DOCSLIB.ORG

Bundy MTD SMJ Adverse Reply

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bundy MTD SMJ Adverse Reply Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1178 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 7 J. Morgan Philpot (Oregon Bar No. 144811) Marcus R. Mumford (admitted pro hac vice) 405 South Main, Suite 975 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 (801) 428-2000 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Ammon Bundy IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR Plaintiff, REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE v. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF AMMON BUNDY, et al, SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION RE: ADVERSE POSSESSION Defendants. The Honorable Anna J. Brown Apparently taking its cue from the Court’s dismissive docket order [#1161], the government files a one-paragraph response to Mr. Bundy’s motion challenging the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, which brings to mind the memorable exchange from the classic film The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (Warner Bros. 1948) between a bandit (Alfonso Bedoya) and Fred Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart): BANDIT: We are federales. You know, the mounted police. DOBBS: If you are the police, where are your badges? BANDIT: Badges? We ain’t got no badges. We don’t need no badges. I don’t have to show you any stinking badges!1 The government’s response says, essentially, we don’t need to prove no stinking subject matter jurisdiction! But that’s the thing: they do. And Mr. Bundy’s motion raises serious issues, based on the 1 See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ (last visited 9/2/16); credit Dickerson v. Napolitano, 604 F.3d 732, 736 n.1 (2d Cir. 2010), and United States v. Sash, 444 F. Supp. 2d 224, 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY’S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS 1 Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1178 Filed 09/02/16 Page 2 of 7 government’s own admitted facts, as to whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. And yet, despite being put on notice that the defendants’ adverse possession claim is governed by the Color of Title Act (“CTA”), the government continues to present the kind of argument in response more indicative of first-year law student. The cases it relies on, like United States v. Pappas, only address the Quiet Title Act (“QTA”). Rather than actually confront the arguments raised, the government seems to argue that because “we are federales,” the Court can just summarily deny Mr. Bundy’s motion based on long-standing principles of property law and adverse possession. But the government’s approach, whether ignorant or purposeful, ignores Ninth Circuit precedent to the contrary. For example, the Ninth Circuit has expressly recognized with respect to the QTA and adverse possession that “[a]n exception exists for claims falling within the Color of Title Act.” United States v. Vasarajas, 908 F.2d 443, 447 n.4 (9th Cir. 1990). In Vasarajas, the defendant did not claim adverse possession, and in any event the Color of Title Act did not apply because the land at issue was “Fort Richardson, a military reservation.” Id. at 445. Furthermore, unlike this case, the defendant in Vasarajas seemed to concede that the government had “legal title to the land.” Id. at 445-46. In other words, the Vasarajas case did not involve the kind of “public lands” that are at issue in this case and to which the CTA applies. See 43 U.S.C. § 1068. Here the opposite is true; Mr. Bundy and others lawfully disseized and ousted the United States as occupants, under color of title, to directly challenge its purported title to the land. they were, therefore, staking a claim “under claim or color of title.” 43 U.S.C. § 1068; see also 43 CFR § 2541.1. The government’s one‑paragraph response offers nothing to the contrary. In fact, the government has ignored Defendants’ repeatedly provided explanations and authority on this point, in favor of summary and conclusory denials. See, again, Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY’S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS 2 Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1178 Filed 09/02/16 Page 3 of 7 1131, 1134 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (recognizing that the Color of Title Act is, “in effect, an exception to 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(n)”); United States v. Wooten, 40 F.2d 882, 884 (10th Cir. 1930) (showing that even before the amended Color of Title Act, an unperfected adverse possession was still valid, and provided equitable foundation for the Court issuing an order – outside of the Color of Title Act, explicitly estopping the federal government from claiming title to the disputed and adversely possessed land). The other cases cited by the government’s response, Wisconsin Valley Improvement Co. v. United States, 569 F.3d 331, 335 (7th Cir. 2009), and United States v. Hato Rey Bldg. Co., Inc., 886 F.2d 448, 450 (1st Cir. 1989), are similarly inapposite as QTA cases. In Hato Rey, the court acknowledged the distinction between the QTA and the CTA, as , further supporting the suggested that its conclusion might have been different had there