HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Ammon Bundy intended occu...

Tue May 10, 2016, 05:10 PM

Ammon Bundy intended occupation to end up in civil court

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3872441-155/lawyers-ammon-bundy-intended-oregon-occupation

His lawyers in the 33-page motion say Bundy isn't an extremist or a member of any militia and doesn't hold anti-government views.

"Defendant Ammon Bundy organized his fellow citizens in protest of the expansive and unsupported interpretation of the Constitution that purports to allow the federal government to own and control more territory, and exercise jurisdiction over more land in the Western States, than the States themselves," lawyers Lissa Casey and Mike Arnold wrote in the motion.


Because everyone knows no one who attempts to overthrow the government all by his little lonesome has any anti-government views, right?

8 replies, 739 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Tue May 10, 2016, 05:17 PM

1. LOL ... When you make anti-government speeches, arm yourself, and threaten violence ...

 

and encourage others to come support you and they are anti-government, armed and take aim at Federal Agents and you don't tell your supporters to stop ... you pretty much foreclose on the chances of ending up in civil court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Tue May 10, 2016, 05:19 PM

2. Life is full of surprises when you're a complete dumbass. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #2)

Tue May 10, 2016, 05:35 PM

3. Gee, committing a crime lands you in criminal court!?!?!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Tue May 10, 2016, 05:42 PM

4. Uh huh. And LaVoy Finicum was trying to surrender,

David Fry was just a confused kid, and the Civil War was fought over "state's rights".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Tue May 10, 2016, 05:47 PM

5. An armed takeover of gov't land, a civil matter?

Did he say it with a straight face?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Tue May 10, 2016, 05:51 PM

6. His attorney is an a-hole. This is an obvious lie. And who cares what he thought would happen?

It's no defense to felony murder that you didn't think your accomplice would use that gun to shoot anybody. Why would the purported reasoning help Bundy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Tue May 10, 2016, 05:55 PM

7. The "I was only kidding" cop out isn't even in the picture.




Better think up a better defense than that guys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Tue May 10, 2016, 06:02 PM

8. The ownership of Malheur was settled in civil court a hundred years ago

Maybe these dumbasses should learn a little history!

The full history of the refuge, its various parts and the executive orders and court cases involved are detailed in this report, beginning on page 10: http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_1/NWRS/Zone_2/Malheur/Documents/MalheurNWR_FCCP_chapter1.pdf

Not only the US Supreme Court but various Oregon courts have ruled and found in favor of the US government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread