As I recall shortly after the first unsuccessful trial in Portland, the
State of Oregon could still have the option of prosecuting the Malheur
occupiers for their illegal actions within the state, without
constituting double jeopardy.
One practical problem of course is that the Bundys and their accomplices
(except the ones who were convicted or plead guilty to lesser charge)
are no longer in custody in the state of Oregon. I suppose the ones in
custody in Nevada will be released shortly (if not already). So it's
unlikely that they would ever stand trial for those charges here.
However, if the State of Oregon were to file charges, perhaps there
could be a standing warrant that could be exercised if any of the Bundy
gang return to the state. That might also serve as a deterrent for any
similar shenanigans in states outside of their home territory.
Perhaps all of those of us who dread another episode similar to the
Malheur occupation should be contacting Gov. Brown and Atty. Gen.
Rosenblum to urge that they explore this line of action.
Joel
On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 14:46 -0800, Wayne Hoffman wrote:
So, where do we go from here? We should be thinking about how to
forestall future attempts to privatize public lands. One thought is
to explore what changes might be made in state statutes to make it
easier to protect public lands and prosecute those who vandalize and
try to appropriate them. Some possible examples: Could some
violations of (Federal) rules for public lands grazing be prosecutable
in state court as degradation of wildlife habitat? The feds do give
the state jurisdiction over game management... Could beefed-up
vandalism laws provide a nexus for state jurisdiction? Could
interference with specified wildlife management activities be
state-prosecutable even if they happened on federal land? The Malheur
NWR occupation greatly interfered with carp management, and I think an
argument could be made that that had consequences to state interests.
