Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

struggle4progress

(118,293 posts)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:08 AM Apr 2016

Bundy 's Lawyers Say Charges Should be Dropped Because the Feds Don't Own Malheur Refuge

By COLIN MINER
April 24, 2016 12:52 am ET

The federal government does not own Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, has no right to have federal employees work on the land and, thus, has no right to charge anyone with interfering with that work.

That's the crux of the argument lawyers for Ammon Bundy plan to out forth, according to documents filed Friday in federal court.

"The motion to dismiss in this case will challenge the Federal Government's authority to assert ownership over the land that is now known as the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge," writes Lissa Casey, one of Bundy's lawyers. "It is Defendant’s position that this authority is critical to the Federal Government’s authority to have federal employees work on that land.

"Jurisdiction in this case will determine whether the Federal Government can prosecute protesters for being there at all" ...


http://patch.com/oregon/portland/oregon-standoff-latest-ammon-bundy-s-lawyers-say-charges-should-be-dropped-because-feds-dont-own

14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bundy 's Lawyers Say Charges Should be Dropped Because the Feds Don't Own Malheur Refuge (Original Post) struggle4progress Apr 2016 OP
Slapheads! 2naSalit Apr 2016 #1
Supreme Court already ruled that feds rightly own occupied refuge struggle4progress Apr 2016 #4
And that was the other point 2naSalit Apr 2016 #5
Perhaps they'll want to challenge their time in federal prison struggle4progress Apr 2016 #6
Yeah 2naSalit Apr 2016 #7
Give her a break, she doesn't look like the brightest bulb in the box LOL snooper2 Apr 2016 #12
Ummm, good point 2naSalit Apr 2016 #13
Nice try DebbieCDC Apr 2016 #2
The stupid...it burns. SHRED Apr 2016 #3
A "Sovereign Citizen" gambit? GliderGuider Apr 2016 #8
The Bundys are crazy Gothmog Apr 2016 #9
... “We look forward to Ammon Bundy’s attempt to re-litigate 200 years of jurisprudence struggle4progress Apr 2016 #10
... a Bundy co-defendant Kenneth Medenbach attempted to make that same argument struggle4progress Apr 2016 #11
The Bundy Gang will fare no better with Judge Brown gratuitous Apr 2016 #14

2naSalit

(86,646 posts)
1. Slapheads!
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:15 AM
Apr 2016


Of course the government doesn't own these properties, they merely mange them for us. And even if ownership were the case, it is we who are allegedly the government... for and by the people yada yada.

They make as much sense as the talking barfbags they obey/are controlled by from the magic box called the radio or teevee.

struggle4progress

(118,293 posts)
4. Supreme Court already ruled that feds rightly own occupied refuge
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:38 AM
Apr 2016

By Betsy Hammond | The Oregonian/OregonLive
on January 06, 2016 at 5:11 AM
updated February 22, 2016 at 1:47 PM
... the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on exactly that question, specifically regarding the lands of the original Malheur national refuge -- twice. Those rulings by the nation's highest court, in 1902 and in 1935, found that the federal government has an incontrovertible claim to the refuge's wetlands and lakebeds, dating back to the 1840s, when Oregon was still a territory. "Before Oregon was admitted to statehood, the United States is shown to have acquired title which it has never in terms conveyed away," Justice Harlan Stone wrote in 1935 ...
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/supreme_court_already_ruled_th.html

Bundy and his moronic attorneys want to turn the trial into a three-ring-circus. But there is no question of fact here to set before a jury: federal ownership of Malheur has already long been settled as a matter of law

2naSalit

(86,646 posts)
5. And that was the other point
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:43 AM
Apr 2016

bouncing around in my head but I was distracted while commenting... was listening to Prince at the same time. You are correct, of course, and that is why I was laughing in the first place.

They really want to recruit more idiots to help defend them and will try everything their feeble minds can muster.

struggle4progress

(118,293 posts)
6. Perhaps they'll want to challenge their time in federal prison
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:49 AM
Apr 2016

on similar grounds: "Yarronnah, the fedrall gummint cain't detain mah clients in this here prison, on account that this here prison ain't actually on fedrall land, cause there really ain't no fedrall lands"

2naSalit

(86,646 posts)
7. Yeah
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:57 AM
Apr 2016

pretzel logic is all they've got cuz that's how they think... if you can call what they thinking!

All I know is, if they can't accept our government, there's all the rest of the planet they can go inhabit outside of our borders. Maybe we could ship them some other country... or maybe an island that is soon to sink into the ocean.

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
12. Give her a break, she doesn't look like the brightest bulb in the box LOL
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 02:22 PM
Apr 2016

I'm feeling some fundie here LOL..Almost Kim Davis Fundie with a little bit better (but not much) fashion sense




2naSalit

(86,646 posts)
13. Ummm, good point
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 06:21 PM
Apr 2016

perhaps one of those home-schooled-by-know-nothing-know-it-alls. And if she studied law at one of those BYU type schools...

We got lots of 'em 'round these parts.

Here's a good article that is interesting, by George Wuerthner that is relevant to this topic:

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2016/04/25/loservilles-of-the-west-and-modern-day-ghost-dance/

I know this author and he's usually spot on.

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
8. A "Sovereign Citizen" gambit?
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 02:35 AM
Apr 2016

This should be interesting to watch...
In a morbid mental train-wreck kind of way...

struggle4progress

(118,293 posts)
10. ... “We look forward to Ammon Bundy’s attempt to re-litigate 200 years of jurisprudence
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 02:19 PM
Apr 2016

regarding the property clause, and United States v. Oregon, the 1935 Supreme Court case that specifically established the American people’s ownership of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge,” said Jennifer Rokala, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Western Priorities ...

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/legal-experts-mock-ammon-bundy-defense-for-ignoring-unmistakable-legal-reality/

struggle4progress

(118,293 posts)
11. ... a Bundy co-defendant Kenneth Medenbach attempted to make that same argument
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 02:20 PM
Apr 2016

in U.S. District Court in Eugene, but federal Judge Michael J. McShane dismissed it as lacking merit ...

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/04/ammon_bundy_to_challenge_autho.html

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
14. The Bundy Gang will fare no better with Judge Brown
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 06:44 PM
Apr 2016

I don't know what the end game is for these chuckleheads, except their plaintive assertion that the Constitution is wrong, it's been wrongly interpreted by the courts for over 200 years, and decisions that have been on the books for decades were wrongly arrived at.

I don't know what Crackerjack box these simpletons got their law degree out of (or, more likely, Liberty University), but that's not how the law works. The cynical side of me suspects these legal jackwagons know this, but crowdfunded tilting at windmills is a lot easier than working for a living, and the suckers who send them money seem to have an endless supply to waste on futile efforts.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Bundy 's Lawyers Say Char...