Ammon Bundy to challenge authority of feds to prosecute Oregon standoff defendants

[yellowcanine]

44. Note - Not saying "preemptive dismissal"

The judge needs to consider the motion, then dismiss it, citing the appropriate precedents.

The Bundy crime was not simple trespass. It was attempting to seize the land on behalf of local ranchers and the state of Oregon (though that was probably an add on after the fact). Actually I am not so sure that "on behalf of local ranchers" was not an add on. I really think the Bundy's were playing out some kind of Sovereign Citizen, Local Sheriff is the highest authority, nonsense - basically an armed insurrection. The interesting thing is that when the local sheriff did not cooperate, they turned on him and tried to change it to "any sheriff who agrees with us."

And in terms of "settled law" I go back to the standing question. The only entity which would have the standing to challenge the long standing precedent of the Federal government's right to own land in Oregon would be the state of Oregon itself, not the Bundys. And of course if Oregon were to challenge that precedent, the way to do it would be through litigation, not armed insurrection. Hopefully we learned something from the Civil War.

Lawyers are officers of the court. Yes they have to represent their clients as vigorously as possible. But they do not have to - and should not indulge a client's fallacious legal theories.