Progressive 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rules for terrorist

Come Back to NY · 01-16-2007, 03:07 PM

[QUOTE][QUOTE][B]Court Nixes Sentence of Man in Bomb Plot [/B]

AP) A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out the sentence of a man who was convicted of plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport at the turn of the millennium.

Ahmed Ressam was arrested near the U.S.-Canadian border in December 1999 as he drove off a ferry with a trunk of explosives. Prosecutors said he was intent on bombing the airport on the eve of the millennium.

Ressam was sentenced to 22 years in prison after being convicted off all nine charges. On Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed his conviction on one of the charges and sent the case back to a lower court to issue a new sentence and explain the rationale behind the original 22-year term.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/16/ap/national/mainD8MMHV4G0.shtml[/url]

good to see the progressive agenda giving the green light to activist courts...

Jetdawgg · 01-16-2007, 03:29 PM

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY][QUOTE]

[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/16/ap/national/mainD8MMHV4G0.shtml[/url]

good to see the progressive agenda giving the green light to activist courts...[/QUOTE]

[I][B]arrested near the U.S.-Canadian border in December 1999. On Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed his conviction on one of the charges and sent the case back to a lower court to issue a new sentence and explain the rationale behind the original 22-year term.[/B][/I]

After 7 years, he should be able to get a fair trial. Wouldn't you want one?

MnJetFan · 01-16-2007, 03:46 PM

[QUOTE=Jetdawgg][QUOTE=Come Back to NY]

[I][B]arrested near the U.S.-Canadian border in December 1999. On Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed his conviction on one of the charges and sent the case back to a lower court to issue a new sentence and explain the rationale behind the original 22-year term.[/B][/I]

After 7 years, he should be able to get a fair trial. Wouldn't you want one?[/QUOTE]

What would one do with a trunk full of explosives? Maybe they should let him park it in the Judges Garage!

Come Back to NY · 01-16-2007, 03:49 PM

[QUOTE=Jetdawgg][QUOTE=Come Back to NY]

[I][B]arrested near the U.S.-Canadian border in December 1999. On Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed his conviction on one of the charges and sent the case back to a lower court to issue a new sentence and explain the rationale behind the original 22-year term.[/B][/I]

After 7 years, he should be able to get a fair trial. Wouldn't you want one?[/QUOTE]

he had his trial...he was convicted by a jury of peers and sentenced...

oh, wait- that's right....fair is only accomplished if things turn out the way YOU want them to turn out (see the reparations issue :yes: ) ...

Jetdawgg · 01-16-2007, 04:07 PM

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY][QUOTE=Jetdawgg]

he had his trial...he was convicted by a jury of peers and sentenced...

oh, wait- that's right....fair is only accomplished if things turn out the way YOU want them to turn out (see the reparations issue :yes: ) ...[/QUOTE]

Isn't Arnold the gov of Cali? He still does have the right to appeal. We know that the Cali cops are more like the Keystone Cops anyway....

HDCentStOhio · 01-16-2007, 05:21 PM

[QUOTE=Jetdawgg][QUOTE=Come Back to NY]

Isn't Arnold the gov of Cali? He still does have the right to appeal. We know that the Cali cops are more like the Keystone Cops anyway....[/QUOTE]
What do California cops have to do with this case? He was arrested along the Canadian border!

Come Back to NY · 01-16-2007, 05:23 PM

[QUOTE=HDCentStOhio][QUOTE=Jetdawgg]
What do California cops have to do with this case? He was arrested along the Canadian border![/QUOTE]

by border patrol agents who handed him over to the feds...

doggin94it · 01-16-2007, 06:31 PM

Read the opinion (I so love it when people argue vehemently [b]without any information at all[/b]). The conviction that was reversed was for carrying explosives during the commission of a felony. The underlying felony was lying on a customs declaration. The 9th Circuit held that to be convicted under the statute, the carrying of explosives must be [b]related[/b] [b]to the felony[/b]. In other words, if you rob a bank with a bomb, you can be convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. 844(h)(2), but if you e-mail kiddie porn accross state lines while holding a stick of dynamite, you can't. It's very hard to argue with that general logic.

For whatever reason, the only underlying felony Ressam was being charged with under the statute was using a false name on a customs form (likely because while he had the explosives to allow him to [b]commit[/b] other felonies, the only felony he [b]actually[/b] committed was the customs violation [all of the others were attempts, and the statute seems to require that the felony actually be carried out -"during the commission" - in order to qualify]). Ressam's argument was that the explosives didn't facilitate the commission of the felony he was charged with (having explosives didn't help him write the false name), so he shouldn't have been charged under the statute.

