The story that Judge Anna Brown suppressed at the hearing for Ammon Bundy and the other six protesters has been given in depth in this great video that I found at the Bundy Ranch website on Facebook. It is clear now to everyone that the protesters we not guilty, because of the “not guilty verdict”, however there was a lot of uncertainty for people as the judge suppressed evidence, and testimony in regards to this case. However I had some questions recently come up on my video that I made when I had an armed vigil at the Maine State House of Representatives for Robert Lavoy Finicum ( Robert LaVoy Funicum Vigil February 5th 2016 )
One fellow who is an anonymous youtube user, states a case against Adverse Possession by citing;
“He was not charged with trespassing so “Adverse Possession” is not a legal defense for the charges of “conspiring to impede federal officers” OR “possession of firearms in a federal facility.” Pull your head out of your ass and read something about the case or about Adverse Possession. Nor were they changed with camping or protesting for the love of God have you read ANYTHING about his case or just the supporters blogs where they want to brainwash you into sending them more money? That is like me being charged with Battery and telling the judge I was committing Adverse Possession. It makes no sense, does not apply, is ridiculous and ludicrous.”
You do not need to be charged with trespassing to pursue adverse possession John H. The fact that they were not charged with tresspassing shows that their adverse possession claim is still valid. If the occupants are not evicted through the proper means, then adverse possession can go forward. They were not evicted. Show me a legal precedent that says a claim of adverse possession MUST be followed with a charge of trespassing to be validated. LOL And the fact that they were exonerated on all of the charges that you claimed, shows that they did nothing wrong. And your claim of “battery” has nothing to do with the topic. They took the building by means of adverse possession. Just because the feds murdered someone, and trumped up bunk charges on everyone else, does not mean that they were guilty of ANYTHING. Clearly that is the case, based on the NOT GUILTY verdict.
To which he replied;
Oh for God’s sake, I give up. You, as a grown man believe there’s a law on the books that allows you to take someone’s property from them merely by continuously occupying it for 7-10 years? Why didn’t they take Trump Tower or the property they graze their welfare cattle on from the federal government? “Adverse Possession can never be used to claim ownership over land that belongs to the state or United States of America” http://www.gabriellawoffice.com/?page_id=102
The Constitution defines what limitations the Federal Government has to claim land. Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17 The government never had a legitimate claim on that land, because by the definitions in the constitution, it simply can not own the land there in Harney County for the purposes that it says it is using it for. Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17 In U.S. v. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 11, the Court declared: “It cannot be denied that the power of the state to protect the lives, health and property of its citizens and to preserve good order and the public morals, the power to govern men and things within the limits of its dominion, is a power originally and always belonging to the state, not surrendered to the general [federal] Government, nor directly restrained by the Constitution of the United States, and essentially exclusive.”
He makes the point;
“Oregon wasn’t even a state until nearly one hundred years after the constitution was signed therefore Harney County was non existent as well.” (there was some personal insults and other unrelated conversation, but that was the part related to this)
Then to my final reply for the sake of keeping this blog short and sweet, but you can read the whole thing at youtube
That doesn’t exempt it from the constitution, and you sir are changing the topic quite a bit. First you say there is no law that allows someone to take land. That is untrue, Adverse Possession allows that. As to the statement that you made about “Enclaves may be held only for enumerated purposes” Yes and the Enumerated purposes are quite clearly defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings” None of those things include national parks, BLM land, or the alike. Lets go over these things one by one. “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) ” The BLM land in Harney county far exceeds these limitations. There is 9,930 miles of land in Harney county, and the BLM controls 72% of it. That is quite a bit more than 10 miles in a district. “and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings” Erection of Forts? BLM? Not the same or similar Magazines? BLM? Not the same or similar Arsenals? BLM? Not the same or similar Dock-yards? BLM? Not the same or similar “and other needful Buildings” This is ambiguous, however lets pretend that the BLM falls under this clause. The 10 mile limit restriction defined in the constitution has been far far exceeded, and therefore is not constitutionally authorized http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_17.html
See more at http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/ You can also donate to help the family out while dealing with these issues at that website via paypal.
This is a link about their recent hearing on December 9th 2016; http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/ammon-ryan-refuse-attend-hearing/
The truth about Oregon. According to Gavin Seim for Liberty