General Discussion

yellowcanine

(36,788 posts)

22. There is a difference between civil disobedience and armed occupation of federal land.

Tue Apr 26, 2016, 10:05 AM

Apr 2016

Sorry, the Bundys essentially mounted an armed insurrection against the United States. Yes they are entitled to a defense but it has to be did they break the law or not - not whether the federal government has the right to own land - that is not a valid defense.

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