Oregon Malheur Trial

[notorial dissent]

And we still haven't gotten to the other three pro se's yet. Medenbach is going to be one long string of objection sustaineds and I expect CRyan to be about the same, Shawna I'm not sure about.

Ammo got in to a kerfluffel with a marshal at the end of the day Thursday and has probably lost his meeting with his lawyer at the court permission, he had commandeered his lawyer's laptop and was sending emails or something and was told not to and got mouthy with the marshal.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Knight closed his 15-minute cross-examination by getting Bundy to acknowledge receiving a $530,000 U.S. Small Business Administration loan, a move to show Bundy isn't opposed to the federal government when it can help him profit.

They also got out of him that he is a truck fleet manager not a rancher. As either me or someone else on Fogbow said "Cosplay Cowboys".

[Jeffrey]

This dude's a real gem:

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-stando ... _big-photo

During cross-examination, Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Gabriel pointed out that Medenbach since 1988 has lost all his motions in court.

Gabriel further noted that the federal judge who handled Medenbach's most recent trial in Eugene in which he was convicted of illegally camping on federal property ruled that a person may not claim title to federal government land by the principle of adverse possession.

"That's just his opinion. He doesn't have the power to interpret the Constitution,'' Medenbach responded from the witness stand.

[notorial dissent]

But Medenbach apparently does, at least according to him.

[Jeffrey]

The very knowledgeable commenters over on OregonLive noticed that the prosecution has been having some fun at the Bundy's expense. Turns out they're citing Medenbach's previous cases as precedent in the Malheur trial:

https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-medenbach

The court in his case rejected both the theory that the Federal Government can't own land and the theory that Federal courts cannot interpret the US Constitution. Importantly, this was in April 2016.

So there's a fun extra layer of irony to his "He doesn't have the power to interpret the Constitution" comment.

[TheNewSaint]

Defendant challenges the validity of Marbury v. Madison

[Jeffrey]

More gold from the comments sections. We finally have proof that Julie Embry is in fact the Guru feeding Ryan Bundy with SovCit paperwork. Today she filed motions summarized thusly:

1413: Julie Embry and Ryan Bundy (operating as trustee for RYAN BUNDY) try to say to magic words and dismiss the case with reference to unknown and perhaps fictional payment. Pages 3 & 4 are excerpts from the Uniform Commercial Code model legislation.

Oh and a good day for the prosecution:

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-stando ... river_home

Harris played the video after the judge cautioned that the video could be "quite prejudicial'' to both Cox and co-defendant Ryan Bundy, as it had the risk of "underscoring to the jury that the defendants pick and choose which laws they want to follow.'' The video captured Cox telling Finicum to "gun it, gun it,'' as he sped away from officers after their initial stop.

And from Fogbow:

Shana did not do well under cross-exam. She said she didn't see any guns. She didn't know there were any guns in the truck. Even when it was pointed out on the video that Ryan asked where are the guns. She still didn't see any guns she didn't no there were guns in the truck.

Gabriel ended cross by asking Shawna if that was her that said, gun it...

[Judge Roy Bean]

Defendant challenges the validity of Marbury v. Madison

Yea, it's been around so long.

[notorial dissent]

In case no one noticed, Medenbach's deck is light by about 50 cards.

[Hanslune]

In case no one noticed, Medenbach's deck is light by about 50 cards.

Is he holding two one-eyed knaves?

[The Observer]

Or a couple of jokers, if nd shorted the deck on him.

[TheNewSaint]

I continue to be at the idea that this guy challenged Marbury v Madison. It's probably the most famous Supreme Court case in American history, one every schoolchild learns about, and the one that empowers the Supreme Court to do everything it does in society.

I mean, how would that even work? What would the effect of a successful challenge be? Could the Supreme Court throw out Marbury v Madison, thus eliminating their ability to rule on the rest of the case? Would all the justices instantly disappear in a logical paradox? Where did he think he was going with this? I note that the above-linked ruling didn't even explain what the challenge was or why it was wrong, saying only that it had no basis.

We talk about Dunning-Kruger Effect a lot, but it's the degree of it that's shocking. We all think we're a little better than we really are at things; that's human nature. But these people think they have the power to interpret law and judges don't, while filing motions that could be defeated by an average 4th grader. Then they seem genuinely surprised and confused as to why they lost. Then they start alleging conspiracy and corruption. And other people believe them.

How does our society produce people like this? How does our society produce people that are not only astronomically ignorant of basic American history and government, but also with the attitude that their opinions are superior to everyone else's, the motivation to act on it, and the lack of perspective to stake their own freedom on it? It's easy to call these people stupid, but there's more to it than that. Stupid, aggressive, elitist, insular, and delusional, just for a start.

[Famspear]

I continue to be at the idea that this guy challenged Marbury v Madison. It's probably the most famous Supreme Court case in American history, one every schoolchild learns about, and the one that empowers the Supreme Court to do everything it does in society.....

Indeed, and that applies to all other Federal courts as well. Where, for example, a real case or controversy regarding the constitutional validity of a statute is presented to a court that has subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide that case, the idea that the court's judicial power would somehow not include the power to decide whether that statute is or is not valid simply does not make sense. As the Supreme Court stated in Marbury v. Madison, it is emphatically the province and duty of the courts "to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each..... This is of the very essence of judicial duty."