been any grounds to assert a claim for adverse possession under the Color of Title Act. See Hato Rey, 886 F.2d at 451. Likewise, in United States v. Rice, the Ninth Circuit recognized that the CTA may “authorize adverse possession” if certain conditions are met. United States v. Rice, 886 F.3d 334, 1989 WL 112460, at *10 (9th Cir. 1989) (unpublished). In Rice, adverse possession did not apply under the CTA because “the Rices knew the title to land was in the United States.” Id. But again, this case presents the opposite, and Mr. Bundy and others staked their claim precisely based on their good faith belief and argument presented at the time, openly and notoriously, that the government does not have a valid claim of title. And yet, the government did not take any civil action, under the QTA or otherwise, to eject the Defendants and resolve matters in court. The government’s argument under the QTA indicates that it understands the The Defendants and their attorneys are not advancing uninvestigated or novel theories. The briefing to this court on the subject of adverse possession is entitled to sincere deliberating DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY’S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS 3 Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1178 Filed 09/02/16 Page 4 of 7 and consideration – contrary to the government’s recent slights. In any event, the government, on this very topic, is simply wrong. It now rests entirely on the position that “Bundy’s adverse possession theory is fatally flawed because it does not apply to the federal government.” First, the government ignores the ample authority provided by Mr. Bundy’s motion that the actual “exercise” of adverse possession through deseizen and ouster is expressly protected as “legal” conduct by longstanding common law and expressly condoned by Congress (as described in more detail below). And, the government presents no authority showing that the kind of “force” required in making a deseizen or “ouster” in claiming adverse possession – against the United States or any other purported land owner – is or can be a crime. Defendant has searched thoroughly and has found no such authority – not even close. This forecloses the issue, but it is not all. Second, besides the protected action of legally initiating, claiming and holding adverse possession (concepts the government seems to misunderstand or simply ignore) until court action is taken by someone (in this case, the United States) purporting to have legal title steps forward and ejects the adverse claimant through civil court – the government skips to the question of “perfecting title” against the federal government based upon adverse possession. Or, to make this simple, there is a difference between initiating, claiming, and holding adversely, and ultimately prevailing to “perfect” title. But, here too the government is wrong. It used to be the case, as the government cites, that adverse possession holders (who have always been protected by law up to the point that civil ejectment proceedings were initiated), were susceptible and could not sue for superior or perfected title against the United States. Some courts – not centrally considering the merits of the full scope of adverse possession rights as presented here – have observed in dicta that “One cannot gain title to land of the United States through adverse possession.” Pappas, 814 DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY’S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS 4 Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1178 Filed 09/02/16 Page 5 of 7 F.2d at 1343. But this line of authority deals with the question of perfecting title, not holding adversely prior to ejectment, and rests on the QTA, 28 U.S.C. § 2409(g), that prohibits suit for perfecting title. Of critical importance, this statute and the related law says nothing about adverse possession otherwise and Congress – since at least 1928 when it first passed the Color of Title Act expressly condoned adverse claimants and gave the Interior Secretary – rather than the courts discretion to – in fact – perfect title under certain circumstances in favor of adverse possessors. See Act of December 22, 1928, ch. 47, § 1, 45 Stat. 1069. Further, Pappas relies upon Sweeten v. United States, 684 F.2d 679, 682 (10th Cir. 1982), which argues that “[t]he Supreme Court has ruled that no title to public lands can be obtained by adverse possession, laches, or acquiescence,” which like other similar cases construe earlier dicta in United States Supreme Court cases, i.e., United States v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Untelling the Tales of Empire : : Intimate Epistemologies of the Korean War Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4049n200 Author Kim, Joo Ok Publication Date 2013 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Untelling the Tales of Empire: Intimate Epistemologies of the Korean War A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Literature by Joo Ok Kim Committee in charge: Professor Shelley Streeby, Chair Professor Lisa Lowe, Co-Chair Professor Dennis Childs Professor Jin-kyung Lee Professor Curtis Marez 2013 Copyright © Joo Ok Kim, 2013 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Joo Ok Kim is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Co-Chair ________________________________________________________________________ Co-Chair University of California, San Diego 2013 iii DEDICATION For my 할머니, 정 명단, whose life spans decades and continents, For 김 용민, a revolutionary of the heart and spirit, and For my father and my mother. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page……………………………………………………………………………iii
