Posted on 01/03/2016 8:38:35 PM PST by Jan_Sobieski
What an absolute travesty of justice! It’s bull crap they were jailed in the 1st place. But then the government comes back later after they served their sentence and tries to sentence them again?!
For what? Are these men outlaws? Are they a threat to Americans?
The government is completely out of control. Better hope none of us ever get sentenced to anything ever or the government can come back later and nail us again and worse!
You are absolutely correct!
May the bootlickers reap the whirlwind!
Message from the government is that no matter what, we will come back and resent ancestors you to whatever we want.
Double jeopardy anyone?
They got re-sentenced for something they already served time for!
The press release from the court said that indeed the appellate court adjusted the sentence back up to five years, something we’d all be cheering if a liberal judge had indiscriminately rejected a mandatory sentence in a drug case. However, the Hammonds were given credit for all time served.
I think these Oregon militia whatevers would help their cause if they took a few lessons in mass communication from Occupy Portland. Twinkles 101 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaVvzTyMcls
What is the definition of “double jeopardy” FRiend?
I don’t give a rats behind about left or right.
Being twice tried for the same crime. This has NOTHING to do with Double Jeopardy.
Aren't soetoro and the DOJ AGAINST minimum sentences?
This is a travesty, and the "trial" defines "Kangaroo Court".
Like in Baltimore, “room to destroy”?........
Fear? Please. Most would call it common sense. These militia guys aren’t helping the hammonds. They are giving the left ammunition, the media a narrative and that’s about it. There was a better way to fight this.
From the 9th circuit decision”
“A. Waiver
A threshold issue is whether the government waived its right to appeal the Hammonds’ sentences in the plea agreement or otherwise failed to preserve its objection. We find no grounds for dismissing the appeal.
UNITED STATES V. HAMMOND 7 The Hammonds first argue that the government waived its right to appeal in the plea agreement. Because a plea agreement is partly contractual in nature, we interpret it from the perspective of a reasonable defendant. See United States v. De la Fuente, 8 F.3d 1333, 1337–38 (9th Cir. 1993). But there is no ambiguity here to interpret. A reasonable defendant would expect that the absence of any statements on the government’s right to appeal simply means that no waiver was contemplated. See United States v. Anderson, 921 F.2d 335, 337–38 (1st Cir. 1990).
The Hammonds respond by arguing that the statements of defense counsel show that an all-around waiver of appellate rights was the sine qua non of the plea agreement. The record, however, belies that assertion. The statements made by defense counsel just before the judge accepted the plea agreement underscore that all parties sought to resolve the case swiftly, but finality was not the only benefit supporting the plea agreement. Other benefits included favorable recommendations from the government and the dismissal of charges. We thus cannot reasonably read defense counsels’ references to finality as meaning that no party could take an appeal.
Assuming then that the plea agreement is silent on the government’s right of appeal, the Hammonds urge us to imply a waiver into the plea agreement. We have never before done so. But relying on United States v. Guevara, 941 F.2d 1299 (4th Cir. 1991), the Hammonds argue that construing the government’s silence as an implied waiver will promote fairness and finality. We reject that position.
The principles governing the formation and interpretation of plea agreements leave no room for implied waivers.
UNITED STATES V. HAMMOND8 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, not the common law of contracts, governs the making of plea agreements. See United States v. Escamilla, 975 F.2d 568, 571 n.3 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. Partida-Parra, 859 F.2d 629, 634 (9th 1988). Although Rule 11 gives courts discretion to accept or reject a plea agreement, it does not authorize courts to remake a plea agreement or imply terms into one. See United States v. Benchimol, 471 U.S. 453, 455 (1985) (per curiam) (“Rule 11[] . . . speaks in terms of what the parties in fact agree to, and does not suggest that such implied-in-law terms as were read into this agreement by the Court of Appeals have any place under the rule.â€); United States v. Stevens, 548 F.2d 1360, 1362 (9th Cir. 1977) (observing that Congress rejected a version of Rule 11 that would have allowed a court to modify a plea agreement in favor of the defendant). We accordingly “enforce the literal terms†of a plea agreement, construing only ambiguous language in the defendant’s favor. United States v. Franco-Lopez, 312 F.3d 984, 989 (9th Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Johnson, 187 F.3d 1129, 1134–35 (9th Cir. 1999). These principles preclude us from implying a waiver where none exists.