[noblepa]

I continue to be at the idea that this guy challenged Marbury v Madison. It's probably the most famous Supreme Court case in American history, one every schoolchild learns about, and the one that empowers the Supreme Court to do everything it does in society.

I mean, how would that even work? What would the effect of a successful challenge be? Could the Supreme Court throw out Marbury v Madison, thus eliminating their ability to rule on the rest of the case? Would all the justices instantly disappear in a logical paradox? Where did he think he was going was this? I note that the above-linked ruling didn't even explain what the challenge was or why it was wrong, saying only that it had no basis.

We talk about Dunning-Kruger Effect a lot, but it's the degree of it that's shocking. We all think we're a little better than we really are at things; that's human nature. But these people think they have the power to interpret law and judges don't, while filing motions that could be defeated by an average 4th grader. Then they seem genuinely surprised and confused as to why they lost. Then they start alleging conspiracy and corruption. And other people believe them.

How does our society produce people like this? How does our society produce people that are not only astronomically ignorant of basic American history and government, but also with the attitude that their opinions are superior to everyone else's, the motivation to act on it, and the lack of perspective to stake their own freedom on it? It's easy to call these people stupid, but there's more to it than that. Stupid, aggressive, elitist, insular, and delusional, just for a start.

I don't understand what the relevance of Marbury is to Malhuer occupation case. The most important result of Marbury was, of course, the affirmation of the concept of Judicial Review, that the courts can and should declare laws unconstitutional when they conflict with the US Constitution. How does that effect the current case?

Even if the court were to "overrule" Marbury (can a district court even do that; overrule a SCOTUS ruling?), what difference would it make? The idea of judicial review doesn't appear to me to be at all involved in the current trial.

[TheNewSaint]

I don't understand what the relevance of Marbury is to Malheur occupation case. The most important result of Marbury was, of course, the affirmation of the concept of Judicial Review, that the courts can and should declare laws unconstitutional when they conflict with the US Constitution. How does that effect the current case?

Even if the court were to "overrule" Marbury (can a district court even do that; overrule a SCOTUS ruling?), what difference would it make? The idea of judicial review doesn't appear to me to be at all involved in the current trial.

To be fair, we don't know that they are raising Marbury in the Malheur case. Only that the prosecution cited a previous case in which Medenbach did raise Marbury (linked below).

That aside: in the prior case, Medenbach filed a total of three motions to dismiss challenging the government's jurisdiction over federally-owned land, and the authority of federal courts to interpret the Constitution.

As to why challenge Marbury, my guess would be that they are challenging the court's authority to rule on the matter at all. This is consistent with the other two motions, which make arguments to the same end. They argue that the federal government has no jurisdiction over federal lands, and the federal courts have no jurisdiction to rule on points of law. All of this is, of course, ridiculous, but that's what they seem to be arguing. These are also both oft-stated positions of the Bundy clan.

I further note that the Medenbach case cites a third, even earlier, Medenbach case, "rejecting similar argument raised by Defendant in prior criminal action." Some people just don't learn.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Paranoia, get your paranoia here!
Prosecution has stated there were 15 human informants involved. Fogbow thinks they know two.

[Famspear]

.....Even if the court were to "overrule" Marbury (can a district court even do that; overrule a SCOTUS ruling?)......

Good point. A lower court cannot "overrule" a holding of a higher court to which an appeal or other judicial review might properly and ultimately be available. If the district court were to refuse to follow the precedent laid out by the higher court, the losing party would have good ground for appeal, and would win on appeal.

[notorial dissent]

Medenbach is another of the crowd who want to believe that the gov't and court ONLY have authority in DC, can't own property, etc, or something like that, his confusion changes daily, but he doesn't like Marbury because he claims the courts don't have authority to interpret the Constitution, so if they don't, then who does, certainly not itinerant vagabond squatters like Medenbach, I hope. Medenbach is a fool's fool, he is incidentaly the one who has been filing reams of paper with the court and appellate courts claiming that the trial is unlawful because the judge didn't take the exact prescribed, according to him, oath required for judges so it is all null and void. They've laughed, the district courts and the appellate court, at him almost as much as they did over his unique theories of law and adverse possession. Like I said, a fool's fool, and to prove it, he's representing himself.

[Lambkin]

http://koin.com/2016/09/15/defendant-me ... estroy-us/

“I’ve been at this for 21 years,” he told KOIN 6 News. He said he took some federal land back then and “made some idle threats about the militia helping me out” and landed in jail for a short time.
Around that time, he said he learned about the 1803 Supreme Court decision, Marbury v Madison, and decided he wanted to overturn it.

“The federal government doesn’t have the power to interpret the Constitution,” he said. “I’m a Christian. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution and the Bible says we need to abide by the law.”

“The federal government,” he said, “doesn’t have the power to own land in the State of Oregon.”

[fortinbras]

Article IV, sec. 3, cl. 2, says "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; and nothinng in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State." So it seems to me that, yes, the federal govt can own property within Oregon. Among other things, the federal govt can own military bases, prisons, veterans hospitals, schools, office buildings, parks, and monuments.