acts of sufficient violence to warrant results which will eliminate the need for any future trials.

[The Observer]

The government is better armed, more fit, more organized than they are and infinitely outnumbers them

And yet the government failed to take advantage of those strengths a couple of years ago when confronted by the armed idiots in Bunkerville. That decision only fueled the Bundites' belief that the government would back down when having to face armed opponents. Hence the Malheur takeover. If the Bundy's also get off in their Nevada trial, be prepared to see an increase in armed confrontations throughout the western US.

[Jeffrey]

And yet the government failed to take advantage of those strengths a couple of years ago when confronted by the armed idiots in Bunkerville.

This is still America despite the efforts of the Bundy's and others. We don't kill dissidents.

[notorial dissent]

I have to agree with Andy, I think the OR team really did a poor job with that they had been given to work with. One of the comments made by other lawyers on Fogbow that referred to the the lawyers and judges there as "fluffy", where the NV crowd seem to be anything but. So I guess we'll see when the rubber meets the road. The difference too, is that the charges that will be tried in NV are considerable more severe and the charges seem to be more of the concrete variety rather than hard to prove conspiracy charges. Again, we will see what happens when it comes time.

[The Observer]

And yet the government failed to take advantage of those strengths a couple of years ago when confronted by the armed idiots in Bunkerville.

This is still America despite the efforts of the Bundy's and others. We don't kill dissidents.

Dissidents? Armed with semi-automatic rifles? Taking up sniper positions to kill law enforcement? And planning to use women and children as human shields?

That is hardly the definition of a dissident.

[notorial dissent]

Terrorist, sovcit whackjob, yeah, dissident, NO!!!!!

[Jeffrey]

I tried to find a neutral term for them. And I'll rephrase it, we avoid shooting them as much as possible.

[The Observer]

I tried to find a neutral term for them. And I'll rephrase it, we avoid shooting them as much as possible.

Not always. Think Ruby Ridge and Waco. Both situations were situations where shooting could have been avoided, but did not happen. The problem is one of government mismanagement of a situation and emboldening the sovrun idiots or handing them a propaganda victory. Because of the government's inconsistent approach and handling, the movement is always looking like they have pulled one over on Uncle Sam. Regardless of whether the government shoots or doesn't shoot.

I still wonder today at why the court system thought it was a good idea to allow Ed Brown to attend his trial and go home at night. He had already been bellowing about not participating in his trial ahead of time and how he would just turn his residence into a war zone. And that is exactly what he did. That was another situation that could have been avoided.