Legal experts: federal gov't has responsibility to prosecute Bundy's faux-militia for their crimes.

[99th_Monkey]

Legal experts: federal government has jurisdiction to charge Oregon militia
Scholars contend prosecutors could seek hefty fines and up to 10 years in prison for the
militia’s violation of multiple federal laws
by Sam Levin * Jan. 14, 2016 * The Guardian

Leaders of the armed militia occupying federal lands in eastern Oregon could face hefty fines and more than 10 years behind bars if government officials decide to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, legal experts say.

Ammon Bundy and his crew of rightwing anti-government followers – who have refused to leave the Malheur national wildlife refuge since they took over its headquarters on 2 January – appear to have violated a number of laws that prohibit the unauthorized use and destruction of public property.

With the militiamen’s recent announcement that they plan to soon reveal how they intend to end the occupation in rural Harney County, many in the local town of Burns and across the country are wondering whether the militia will ultimately face consequences for the armed siege of a federal wildlife sanctuary.

“There are a panoply of federal statutes that focus on trespassing on federal lands and misuse of federal property,” said David Hayes, a visiting lecturer at Stanford Law School and former deputy secretary of the US Department of the Interior. “I’m confident that they will be prosecuted.”

The militia argues that they are reclaiming public land to protest government regulations and that the occupation is defending the constitutional rights of local ranchers to use federally controlled lands in their back yard. But experts say the occupiers lack any legal arguments that would shield them in court and that if charges were brought, the Bundy bunch could face substantial punishments.

Because the militia are armed and occupying a number of government buildings in a protected wildlife sanctuary, federal prosecutors would have jurisdiction to bring charges under multiple laws.

SAID 'MULTIPLE LAWS' ARE SPELLED OUT AT THIS LINK:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/14/armed-oregon-militia-federal-law-legal-experts-prosecution-prison-fines

[beam me up scottie]

1. Now all they need to do is arrest them.

I can't wait to see them frogmarched out of there, it's coming.

[99th_Monkey]

2. Amen to that. Hopefully the FBI has given them enough rope by now. -nt-

[GeorgeGist]

8. I'm still waiting to see Cliven Bundy frogmarched.

[beam me up scottie]

9. I would literally pay to see that.

[fredamae]

3. Wasn't the same true for

the bundy's Nevada experience? And for wall street/banks post the crash in 2007/2008?
I'll believe it when I see it.

[katmondoo]

4. What would Teddy Roosevelt have done?

I know he would not have put up with this nonsense for a minute

[Eugene]

5. The Feds have given out eight year sentences for much less than this.

The law is clear. If only the government will step up.

[1939]

6. All in the hands of Pres Obama and AG Lynch NT

[moondust]

7. Maybe the Feds have been busy

preparing their legal case before taking any action, and/or waiting to see how much trouble these vandals get themselves into.

Of course that wouldn't explain why they did nothing after the previous Bundy confrontation.

[NeoGreen]

10. At what point does law enforcement become culpable...

...in allowing the apparent commission of criminal activity to continue?

Is culpability not an issue since it only seems to be a form of property crime, in this case so far, in that no person has been explicitly threatened and that at this stage enforcement would likely elevate the risk of someone being injured, or worse?

Is my question even valid?

Curious to see informed responses.