Moreover, nothing in the nature of plea agreements requires that each promise must be “matched against a mutual and ‘similar’ promise by the other side.†United States v. Hare, 269 F.3d 859, 861 (7th Cir. 2001). To be sure, the idea behind a plea agreement is that each side waives certain rights to obtain some benefit. See Partida-Parra, 859 F.2d at 633. But there are ample reasons that a defendant might enter a plea agreement short of extinguishing the government’s right to appeal, including the possibility of a lower sentence and the dismissal of other charges. Hare, 269 F.3d at 861; cf. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 752 (1970) (listing possible reasons for entering a plea). For example, the
UNITED STATES V. HAMMOND 9 Hammonds negotiated for favorable recommendations from the government and the dismissal of charges. Such benefits are consideration enough to support a plea agreement. See Hare, 269 F.3d at 861–62.
Finally, contrary to the Hammonds’ assertion, the record leaves no doubt that the government preserved the objection to the sentences that it raises on appeal. Nowhere did the government make a “straightforward†concession. United States v. Bentson, 947 F.2d 1353, 1356 (9th Cir. 1991). Nor did the government fail to give the district court an opportunity to address the argument it raises on appeal. See United States v. Grissom, 525 F.3d 691, 694–95 (9th Cir. 2008). In its sentencing memorandum and at sentencing, the government argued that the trial judge lacked discretion to deviate from the statutory minimum. The government thus preserved its objection, and we may hear its appeal.”
I read this as the government reneged and here uses silence in a plea agreement to leave a back door.
IIRC, the Hammonds were convicted of arson. The re-sentencing permitted them to be convicted of something else-and without a trial.
The Hammond ranch is the last ranch standing out there. If you read my other posts, you’ll see the mining interests that may prove profitable-say, for Weyden and DeFazio-and provide bonuses to certain, read husband and wife team, people working for the BLM.
Then again, the Chinese may demand the gold, uranium, and other resources found. Or 0bama could give Iran the right to buy.
“Fear? Please. Most would call it common sense. These militia guys aren’t helping the hammonds. They are giving the left ammunition, the media a narrative and that’s about it. There was a better way to fight this.”
I don’t, I know cowardice when I see it. Reread above what you wrote. It is okay to have fear but to have it shade good judgment is not excusable. Don’t fear what the left is going to do, they hate you already and are going to do great evil to you and your family before this is all over (not talking about Oregon here).
Thanks for posting.. Had a feeling the bundy group was like Westboro.. Money, attention.. And zero to do with their false claims of being a church.
Just another bunch of whacky dem operatives masquerading as Constitutinalists.. Good way to guarantee Obamas confiscation agenda advances.. Question is.. Are they soros, Clinton or funded by Obama, Blm, occupy. Who is funding these anti.. Constitutinalists.
I read more of the story in this article.. It may not be double jeopardy to institute the original sentence, instead of the reduced one.
So you're planning on storming the nearest federal facility to show solidarity with the Bundy clowns? Gibberish.
The outrageousness of this case lies at the feet of Obozo, the BLM, environmentalists, and the corrupt prosecutors. Anyone can see the absurdity of charging Hammond with violating a terrorist law. The act was not ever a criminal violation. It was, at most, negligence and should have been handled with a civil fine. Prosecutors under Obozo have become pure political hacks and court room gun slingers that view private citizens as ‘terrorists.’ This case is a clear example of extreme abusive government run amok and how the traitors view us.
I remember shootings ‘towards’ cops during protests by BLM, but I don’t remember it being reported as an ‘armed takeover’.
I concur completely!
Okay. Explain to all of us who don't think this is the time nor place to take CWII hot, just how this is going to stop any of this shit.
You have the floor.
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.