Re: Appeals Panel Hears Ruby Ridge Case
Thursday, 21-Dec-00 22:44:15
24.14.28.77 writes:
~Exclusive~ ******************* ~ Waco Tragedy News ~ ******************* (12/21/00)
Subj: Re: Appeals Panel Hears Ruby Ridge Case Date: 12/21/00 2:35:54 PM US Mountain Standard Time From: (David T. Hardy) To:
WacoTragedyNews@aol.com
This is extremely interesting, since the 9th Circuit almost NEVER grants a rehearing en banc. There are 21 or so judges there, and they sit in panels of three. The original ruling was 2-1 in favor of Horiuchi. If you're disatisfied, you can ask for rehearing en banc (in theory that means to ALL the judges, sitting as a huge panel, but in 9th Cir. it's actually to a large 10 judge panel). The rules say that's granted only where you have a split in authority inside the circuit.... this 3 judge panel said X is not the law, but another 3 judge panel a year ago said X was he law. Even at that, it's almost impossible to get. In Sheriff Mack's appeal, we had four splits in authority--right down to this panel saying a given past decision had not been good law since another case ten years ago, but a different panel only the year before had said it was good law. And the Ninth Circuit refused rehearing en banc!
I told Ramsey of a point I'd make: (1) there is no federal law against a federal agent killing a civilian. None. There are federal laws against civilians killing agents, but not the other way around. (2) under this decision, there are no state laws against killing which can be applied to agents. So (3) federal agents actually are licensed to kill, completely above the law. If in the course of duty, a federal agent kills someone, he cannot be prosecuted by anyone.
Which also means, I just discovered, that Congress rates our lives as less than that of a federal dog. This last session, Congress passed a statute imposing 1 year's imprisonment for assaulting a federal police dog, and 10 years' imprisonment for seriously injuring or killing one.
David T. Hardy
|