The 9th Circuit panel was also constrained by earlier 9th Circuit precedent that had interpreted another Federal statute - on carrying firearms during the commission of a felony - as including a relational element. Because a 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit cannot overrule an earlier 9th Circuit precedent, they were forced to interpret this statute (which was, according to its legislative history, based on the firearms statute) the same way.

Other Circuits (3rd and 5th) have ruled the other way, so it's likely that the Circuit split will justify an en banc appeal - asking the entire 9th Circuit to convene and consider whether to reverse its earlier decision (the only way that can happen in the 9th Circuit) - and if that doesn't go the right way it will likely lead to a granted Certiorari Petition to the Supreme Court.

In short - the 9th Circuit's ruling was [b]100%[/b] legally correct, given the fact pattern, and will be appealed at least once, if not twice. So could everyone chill out about "unfair trials" and "progressive agendas" when that had [b]nothing to do with the ruling[/b]??

Come Back to NY · 01-16-2007, 06:46 PM

[QUOTE=doggin94it]Read the opinion (I so love it when people argue vehemently [b]without any information at all[/b]). The conviction that was reversed was for carrying explosives during the commission of a felony. The underlying felony was lying on a customs declaration. The 9th Circuit held that to be convicted under the statute, the carrying of explosives must be [b]related[/b] [b]to the felony[/b]. In other words, if you rob a bank with a bomb, you can be convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. 844(h)(2), but if you e-mail kiddie porn accross state lines while holding a stick of dynamite, you can't. It's very hard to argue with that general logic.

For whatever reason, the only underlying felony Ressam was being charged with under the statute was using a false name on a customs form (likely because while he had the explosives to allow him to [b]commit[/b] other felonies, the only felony he [b]actually[/b] committed was the customs violation [all of the others were attempts, and the statute seems to require that the felony actually be carried out -"during the commission" - in order to qualify]). Ressam's argument was that the explosives didn't facilitate the commission of the felony he was charged with (having explosives didn't help him write the false name), so he shouldn't have been charged under the statute.

The 9th Circuit panel was also constrained by earlier 9th Circuit precedent that had interpreted another Federal statute - on carrying firearms during the commission of a felony - as including a relational element. Because a 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit cannot overrule an earlier 9th Circuit precedent, they were forced to interpret this statute (which was, according to its legislative history, based on the firearms statute) the same way.

Other Circuits (3rd and 5th) have ruled the other way, so it's likely that the Circuit split will justify an en banc appeal - asking the entire 9th Circuit to convene and consider whether to reverse its earlier decision (the only way that can happen in the 9th Circuit) - and if that doesn't go the right way it will likely lead to a granted Certiorari Petition to the Supreme Court.

In short - the 9th Circuit's ruling was [b]100%[/b] legally correct, given the fact pattern, and will be appealed at least once, if not twice. So could everyone chill out about "unfair trials" and "progressive agendas" when that had [b]nothing to do with the ruling[/b]??[/QUOTE]

how many times are rulings by the 9th court not appealed compared to others??

correct me if I am wrong but are they not the most far-out activist of circuit court's out there???

doggin94it · 01-16-2007, 06:55 PM

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY]how many times are rulings by the 9th court not appealed compared to others??

correct me if I am wrong but are they not the most far-out activist of circuit court's out there???[/QUOTE]

No question - the Ninth Circuit is the least respected Federal Appellate court in the nation, and has developed a reputation for going way off the reservation and getting slapped down by the Supreme Court.

I gotta say though, this isn't one of those times. They may get reversed, but even if they do it won't be because they were nuts. This decision is very well reasoned.

sackdance · 01-16-2007, 07:54 PM

What do Kalifornia Kops know anyway?

cr726 · 01-16-2007, 08:53 PM

Do you practice criminal law? I was curious if you have been reading about the DOD and CIA starting investigations in the states. Very interesting stuff. I think there are plenty of federal, state and local investigators here in the states.

[QUOTE=doggin94it]No question - the Ninth Circuit is the least respected Federal Appellate court in the nation, and has developed a reputation for going way off the reservation and getting slapped down by the Supreme Court.

I gotta say though, this isn't one of those times. They may get reversed, but even if they do it won't be because they were nuts. This decision is very well reasoned.[/QUOTE]

doggin94it · 01-16-2007, 11:11 PM

[QUOTE=cr726]Do you practice criminal law? I was curious if you have been reading about the DOD and CIA starting investigations in the states. Very interesting stuff. I think there are plenty of federal, state and local investigators here in the states.[/QUOTE]

Mainly civil, though the firm I work for did defend Ted Sihpol against Eliott Spitzer in the mutual fund cases.

