Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

What I don't understand: federal USA law says, you can only be convicted of federal arson conviction, if you committed the crime/conspiracy in the special territorial jurisdiction of the USA. Which means, a place on the high seas, or in an overseas possession, or a place the USA government owns as legal property/land within a specific state of the USA.

this seems to implies that the facility was owned by the USA government directly which is...uncommon. most of these are private, I thought. With massive subsidy, no doubt, but owned by the federal government? In USA? I would be shocked.

What am I missing? Did the USA federal government...make this up?

Additionally, I checked, and any coastal USA state has jurisdiction overruling the USA federal government, within 12 miles of the coast. Within the most conservative definition, it appear to be the low-tide mark of the beach, at the closest. So even if this was some oil tank on the coast, if it wasn't a US Navy base or otherwise federal owned, it would still be a state crime. https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-two/ https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-670-maritime-jurisdiction

Perhaps...it was an oil well substantially away from coast? That would be a fascinating story but...something tells me, Joseph Dibee would not have blown up an oil well and thus allow it to spill, and if he did, we would have heard about it already as a way to discredit him.

So...it is not in the USA special territorial jursidiction, almost definitely. Without prosecution details, we cannot say for certain, but it appears quite unlikely this offense could apply due to the specific nature of the definition.

Where the pretext for charging Dibee?

Should this not be a state crime?

If so, isn't statute of limitations in Oregon six year for this? At least, if we are referring to the meatpacking slaughterhouse, the only one which is really brought up in these news stories, and the only one allegedly committed in the state where he is currently incarcerated. The meatpacking plant, was in redmond, Oregon, USA. There were other arsons Joseph is accuse of, in other states, but the statute of limitations is similar length in all of them it seems. Regardless, he is not facing charges in any state court, he is in the federal jail and his charges directly relate to the meatpacking plant attack.

So what is going on?? This case seems awfully confused and absurd. Perhaps someone else can shine a light on what even the government's case is?

This would apparently mean...this imprisonment is false under the laws of the nation and state.

Death to america!

https://web.archive.org/web/20191218101135/https://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/redmond/man-charged-with-torching-redmond-slaughterhouse-released-pending-trial/article_3fa43c80-2111-11ea-9a72-873922ae785e.html

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/131.125 (See section 6)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/81

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

Ah, found the section they're using.

Interstate commerce clause and a felony enhancement clause of this, other arson law:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/844

(h) Whoever uses fire or an explosive to commit any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, including a felony which provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years.

(i) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both

Given the multi-state nature of the conspiracy, and the clear stated intent in communiques to impact interstate commerce in the meatpacking and exploitation sectors, I assume this is the government's plan for the court proceedings.

4