But both are specifically banned in the Constitution, as the poster noted.*
Or are you saying that not being “punitive” is an accepted exception?
Of course, laws that don’t actually mention specific people, but are very very narrow in scope, may be okay even if everyone knows who the target is.
*The U.S. Constitution, perhaps not Oregon’s though.
“Private Laws” targeting specific persons or groups are allowed and passed federally and in many states - usually along the lines of granting relief of some sort. Not as punishments.
The “ex-post-facto” prohibition is specifically for penal measures. Retroactive legislation is allowed as long as it does not violate someone’s rights or contractual obligations. And you may even retroactively amend a penal statute to lessen the penalty.
So I could imagine the legislator arguing that this is not a penal sanction, but merely an invoicing for expenses incurred. Though I would suppose Oregon and the County could instead just sue the fools for the costs incurred…
I’m saying not being punitive is an accepted exception (at least to ex post facto prohibitions). I would have to see exactly what has been proposed in the legislature to say if it’s a bill of attainder.
Maybe we could have a “common law trial” convict them and put them in a “common law prison”.
If they can arbitrarily claim to have legal authority then why can’t we do the same?
Can I be a judge? I know where I can get my hands on a pokkit constitushun.
Do you have a gavel and a powdered wig?
Yeah, ya hav-ta got a wig and a hammer to be a judge.
Robe too. Terry cloth is OK.
Where they can each become someone’s “common law wife.”
Ha ha! Prison rape! Can always count on you for the timeless classics.
Like Harry Truman once said, it might have been in poor taste but it was too good not to use . . .
I’m still uncomfortable with the idea of Oregon passing a special ad hoc law against these guys, especially since there are already plenty of existing laws to prosecute (and sue) them under.
But, just quickly to answer the question, California has a law that charges people for the costs the state incurs in rescuing them from a dangerous situation, if they have violated park regulations to get in trouble.
e.g., if you cross a fence that says, “Do not cross this fence,” and then a bear chases you up a tree, the state can recover the costs of sending out a hook-and-ladder truck to get you out of the tree.
I’d be very much against a special law passed in Sacramento saying, “Joe Doakes the Third, living in Fresno, must pay for the cost of his rescue.” That seems too “attainderish.”
The legislature can take action that does not involve making a law. Such as passing or budget or appropriating funds for some project. Bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are codified onto the books such as the ORS. Not every measure the legislature passes becomes statutory.
Finicum’s funeral was today at an LDS location in Utah. His family strangely claims he was shot in the face while on his knees with his hands on his head. Only two reporters attended that I’m aware of. One said it was open casket and his face was intact.
People were handing out small pieces of blue tarp for people to pin to their clothes. Some people tried to get the twitter ball rolling with “FBI hands out pieces of blue tarp with GPS trackers at Finicum’s funeral.” but I don’t know if it caught on.
Cliven Bundy showed up, escorted by armed guards. Says NYT reporter Julie Turkewitz @julieturkewit: “He was basically crucified,” he tells me, speaking of LaVoy.
Lots of rumbling about something going down this weekend, lots of people on edge, a few suspicious incidents, but it could all be talk.
David Fry got a couple messages out today. The first disavowing that the PPN has ever contacted him. PPN TELLS LIES! DAVID FRY - YouTube
The second, just some ramblings. He still expects to be murdered by the FBI: - YouTube
I know California will bill people who set wildfires for the costs of fighting them while still charging them for the crime.
Why do they need to pass a special law? Judges impose restitution as a part of sentencing all the time:
The prosecutor just submits an list of damages, and the judge imposes it at sentencing, along with jail time, fines and any other punishment.
Ethical Questions Surround Ammon Bundy’s Legal Team, Strategy
So, turns out the attorney now representing Ammon had driven 5 hours to visit the refuge “to offer free advice.” Soliciting clients violates Oregon bar rules. There is also a question as to whether the attorney advised Bundy to order lower ranking members of the party break laws so Bundy wouldn’t get in trouble for them.
Correction, his bishop officiating the service said his face was intact.
The difference is, the Joker wasn’t crazy enough to think it counted as a real trial.
I’ve been to exactly zero LDS funerals in the US (all the ones I’ve been to have been in South Korea), but I don’t see how the bishop officiating at the funeral for Finicum isn’t going to get released from his calling (read: fired as leader of the congregation) for letting the nonsense flow freely at that event. Those “ranchers” (I prefer to call these particular individuals what these particular individuals are: parasites) are completely out of touch with the facts. Finicum certainly wasn’t a patriot and he wasn’t abiding by the teachings of the LDS church.
Oh, and the LDS church does not permit carrying of firearms on its property so those nuts packing and wandering around the church during the funeral were also flipping off the church.