    [Show full text]
  • Film Websites: a Transmedia Archaeology
    Film Websites: A Transmedia Archaeology Kim Louise Walden Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Hertfordshire for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy November 2018 Acknowledgements I wish to thank my colleagues and supervisors, Steven Adams and Alan Peacock for their guidance through this research process. Thank you to my principal supervisor, Steven for his direction, and gently reminding me that it was permissible to cite myself as a secondary source. Thank you to my second supervisor, Alan for his open-mindedness, sharp insights and patience as well as innumerable cups of tea and coffee. I would like to thank Marsha Kinder, Dan Koelsch, Ian London, Franziska Nori, Rob Ford, Chris Thilk and Perry Wang for their advice, generously shared in email exchanges. Towards the end of the research, I was introduced to Bettina Sherick, a digital marketing pioneer and veteran from 20th Century Fox, and Founder of Hollywood in Pixels, a non-profit group dedicated to preserving the seminal digital film marketing campaigns. It was so wonderful to meet someone who shares my passion for film websites, so thank you to Bettina for the Skype conversations and emails. During this research process, I took my half-baked ideas to conferences, and benefitted enormously from the discussions that ensued. Subsequently some of this research has been published. So, I would like to thank Sara Pesce and Paolo Noto from the University of Bologna who edited my chapter in The Politics of Ephemeral Digital Media: Permanence and Obsolescence in Paratexts (2016); Likewise, Savatore Scifo, who edited my article for a special edition Interactions: Studies in Communications & Culture on digital archives (2017).
    [Show full text]
  • List of Misquotations - Wikiquote Page 1 of 22
    List of misquotations - Wikiquote Page 1 of 22 List of misquotations From Wikiquote This page consists of things that many people think are correct quotations but are actually incorrect. This does not include quotations that were actually blunders by the people that said them. See also: Quotations on misquotation. Contents ■ 1 Misattributed ■ 2 Unsourced, unverified, or other best guesses ■ 3 Commonly misquoted ■ 3.1 People ■ 4 Further reading Misattributed ■ "If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas." ■ George Bernard Shaw[citation needed] ■ "I don't think we're in Kansas anymore, Toto.", Dorothy Gale in The Wizard of Oz (played by Judy Garland) ■ This phrase was never uttered by the character. What she really said was Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more. ■ "Oooh, Betty", Frank Spencer in Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em (played by Michael Crawford) https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations 06-Mar-13 List of misquotations - Wikiquote Page 2 of 22 ■ He only said the line in one episode of the entire series. Most of the time, he would let out a quavering "Oooh!" ■ "Not a lot of people know that.", Michael Caine, British actor. ■ Peter Sellers said this whilst doing an impression of Michael Caine and he has become associated with the quote despite having not said it in the first place.
    [Show full text]
  • Bordering Borders: Gender Politics and Contemporary Latina Literature
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Carolina Digital Repository BORDERING BORDERS: GENDER POLITICS AND CONTEMPORARY LATINA LITERATURE Melissa Dee Birkhofer A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of English and Comparative Literature. Chapel Hill 2012 Approved by: Dr. María DeGuzmán Dr. Laura Halperin Dr. Adam Versényi Dr. Oswaldo Estrada Dr. Emilio del Valle Escalante ©2012 Melissa Dee Birkhofer ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT MELISSA BIRKHOFER: Bordering Borders: Gender Politics and Contemporary Latina Literature (Under the direction of Dr. María DeGuzmán) I approach the field of American Literature as a comparative one that includes Latina literature with hemispheric or world perspectives that differ from Anglo-European worldviews. In my examination of Latina literature I note that Latinas/os are not part of a new or emerging literature in the Americas but in fact Latinas/os are one of the original “American” writers not because they crossed the border into the U.S. but because the “border crossed them” (Flores 612). Therefore, I draw upon the growing body of work that focuses on the Latina/o writer as one who precedes the Anglo-American tradition. The works I address specifically in my dissertation focus on the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. These contemporary works are written by U.S.-based Latinas who write in English and Spanish. My dissertation, entitled Bordering Borders: Gender Politics and Contemporary Latina Literature, examines and critiques theories of border crossing in this body of literature.
