It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The reason the Hammond Ranch is under siege?

page: 5
32
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The majority of your response is the defendant's rights, NOT the state's.


Well yea... That's what Double jeopardy is all about, the defendant's rights. I mean YOU were the one who invoked the original double jeopardy clause in the Constitution. I felt like it would be a good idea to post it so that we are on even ground.


this is what is in question.


Well not really. You are questioning it, but SCOTUS already agreed with that blurb.


You didn't even bother to read the documents I provided, why are you worth conversing with?


Wow... Starting to get nasty aren't we? Am I detecting a bit frustration with you then? Things not adding up like you thought they would? I've made every attempt to read your information, but you haven't provided me with everything I asked for.

You said that the prosecution has until the criminal's term is started to make an appeal. I asked you to prove that, and you said it is covered in the original double jeopardy clause (which I posted and doesn't happen to say that at all). Then you get mad at me for supposedly not reading information that is predicated on that piece of information you failed to prove being true. Now I can get angry at you for this like you are doing with me, but I'm not. I'm going to try to remain civil and just ask again that you prove this statement is true legally:

But they have to do it before the term has begun for it to be valid. Otherwise the sentence was recorded by the courts as verdict imposed with sentencing. Right or wrong, the law was written into the books, the government wrote it themself, they cannot legally add more terms to a sentence served.


Please don't say its in the 5th amendment again, because I've shown that isn't the case.
edit on 8-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Yes, that is ONE of the things I asked for, but that isn't what I asked for in this instance (plus I didn't ignore it). I asked you to prove where it says in legal law that the state cannot appeal a sentence once the sentence has started.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vector99

Yes, that is ONE of the things I asked for, but that isn't what I asked for in this instance (plus I didn't ignore it). I asked you to prove where it says in legal law that the state cannot appeal a sentence once the sentence has started.

I gave you a case example of it in Arizona. You dissected it wrong. The lesser verdict imposed by the judge of arizona was upheld over the judgement of missouri because it was written and sentenced term had begun. In that case it saved a guy that probably should have got the death penalty from getting it.

Now, would you please take the time and read the documents I provided for you, that YOU asked for, before commenting...



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

First off, that case study has nothing to do with proving that the state cannot appeal a sentence after the sentence has already started. You still haven't proven that claim.

Second, I dissected it wrong? You know I pointed out that the case I supposedly dissected wrong was mentioned in the Wikipedia article I quoted right? Here's the entire text of the Multiple Punishments part of that article.


Multiple punishments

The defendant may not be punished twice for the same offense. In certain circumstances, however, a sentence may be increased. It has been held that sentences do not have the same "finality" as acquittals, and may therefore be reviewed by the courts. [Citation needed]

The prosecution may not seek capital punishment in the retrial if the jury did not impose it in the original trial. The reason for this exception is that before imposing the death penalty the jury has to make several factual determinations and if the jury does not make these it is seen as the equivalent of an acquittal of a more serious offense.

In Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203 (1984), a judge had held a separate hearing after the jury trial to decide if the sentence should be death or life imprisonment, in which he decided that the circumstances of the case did not permit death to be imposed. On appeal, the judge's ruling was found to be erroneous. However, even though the decision to impose life instead of death was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law by the judge, the conclusion of life imprisonment in the original case constituted an acquittal of the death penalty and thus death could not be imposed upon a subsequent trial. Even though the acquittal of the death penalty was erroneous in that case, the acquittal must stand.


I bolded a significant difference from what we are talking about. AGAIN the Hammond case was appealed. You appeared to agree with me or at least concede that point since you then told me that the appeal was invalid because the sentence had already started and the state isn't allowed to appeal a sentence once the sentence has started. I asked you to prove this, you told me it is in the double jeopardy clause in the Constitution. I posted the entire 5th Amendment showing it wasn't in there at all. So I ask again for you to prove that statement. As soon as you can confirm that it is truly illegal for the state to appeal a sentence once the sentence has started then I will apply that to the case documents for the Hammond case you supplied. I promise.
edit on 8-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I just don't get it, you quoted this yourself

In Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203 (1984), a judge had held a separate hearing after the jury trial to decide if the sentence should be death or life imprisonment, in which he decided that the circumstances of the case did not permit death to be imposed. On appeal, the judge's ruling was found to be erroneous. However, even though the decision to impose life instead of death was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law by the judge, the conclusion of life imprisonment in the original case constituted an acquittal of the death penalty and thus death could not be imposed upon a subsequent trial. Even though the acquittal of the death penalty was erroneous in that case, the acquittal must stand.

Read the very last line.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Acquittal definition

a judgment that a person is not guilty of the crime with which the person has been charged.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
nvm
edit on 8-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: I misread your original post there. Sorry



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
Acquittal definition

a judgment that a person is not guilty of the crime with which the person has been charged.


Why did you post this definition? The Hammonds were never acquitted of anything.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Let me try to inform you slightly.