01-16-2007, 03:07 PM	#1
Come Back to NY Making lotsa $$$ off obama's stupidity... Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 31,407	Progressive 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rules for terrorist [QUOTE][QUOTE][B]Court Nixes Sentence of Man in Bomb Plot [/B] AP) A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out the sentence of a man who was convicted of plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport at the turn of the millennium. Ahmed Ressam was arrested near the U.S.-Canadian border in December 1999 as he drove off a ferry with a trunk of explosives. Prosecutors said he was intent on bombing the airport on the eve of the millennium. Ressam was sentenced to 22 years in prison after being convicted off all nine charges. On Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed his conviction on one of the charges and sent the case back to a lower court to issue a new sentence and explain the rationale behind the original 22-year term.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/16/ap/national/mainD8MMHV4G0.shtml[/url] good to see the progressive agenda giving the green light to activist courts...

01-16-2007, 03:29 PM	#2
Jetdawgg All Pro Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 6,687	[QUOTE=Come Back to NY][QUOTE] [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/16/ap/national/mainD8MMHV4G0.shtml[/url] good to see the progressive agenda giving the green light to activist courts...[/QUOTE] [I][B]arrested near the U.S.-Canadian border in December 1999. On Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed his conviction on one of the charges and sent the case back to a lower court to issue a new sentence and explain the rationale behind the original 22-year term.[/B][/I] After 7 years, he should be able to get a fair trial. Wouldn't you want one?

01-16-2007, 03:46 PM	#3
MnJetFan All League Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,302	[QUOTE=Jetdawgg][QUOTE=Come Back to NY] [I][B]arrested near the U.S.-Canadian border in December 1999. On Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed his conviction on one of the charges and sent the case back to a lower court to issue a new sentence and explain the rationale behind the original 22-year term.[/B][/I] After 7 years, he should be able to get a fair trial. Wouldn't you want one?[/QUOTE] What would one do with a trunk full of explosives? Maybe they should let him park it in the Judges Garage!

01-16-2007, 03:49 PM	#4
Come Back to NY Making lotsa $$$ off obama's stupidity... Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 31,407	[QUOTE=Jetdawgg][QUOTE=Come Back to NY] [I][B]arrested near the U.S.-Canadian border in December 1999. On Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed his conviction on one of the charges and sent the case back to a lower court to issue a new sentence and explain the rationale behind the original 22-year term.[/B][/I] After 7 years, he should be able to get a fair trial. Wouldn't you want one?[/QUOTE] he had his trial...he was convicted by a jury of peers and sentenced... oh, wait- that's right....fair is only accomplished if things turn out the way YOU want them to turn out (see the reparations issue :yes: ) ...

01-16-2007, 04:07 PM	#5
Jetdawgg All Pro Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 6,687	[QUOTE=Come Back to NY][QUOTE=Jetdawgg] he had his trial...he was convicted by a jury of peers and sentenced... oh, wait- that's right....fair is only accomplished if things turn out the way YOU want them to turn out (see the reparations issue :yes: ) ...[/QUOTE] Isn't Arnold the gov of Cali? He still does have the right to appeal. We know that the Cali cops are more like the Keystone Cops anyway....

01-16-2007, 05:21 PM	#6
HDCentStOhio longing for the days of Ronald Reagan Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Long Island & Section 337 Posts: 4,859	[QUOTE=Jetdawgg][QUOTE=Come Back to NY] Isn't Arnold the gov of Cali? He still does have the right to appeal. We know that the Cali cops are more like the Keystone Cops anyway....[/QUOTE] What do California cops have to do with this case? He was arrested along the Canadian border!

01-16-2007, 05:23 PM	#7
Come Back to NY Making lotsa $$$ off obama's stupidity... Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 31,407	[QUOTE=HDCentStOhio][QUOTE=Jetdawgg] What do California cops have to do with this case? He was arrested along the Canadian border![/QUOTE] by border patrol agents who handed him over to the feds...

01-16-2007, 06:31 PM	#8
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,422	Read the opinion (I so love it when people argue vehemently [b]without any information at all[/b]). The conviction that was reversed was for carrying explosives during the commission of a felony. The underlying felony was lying on a customs declaration. The 9th Circuit held that to be convicted under the statute, the carrying of explosives must be [b]related[/b] [b]to the felony[/b]. In other words, if you rob a bank with a bomb, you can be convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. 844(h)(2), but if you e-mail kiddie porn accross state lines while holding a stick of dynamite, you can't. It's very hard to argue with that general logic. For whatever reason, the only underlying felony Ressam was being charged with under the statute was using a false name on a customs form (likely because while he had the explosives to allow him to [b]commit[/b] other felonies, the only felony he [b]actually[/b] committed was the customs violation [all of the others were attempts, and the statute seems to require that the felony actually be carried out -"during the commission" - in order to qualify]). Ressam's argument was that the explosives didn't facilitate the commission of the felony he was charged with (having explosives didn't help him write the false name), so he shouldn't have been charged under the statute. The 9th Circuit panel was also constrained by earlier 9th Circuit precedent that had interpreted another Federal statute - on carrying firearms during the commission of a felony - as including a relational element. Because a 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit cannot overrule an earlier 9th Circuit precedent, they were forced to interpret this statute (which was, according to its legislative history, based on the firearms statute) the same way. Other Circuits (3rd and 5th) have ruled the other way, so it's likely that the Circuit split will justify an en banc appeal - asking the entire 9th Circuit to convene and consider whether to reverse its earlier decision (the only way that can happen in the 9th Circuit) - and if that doesn't go the right way it will likely lead to a granted Certiorari Petition to the Supreme Court. In short - the 9th Circuit's ruling was [b]100%[/b] legally correct, given the fact pattern, and will be appealed at least once, if not twice. So could everyone chill out about "unfair trials" and "progressive agendas" when that had [b]nothing to do with the ruling[/b]??