    [Show full text]
  • ACE VENTURA All-Righty Then!
    1 ACE VENTURA All-righty then! ACE VENTURA, PET DETECTIVE Warner Bros., 1994 ACTOR Jim Carrey SCREENWRITERS Jack Bernstein, Tom Shadyac, Jim Carrey DIRECTOR Tom Shadyac PRODUCER James G. Robinson 2 SHERLOCK HOLMES Elementary, my dear Watson. THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES Twentieth Century Fox, 1939 ACTOR Basil Rathbone SCREENWRITERS Edwin Blum, William A. Drake DIRECTOR Alfred L. Werker PRODUCER Darryl F. Zanuck 3 TERRY McKAY Oh, it was nobody's fault but my own. I was looking up. It was the nearest thing to heaven. You were there. AN AFFAIR TO REMEMBER Twentieth Century Fox, 1957 ACTOR Deborah Kerr SCREENWRITERS Delmer Daves, Leo McCarey DIRECTOR Leo McCarey PRODUCER Jerry Wald 4 CHARLIE ALLNUT A man takes a drop too much once in a while, it's only human nature. ROSE SAYER "Nature,” Mr. Allnut, is what we are put into this world to rise above. THE AFRICAN QUEEN United Artists, 1951 ACTORS Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn SCREENWRITERS James Agee, John Huston DIRECTOR John Huston PRODUCER S. P. Eagle (Sam Spiegel) AFI is a trademark of the American Film Institute. Copyright 2005 American Film Institute. All Rights Reserved. 5 TED STRIKER Surely you can't be serious. DR. RUMACK I am serious. And don't call me Shirley. AIRPLANE! Paramount, 1980 ACTORS Robert Hays, Leslie Nielsen SCREENWRITERS Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, Jerry Zucker DIRECTORS Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, Jerry Zucker PRODUCERS Jon Davison, Howard W. Koch 6 STEVE McCROSKEY Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue. AIRPLANE! Paramount, 1980 ACTOR Lloyd Bridges SCREENWRITERS Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, Jerry Zucker DIRECTORS Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, Jerry Zucker PRODUCERS Jon Davison, Howard W.
    [Show full text]
  • ACE VENTURA All-Righty Then! SHERLOCK HOLMES Elementary
    1 ACE VENTURA All-righty then! ACE VENTURA, PET DETECTIVE Warner Bros., 1994 ACTOR Jim Carrey SCREENWRITERS Jack Bernstein, Tom Shadyac, Jim Carrey DIRECTOR Tom Shadyac PRODUCER James G. Robinson 2 SHERLOCK HOLMES Elementary, my dear Watson. THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES Twentieth Century Fox, 1939 ACTOR Basil Rathbone SCREENWRITERS Edwin Blum, William A. Drake DIRECTOR Alfred L. Werker PRODUCER Darryl F. Zanuck 3 TERRY McKAY Oh, it was nobody's fault but my own. I was looking up. It was the nearest thing to heaven. You were there. AN AFFAIR TO REMEMBER Twentieth Century Fox, 1957 ACTOR Deborah Kerr SCREENWRITERS Delmer Daves, Leo McCarey DIRECTOR Leo McCarey PRODUCER Jerry Wald 4 CHARLIE ALLNUT A man takes a drop too much once in a while, it's only human nature. ROSE SAYER "Nature,” Mr. Allnut, is what we are put into this world to rise above. THE AFRICAN QUEEN United Artists, 1951 ACTORS Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn SCREENWRITERS James Agee, John Huston DIRECTOR John Huston PRODUCER S. P. Eagle (Sam Spiegel) 5 TED STRIKER Surely you can't be serious. DR. RUMACK I am serious. And don't call me Shirley. AIRPLANE! Paramount, 1980 ACTORS Robert Hays, Leslie Nielsen SCREENWRITERS Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, Jerry Zucker DIRECTORS Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, Jerry Zucker PRODUCERS Jon Davison, Howard W. Koch 6 STEVE McCROSKEY Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue. AIRPLANE! Paramount, 1980 ACTOR Lloyd Bridges SCREENWRITERS Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, Jerry Zucker DIRECTORS Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, Jerry Zucker PRODUCERS Jon Davison, Howard W. Koch 7 CAPT.
    [Show full text]