The Bundys are at it again.

[friedo]

@Chimera

“Their plea deals call for sentences of six years in federal prison, although their defense attorneys can seek leniency at sentencing Dec. 1. Each also could be fined as much as $500,000 and be subject to as much as three years of government supervision after prison.”

Thank you.

[eschereal]

Meanwhile, Ammon’s attorney demonstrates once again that these guys are in their own league of stupid. He thinks he is Humphrey Bogart – or maybe just that the case is a goldmine.

[kaylasdad99]

@eschereal

Meanwhile, Ammon’s attorney demonstrates once again that these guys are in their own league of stupid. He thinks he is Humphrey Bogart – or maybe just that the case is a goldmine.

Oh, the “stinking badges” bit.

For a minute, I was afraid he had broken into the Walter Huston dance…

[Balance]

@kaylasdad99

Oh, the “stinking badges” bit.

Should we expect to see him badgering witnesses?

[OttoDaFe]

@kaylasdad99

@eschereal

Meanwhile, Ammon’s attorney demonstrates once again that these guys are in their own league of stupid. He thinks he is Humphrey Bogart – or maybe just that the case is a goldmine.

Oh, the “stinking badges” bit.

For a minute, I was afraid he had broken into the Walter Huston dance…

I’m intrigued by the entrapment* claim. The only way it makes sense** to me is if the government prosecuted and imprisoned the Hammonds for the purpose of luring the Bundys to Malheur. If that were the case, the evil genius who concocted the scheme could give lessons to Machiavelli, with Cardinal Richelieu thrown in for good measure.

*Warning: pdf.
** For certain values of “sense.”

[Trinopus]

I’m still gaping in astonishment over the “adverse possession” claim.

So…if I commit criminal trespass, that entitles me to claim legal ownership of the land I occupy…by adverse possession? Man, I’m gonna go squat in some rich guy’s house while he’s on vacation!

[eschereal]

@Trinopus

I’m still gaping in astonishment over the “adverse possession” claim.

So…if I commit criminal trespass, that entitles me to claim legal ownership of the land I occupy…by adverse possession? Man, I’m gonna go squat in some rich guy’s house while he’s on vacation!

The adverse possession claim is based on the “fact” that the land in question belongs to the county/people. The federal government does (or should) not have the right/authority to own land, other than a few small forts and docks. This is part of Mumford’s argument: that the case must be thrown out because the Feds lack jurisdiction.

[Chimera]

@eschereal

The adverse possession claim is based on the “fact” that the land in question belongs to the county/people. The federal government does (or should) not have the right/authority to own land, other than a few small forts and docks. This is part of Mumford’s argument: that the case must be thrown out because the Feds lack jurisdiction.

Despite the fact that their County-centric model of the Universe has never existed in any form anywhere.

[Ludovic]

And the fact that every stakeholder in the county wanted them to leave the refuge.

[Algher]

@Ludovic

And the fact that every stakeholder in the county wanted them to leave the refuge.

And the fact that the Constitution specifically gives power to the Federal government:

ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 2
“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States…”

I realize it is Heritage - but their page on this subject appears to be fairly comprehensive:

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution

[Ludovic]

Reading the constitution is great and all, but I’m far more amused that they didn’t even play by their own rules.

“We won’t leave unless the Sheriff tells us to leave!”
Sheriff: “Leave”
“We mean a constitutionally elected Sheriff!”

“We won’t leave unless the county citizens ask us to leave!”
Town hall meeting: “Leave”
(Actually I don’t remember the answer to that one)

“The land should be returned to the people”
Burns Paiute: “You mean, us?”
“The people – except the Indians.”

[Rick_Kitchen]

The latest on the Bundy trial, including requesting to be allowed to wear cowboy boots in court.

[Punoqllads]

@Rick_Kitchen

The latest on the Bundy trial, including requesting to be allowed to wear cowboy boots in court.

“Ranch Stupidian”. I love it.

[eschereal]

Neil Wampler is going to win this,

… is one of several defendants on pretrial release. On his way into the courtroom, he said he believes that the occupation inspired a movement that can’t be stopped, even if he and the occupation leaders are found guilty.

“At the end of this affair, I think the federal government is going to wish they never dragged us into court. They can’t win, and we can’t lose. We got ‘em right where we want them now.”

“This case is a house of cards. Even what we’ve seen so far in the pretrial hearings, the prosecution is talking in circles and experiencing wheel spin trying to substantiate these bombastic accusations.”

and with his previous serious legal problems in California, he durn-well better. I really enjoy this bit about inspiring a movement that cannot be stopped. Have you notice this movement? I sure seem to have missed it. Perhaps he means the other kind of movement?

[Der_Trihs]

@eschereal

I really enjoy this bit about inspiring a movement that cannot be stopped. Have you notice this movement?

Extremists of this type usually seem to be sure that there’s a vast number of people who support them, who will rise up any moment now and overthrow the hated Federal government. Just like all the people they thought were going to be inspired by their occupation of some federal buildings and rise up in support of them.

And no matter how many times their legions of followers fail to materialize, they never seem to figure out that there is no such huge base of support.

[mistymage]

@eschereal

Neil Wampler is going to win this,

and with his previous serious legal problems in California, he durn-well better. I really enjoy this bit about inspiring a movement that cannot be stopped. Have you notice this movement? I sure seem to have missed it. Perhaps he means the other kind of movement?

The kind of movement that the occupiers left behind at the Refuge? “Some of the refuge’s pipes broke, after which the militants, officials said, defecated “everywhere.”[197] Investigators found “significant amounts of human feces” at “two large trenches and an improvised road on or adjacent to grounds containing sensitive artifacts” of the Burns Paiute Tribe”

Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge | FBI investigation of scene and damage to refuge

[eschereal]

yes, that kind of movement

[Abe_Babe]

@eschereal

Neil Wampler is going to win this,
… is one of several defendants on pretrial release. On his way into the courtroom, he said he believes that the occupation inspired a movement that can’t be stopped, even if he and the occupation leaders are found guilty.

“At the end of this affair, I think the federal government is going to wish they never dragged us into court. They can’t win, and we can’t lose. We got ‘em right where we want them now.”

“This case is a house of cards. Even what we’ve seen so far in the pretrial hearings, the prosecution is talking in circles and experiencing wheel spin trying to substantiate these bombastic accusations.”

and with his previous serious legal problems in California, he durn-well better. I really enjoy this bit about inspiring a movement that cannot be stopped. Have you notice this movement? I sure seem to have missed it. Perhaps he means the other kind of movement?

“Those poor bastards, They’ve got us right where we want them. We can fire in any direction now!” -Lt. Gen. “Chesty” Puller

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Trinopus

I’m still gaping in astonishment over the “adverse possession” claim.

So…if I commit criminal trespass, that entitles me to claim legal ownership of the land I occupy…by adverse possession? Man, I’m gonna go squat in some rich guy’s house while he’s on vacation!

Not exactly. Your occupation must be, among other things, “open and notorious” and typically has to last for several years (though this can vary by jurisdiction). So you don’t get to keep someone’s house because they’re on vacation, though you might if it is abandoned).

Typically, adverse possession arises in less deliberate circumstances, such as when you put a fence up a foot over the property line and your neighbor doesn’t do anything about it for a few years.

[JRDelirious]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

So you don’t get to keep someone’s house because they’re on vacation, though you might if it is abandoned.

IIRC some urban SovCits do try this – they whip out a bogus “lien” declaring a home is “abandoned” when it’s merely temporarily unoccupied, forcing the legit owners to go through eviction proceedings.