What you quoted did not include sentencing. In the court of law, sentencing is final (once the term has begun, which usually is immediately, with the exception of self surrender cases, in which the sentence imposed begins upon self-surrender). It has to be that way in order to prevent perversions of the law. It included the defendant being found guilty, by jury. Then a sentencing trial occurred, (in the Hammond's case it happened simultaneously). In both cases the judge ruled a legally binding judgement. In both cases the defendant's surrendered rights to the state in order to begin terms of sentencing. Once this happens, it's like a contract between you and the government, especially if you self-surrender. In January 2013 the Hammonds self-surrendered to serve punishment terms. They successfully completed those terms. Legally they cannot face additional terms per double jeopardy laws. In December of 2013, the state attempted to pursue additional charges. They cannot legally do this because the terms of sentence not only were plead upon, they were imposed and sanctioned. The state had all rights available to it to appeal the sentence before the term started, but they did not. If they would have filed a motion for sentencing appeal. Now I want you to read this entire link , and you will see exactly where it states this is an illegal, unconstitutional act
LINK


edit on 8-1-2016 by Vector99 because: added an edit for more clarity



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Vector99
Acquittal definition

a judgment that a person is not guilty of the crime with which the person has been charged.


Why did you post this definition? The Hammonds were never acquitted of anything.

They were acquitted of the mandatory minimum by a court of law. Legally binding.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Let me try to inform you slightly.


Well I did admit at the beginning of the conversation that I'm not a lawyer, but you don't have to be rude about it...


What you quoted did not include sentencing. In the court of law, sentencing is final. It has to be that way in order to prevent perversions of the law. It included the defendant being found guilty, by jury. Then a sentencing trial occurred, (in the Hammond's case it happened simultaneously). In both cases the judge ruled a legally binding judgement. In both cases the defendant's surrendered rights to the state in order to begin terms of sentencing.


Wait since when has sentencing been final? Can you prove that statement now? I mean at first you said a sentence cannot be appealed once the sentence has started and now you are saying that a sentence is final with no option of appeal. Are you sure YOU understand what you are talking about?


Once this happens, it's like a contract between you and the government, especially if you self-surrender. In January 2013 the Hammonds self-surrendered to serve punishment terms. They successfully completed those terms. Legally they cannot face additional terms per double jeopardy laws. In December of 2013, the state attempted to pursue additional charges. They cannot legally do this because the terms of sentence not only were plead upon, they were imposed and sanctioned. The state had all rights available to it to appeal the sentence before the term started, but they did not. If they would have filed a motion for sentencing appeal. Now I want you to read this entire link , and you will see exactly where it states this is an illegal, unconstitutional act
LINK


Those are Pennsylvania appeal laws. I guess it's better than nothing, but I fail to see how we can apply PA legal proceedings to Oregon law, but I'll look at it nonetheless since its better than nothing.


(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (C) and (D), a written post-sentence motion shall be filed no later than 10 days after imposition of sentence.


So when was the appeal filed by the state? I see the defense waved the right to appeal in the transcript you provided, but I see nothing about the state doing so. I read the document you provided for the appeal and it says this at the very beginning.

Because the sentences were illegal and the government did not waive
its right to appeal them, we vacate the sentences and remand
for resentencing



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Vector99
Acquittal definition

a judgment that a person is not guilty of the crime with which the person has been charged.


Why did you post this definition? The Hammonds were never acquitted of anything.

They were acquitted of the mandatory minimum by a court of law. Legally binding.


No they weren't. The court agreed to the defenses argument of unconstitutionality on the federal minimum sentence and reduced the sentence, but at no time were any acquittals done.
edit on 8-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Let me try to inform you slightly.



So when was the appeal filed by the state?

Seriously?

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I gave you the link to the appeal document, submitted dec 2013, filed feb 2014 you chose to ignore it

edit on 8-1-2016 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

So what is the appeal timing for oregon and not PA?
edit on 8-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

not convicting someone of a mandatory minimum by definition is an acquittal. Science, I'm rough on, laws I'm sharp.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Dude, the blue text is the state appeal, I don't know how else to get it to you

STATE APPEAL FILE, PLEASE READ?



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

not convicting someone of a mandatory minimum by definition is an acquittal. Science, I'm rough on, laws I'm sharp.


No it isn't. You posted the definition of acquittal yourself and what you are saying there doesn't apply.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Dude, the blue text is the state appeal, I don't know how else to get it to you

STATE APPEAL FILE, PLEASE READ?


Sorry, I edited my post.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vector99

Yes, seriously. Are you not trying to get to the bottom of this or are you just trying to confirm your bias? Because people such as myself that don't worry about their biases want answers to all questions and holes in an argument.

You really think I'm biased towards the Hammond's? I give no f's about them, I care about law and justice and fair practice.

I've given you every single link you ask for, and you want me to defend it. You attack a link without even reading it. I've tried to explain to you that the court proceedings against the Hammond's are in violation of double jeopardy laws. I've explained why and how this is.

YOU chose to just debate me, and not look at the facts. I'm trying to present them to you constantly, and trying to explain how law works, but you won't have it.

I don't get how else to put it to you, except prove me wrong. The quotes I have provided you to use are all in my favor.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join