01-16-2007, 06:46 PM	#9
Come Back to NY Making lotsa $$$ off obama's stupidity... Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 31,407	[QUOTE=doggin94it]Read the opinion (I so love it when people argue vehemently [b]without any information at all[/b]). The conviction that was reversed was for carrying explosives during the commission of a felony. The underlying felony was lying on a customs declaration. The 9th Circuit held that to be convicted under the statute, the carrying of explosives must be [b]related[/b] [b]to the felony[/b]. In other words, if you rob a bank with a bomb, you can be convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. 844(h)(2), but if you e-mail kiddie porn accross state lines while holding a stick of dynamite, you can't. It's very hard to argue with that general logic. For whatever reason, the only underlying felony Ressam was being charged with under the statute was using a false name on a customs form (likely because while he had the explosives to allow him to [b]commit[/b] other felonies, the only felony he [b]actually[/b] committed was the customs violation [all of the others were attempts, and the statute seems to require that the felony actually be carried out -"during the commission" - in order to qualify]). Ressam's argument was that the explosives didn't facilitate the commission of the felony he was charged with (having explosives didn't help him write the false name), so he shouldn't have been charged under the statute. The 9th Circuit panel was also constrained by earlier 9th Circuit precedent that had interpreted another Federal statute - on carrying firearms during the commission of a felony - as including a relational element. Because a 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit cannot overrule an earlier 9th Circuit precedent, they were forced to interpret this statute (which was, according to its legislative history, based on the firearms statute) the same way. Other Circuits (3rd and 5th) have ruled the other way, so it's likely that the Circuit split will justify an en banc appeal - asking the entire 9th Circuit to convene and consider whether to reverse its earlier decision (the only way that can happen in the 9th Circuit) - and if that doesn't go the right way it will likely lead to a granted Certiorari Petition to the Supreme Court. In short - the 9th Circuit's ruling was [b]100%[/b] legally correct, given the fact pattern, and will be appealed at least once, if not twice. So could everyone chill out about "unfair trials" and "progressive agendas" when that had [b]nothing to do with the ruling[/b]??[/QUOTE] how many times are rulings by the 9th court not appealed compared to others?? correct me if I am wrong but are they not the most far-out activist of circuit court's out there???

01-16-2007, 06:55 PM	#10
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,422	[QUOTE=Come Back to NY]how many times are rulings by the 9th court not appealed compared to others?? correct me if I am wrong but are they not the most far-out activist of circuit court's out there???[/QUOTE] No question - the Ninth Circuit is the least respected Federal Appellate court in the nation, and has developed a reputation for going way off the reservation and getting slapped down by the Supreme Court. I gotta say though, this isn't one of those times. They may get reversed, but even if they do it won't be because they were nuts. This decision is very well reasoned.

01-16-2007, 07:54 PM	#11
sackdance All Pro Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,886	What do Kalifornia Kops know anyway?

01-16-2007, 08:53 PM	#12
cr726 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,313	Do you practice criminal law? I was curious if you have been reading about the DOD and CIA starting investigations in the states. Very interesting stuff. I think there are plenty of federal, state and local investigators here in the states. [QUOTE=doggin94it]No question - the Ninth Circuit is the least respected Federal Appellate court in the nation, and has developed a reputation for going way off the reservation and getting slapped down by the Supreme Court. I gotta say though, this isn't one of those times. They may get reversed, but even if they do it won't be because they were nuts. This decision is very well reasoned.[/QUOTE]

01-16-2007, 11:11 PM	#13
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,422	[QUOTE=cr726]Do you practice criminal law? I was curious if you have been reading about the DOD and CIA starting investigations in the states. Very interesting stuff. I think there are plenty of federal, state and local investigators here in the states.[/QUOTE] Mainly civil, though the firm I work for did defend Ted Sihpol against Eliott Spitzer in the mutual fund cases.