An emergency motion to dismiss charges in the ongoing case in Oregon regarding the Bundy’s and several other defendants was filed on September 12, 2016.
A 14-page motion was submitted to Judge Anna J. Brown following all charges against reporter Pete Santilli being dropped.
According to the filing:
The Court is familiar with the issues raised concerning federal subject matter jurisdiction and adverse possession. [#649, #1228] At last Friday’s hearing, the Court said to undersigned counsel, somewhat exasperatedly: “You don’t give up, do you?” It was a moment of levity at the end of a trying week, and counsel did not conclude anything further from it. But counsel did not realize that, just a few hours earlier, the government filed documents purportedly supporting a request for judicial notice regarding ownership of the Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge (“Refuge”). [#1229, #1230] Those documents, filed at almost the last moment before Defendant Ammon Bundy is to stand trial, raise several urgent legal issues, contradicting and disproving the government’s prior statements regarding subject matter jurisdiction, and necessitating the relief sought herein.
The declaration also helps demonstrate how the evidence that the government intends to introduce at trial was seized without due process, raising significant issues which must be resolved before any trial on the underlying charges. For the reasons asserted, Mr. Bundy moves to immediately enjoin the government’s prosecution, to dismiss this matter with prejudice, to restore Mr. Bundy and the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom to the land and property they possessed prior to the government’s unlawful actions dispossessing them of that land and property, to suppress all evidence obtained by the government from the occupation site after Mr. Bundy was arrested on January 26, 2016, and for the other relief set forth below.
Veritas 13Fox and “Stacy” break down what the motion means in this audio presentation.
Stacy, has been looking into the issue of the illegal and unconstitutional occupation of state land by the central government since 2012. There is no doubt that DC wishes to control as much of the land and mineral resources as possible and they have shown they will use force, violate constitutionally protected rights and even destroy property to maintain their hold on land that belongs to the states and to the people.
The question now is will the central government save face and see that the charges are dropped from the remaining defendants or will Judge Brown do the right thing and dismiss the case altogether. Her track record is not very favorable to that line of thinking.