This sounds like really bad legal precedent to me. How the hell can they have him serve two sentences from two different cases in two different states concurrently? I understand the concept of sentences from the same crime being served concurrently, but from two cases in two states? If he had been dealing drugs, and had drug charges in two different states, I’m sure the sentences would not be concurrent. They would maximize the sentences to keep him in prison as long as possible. But apparently if you use violence to overthrow the government, they let you out as soon as possible, but if you sell drugs they will keep you in prison the rest of your life.
I’m starting to think even the Bundys will be out in a couple of years, to continue their anti-governmant activities.
These are all federal cases, not state cases.
All of their time will be served in Bureau of Prison facilities other than the credit they will receive for pre-trial detention.
Serving federal time concurrent for federal convictions out of multiple federal districts is not without precedent.
Some will get relatively short sentences. The Nevada charges will have heftier sentences due to the overt bearing of firearms directly at federal agents.
Federal sentencing guidelines have a downrate provision that lowers the recommended sentences for "accepting responsibility in a timely manner."
In other words, accept an offer to plea in a reasonable amount of time before the trial date and get a lighter sentence.
Wait up until the last minute or go to trial and expect your sentence to be greater than you thought it might be.
I expect most of the Bundys, possibly Santilli, and I'm hoping Shawna Cox for the comedy value, will run this thing all the way to trial.
The sentencing downrate is why so few federal cases actually go trial. I see this same pattern in the federal drug conspiracy cases I follow on an ongoing basis.
Helps keep the courts and prosecutors less bogged down and free to bring charges in complex cases.
Part of the issue is that actual sedition conspiracy charges have proven to be very difficult for federal prosecutors to get convictions when the defendants are militia/klan/etc. defendants. Louis Beam, et al; Hutarree Militia; and a small group of militia out of Georgia whose "name" I can never remember.
Because of the history of acquittals on sedition conspiracy charges, federal prosecutors are more and more reluctant to file them in cases like these. I think convictions for sedition would be difficult with the facts of these cases, going by the facts of the cases that saw acquittals.
I'm not convinced this is a bad thing. I can imagine an easy to use sedition conviction tool in the hands of, say, a Presidential administration that resembles fascism, and it becomes a frightening concept.
Jokers like these crews will never be able to coalesce themselves anywhere near in numbers to be any kind of serious threat to the stability of our government.
These guys were a good example of how they will eat themselves up from inside and the lack of competency on so many levels.
Can they do harm and hurt people? Absolutely. Oklahoma City will always stand as a testament to that possibility.
Not unlike the "war on drugs," vigilance towards anti-government violence and other unlawful acts is a game of whack-a-mole.
They'll always be around, but leaving them unwhacked risks consequences.
They also create damage, IMO, through the electoral process with their "constituional"sheriffs, some of the wackiest state and federal representives and, conceivably, presidential elections. :cough:
Those are not criminal violations (although it feels that way sometimes) and has to be challenged with rigorous participation in the electoral process. MOO and all that jazz.
When comparing sentence ranges for drug related crimes to the sentences we will see in these cases, it is important to recognize that state sentences will vary from state to state and federal has its own guidelines, too.
Are there inconsistencies? Absolutely. In a sense, the separation of state and federal jurisdictions guarantees that.
