General Discussion

Gman

(24,780 posts)

15. Yep

Mon Apr 25, 2016, 08:00 PM

Apr 2016

Which begs the question why they would expect the courts to side with them when they know their views are out of the norm and against the "establishment" but "establishment" courts make the decision.

This is the stupidness of their thinking.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

46 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Ammon Bundy to challenge authority of feds to prosecute Oregon standoff defendants [View all] yellowcanine Apr 2016 OP

At some point shouldn't we be able to send him the bill? Hortensis Apr 2016 #1

At the point where we get rid of the 5th and 6th Amendments jberryhill Apr 2016 #7

I'm all for pursuing justice, damn the costs, but at some point Hortensis Apr 2016 #8

There's nothing frivolous about preliminary motions to dismiss jberryhill Apr 2016 #9

I'll accept that you are right, Jberryhill, because Hortensis Apr 2016 #13

He'll get what's coming to him jberryhill Apr 2016 #16

The lawyer is either pro bono Gman Apr 2016 #2

Looks like a small local firm going the crowdfunded route. The feds will eat their lunch. Scurrilous Apr 2016 #5

Yep Gman Apr 2016 #15

Good luck with that, Ammon. NOT!!! longship Apr 2016 #3

Ammon's on a roll.... dixiegrrrrl Apr 2016 #4

truly a rofl situation 0rganism Apr 2016 #6

It never has worked before Major Nikon Apr 2016 #17

You could say that about a lot of cases jberryhill Apr 2016 #18

... Major Nikon Apr 2016 #43

Judge Brown isn't going to brook that nonsense gratuitous Apr 2016 #10

I wonder where they got 2naSalit Apr 2016 #29

If I had to guess gratuitous Apr 2016 #36

I am familiar with the lawyers and the law firm. Their ethics and mine don't coincide. Shrike47 Apr 2016 #11

The origninalists and constitionalists want to basically turn the clock back to the time Monk06 Apr 2016 #12

He is ruined. lpbk2713 Apr 2016 #14

Your point about desperation is what some comments in this thread overlook. Jim Lane Apr 2016 #19

People on DU don't believe in basic civil rights jberryhill Apr 2016 #20

There is a difference between civil disobedience and armed occupation of federal land. yellowcanine Apr 2016 #22

it's breaking the law in the belief one is serving a higher purpose jberryhill Apr 2016 #25

Really can't compare Bundy claims to Native American claims. yellowcanine Apr 2016 #28

I'm not comparing the claims jberryhill Apr 2016 #31

Nothing wrong with preliminary motions. Of course not. yellowcanine Apr 2016 #35

"the Bundys want the court to revisit settled law" jberryhill Apr 2016 #37

Yes, the argument will be rejected, but they certainly have standing to raise it. Jim Lane Apr 2016 #33

They do not have standing to claim ownership on behalf of local ranchers. yellowcanine Apr 2016 #34

That's not their claim jberryhill Apr 2016 #38

The other advantage here jberryhill Apr 2016 #40

Note - Not saying "preemptive dismissal" yellowcanine Apr 2016 #44

The lawyers' responsibility isn't clear. Jim Lane Apr 2016 #45

every motion the yayhoos file, is another day they're in stir. KG Apr 2016 #21

Your delusions will be soon be shattered assclown jpak Apr 2016 #23

Denying the legal authority of the Federal government is their only defense. bluedigger Apr 2016 #24

These people don't believe in America or government. Too bad they didn't get the hell out. onecaliberal Apr 2016 #26

Certainly an overt display 2naSalit Apr 2016 #30

The Bundys are idiots Gothmog Apr 2016 #27

Meh. It doesn't matter what legal manuevers he makes. Everything is over documented, a lot by his Katashi_itto Apr 2016 #32

"like a stream-roller going at one mile an hour" jberryhill Apr 2016 #39

Yep, they are there for the duration. Katashi_itto Apr 2016 #41

Federal property owned by all of us citizens and bundy thinks jwirr Apr 2016 #42

Jurisdiction is not an matter of evidence it is a matter for the Supreme Court which has Monk06 Apr 2016 #46