A Well Regulated Militia Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» A Well Regulated Militia » Militia Operations » Patriot Defense Fund » Interesting legal case

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Interesting legal case
Breacher
Moderator
Member # 1119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Breacher   Email Breacher   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I found this case interesting since it relates to some of "our kinds of people" and a few familiar names are in the file brief.

Under current federal guidelines, dopers can get a year off their sentence if they go through a snitch and reeducation program in "drug treatment", where addicts and dealers go tell on their suppliers and or customers after the fact, claim to regret having used dope, promise to stay "clean" and then if they convince the counselors that they are authentic in that, they get up to a year taken off their prison sentence. The program is somewhat arbitrary, but goes by a number of guidelines spelled out in Bureau of Prisons published guidelines so inmates, administrators and attorneys know what the rules are and how they will apply to any particular case.

The Bureau of Prisons though, on its own has taken its own administrative efforts to redefine what they consider "crimes of violence" and invented classes of crime like "gun crime" along with some other agencies while sidestepping court and legislative oversight. That came out with an unofficial undefined policy which functionally made weapons law violators who are not drug addicts and not convicted of a crime of violence (as defined by the courts, not BOP) ineligible for that or any similar program.

Thus, drug addicts were getting an unfair advantage over gun law violators in the system, with reduced sentences.

Now I don't think I would support any sort of plan for communist style reeducation to convert former gun owners into anti-gunners, but it is interesting to note that among the legal professionals, it has opened up a dialogue on the fairness doctrine.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1471874.html

What it goes to partially is the anti-gun ownership bias in the prison system, evident in the Olofson case and others where people got harsher treatment in prison because their violations were "gun related" when in fact, the court definitions of the violations are still considered "nonviolent", and the military definitions are more specific about violations of weapons prohibitions being not considered crimes against moral standards.

Apparently, what Steve Sady and a number of lawyers have come up with is the BOP never did stop to actually publish or distribute an official doctrine for any level of outside review, if I read the case brief correctly.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1471874.html

It also might explain the shift in the way cases against our guys are prosecuted. I notice how recently they are usually trying to make it something other than a weapons related case in order to gain a conviction, like with false child molest cases, or throwing it out there the "real" reason the guy was pursued was domestic violence.

--------------------
Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.

Posts: 6705 | From: Western States | Registered: Sep 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
Deactivated
Officer Contributor
Member # 861

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Deactivated   Author's Homepage   Email Deactivated   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Domestic Violence is a big one for them to push. Why? well it starts with the 1996 Launtenberg Amendment. The Child kiddy fiddler laws and Megan's List. Anything to convince the public that this gun owner is going to commit acts of violence.

It also biases the courts and the jurors who when they hear those additional trumped up charges say guilty. Not on the merits of the case. In stead they base it off of their emotional"Feelings" if you listen to many jurors who later on actually give interviews they say crap like "I felt he was guilty" ... Excuse me "felt" is not a thought process. nor do you "Feel" Evidence. Statements like that should automatically result in a reversal from the state supreme court. Or a federal District.

If I ever sit on a jury and someone feels anything then that is going to be one long ass case. I will deliberate until the judge dies of old age. I can Zen on a phrase for a lifetime. the BOP is running a secondary justice system that could be something that is going to bite them in the buttocks. For the simple reason that further review is gong to bring it more into the light. And wait for the appeals to cite. With an appeal comes an evidentarary and exculpatory subpoena. Oops guess what its not going to be pretty.

And the negative side is the Correctional Officers are going to get caught in the crossfire and they had nothing to do with it.

I would venture to say it is "Unusual Punishment"

[ 09-07-2014, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Sapper1 ]

--------------------
erwy 436 t7u65478u4we6bhp8u5ureuet45ujdb4tyu57uwetr6ukuilkr

Posts: 1806 | From: 6437 457n 64357n5u 79i 57 | Registered: May 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | A Well Regulated Militia

All information posted on this site is the private property
of the individual who posted the information and AWRM.org,
and may not be reproduced anywhere without permission.
© 2001-2017 AWRM.org All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2