We’ve been talking about Really Serious Stuff around here for awhile, and it’s time to lighten up. But first, whatever you are doing now, please be sure to put your beverage aside — ladies and gentlemen, I give you … Ammon Bundy’s legal defense.
And it is: The feds have no jurisdiction over federal land.
I’ll pause now to let you catch your breath.
Bundy, who led an armed occupation of the Malheur national wildlife refuge, has long claimed that the federal government has no right regulating public lands in the west, and now his legal team is bringing that argument directly to US prosecutors, who have filed a slew of serious felony charges against the activist.
The new motion, which lays the groundwork for a request to dismiss the criminal case against Bundy, presents an argument that legal experts have rejected as an inaccurate interpretation of the US constitution â€“ that the federal government has unlawfully claimed ownership over the wildlife refuge and other public lands.
“Once statehood occurred for Oregon, Congress lost the right to own the land inside the state,” the defense argued in the brief.
Bundy’s defense is expected to argue in court that Malheur was not federal land because it had been doled out to homesteaders and was “relinquished.” It is also expected to “provide evidence about foundational documents from the Federal Convention of 1787.”
Prosecutors will prepare a rebuttal as soon as they stop giggling, I’m sure.