In case you forgot about it, in all the excitement of Sarah Palin’s triumphant return to national politics, Ammon Bundy and his buddies are still in armed revolt against the United States. The standoff began when a couple of Oregon ranchers were convicted of arson after they, well, committed arson. Obviously, this aggression could not stand, so — armed with the experience of helping his own family point loaded rifles at federal agents for days with nary an attempt to lock them up — Bundy felt his ragtag crowd of nitwits and drunks could bring the Republic to its knees by loading up their guns (and not nearly enough snacks) and storming the federal building where they’ve been holed up ever since. So now we have a federal building full of dildos. And some sex toys.
How much do these guys suck? They’ve forced America to side with f**king birdwatchers. Is there a more spot-on archetype of self-satisfied bore than “birdwatcher”? They just look at birds and then argue with you over whether it’s a red-crested bumblyswallow or a double red-breasted swindlypecker like it actually matters. Make no mistake, they’re not scientists discovering a new species or anything — they’re looking at animals we’ve already discovered. They’re like cancer researchers saying, “screw this, let’s tackle polio again!”
Yet here they are, the heroes of the Oregon standoff.
Most Law Firms’ AI Strategies Have a Big Blind Spot. Here’s How One Am Law 200 Firm is Solving It.
Most law firms, big and small, that have adopted AI are making the same mistake: they bought a tool for their lawyers and called it a strategy.
But in the manichean world of redneck advocacy, every hero requires a villain, and the counterweight to these birdwatchers must surely be Judge Robert C. Jones of the District of Nevada. If Bundy’s supporters want a sympathetic ear — or just a government official willing to cheer on their ranting — they need look no further than Judge Jones, who handed down a land-use case giving force to every complaint they have about the federal government. In U.S. v. Hage, Judge Jones decided that ranchers have an “easement of necessity” to enter federal lands to exercise their water rights and, for the hell of it, can bring cattle along for the ride to graze with no need to pay the government for the privilege. The problem with this ruling, according to the Ninth Circuit, is that it is premised on, quite literal, bulls**t:
Defendants openly trespassed on federal lands. Rather than simply resolving the fact-specific inquiries as to when and where the cattle grazed illegally, the district court applied an “easement by necessity” theory that plainly contravenes the law. The district court also encouraged Defendants to file a counterclaim that was clearly time barred. The only support that the court cited to overcome the obvious jurisdictional problem was a decision that stands for the opposite conclusion. Moreover, as discussed more fully in a separate disposition filed today, the court grossly abused the power of contempt by holding two federal agency officials in contempt of court for taking ordinary, lawful actions that had no effect whatsoever on this case.
One could write this off as an innocent mistake, but you’d be wrong:
A dispassionate observer would conclude that the district judge harbored animus toward the federal agencies. Unfortunately, the judge’s bias and prejudgment are a matter of public record.
The New Way Litigators Handle Depositions Applies AI Every Step Of The Way
Depositions by Filevine help with scheduling, tracking goals, and trial prep.
Hey yo! Judge Graber, ladies and gentlemen. She’ll be here all lifetime, tip your bartenders.
After judicially-authored snark of that order, we would be remiss if we don’t remember how Above the Law described Judge Graber back in 2006:
Remember that MTV cartoon character Daria? Judge Graber is sexy in a “Daria” kind of way.
Anyway, Judge Graber’s opinion continues:
On the first day of the 21-day trial, the judge stated: “the Bureau of Land Management, you come in with the standard arrogant, arbitrary, capricious attitude that I recognize in many of these cases.” “[I]t’s my experience that the Forest Service and the BLM is very arbitrary and capricious.” “Your insistence upon a trespass violation, unwillful — your arbitrary determination of unwillfulness [sic: willfulness] is undoubtedly going to fail in this court.”
This is, of course, not the first benchslap rodeo for Judge Jones, the lightning rod federal jurist who denied marriage equality in Nevada before the Ninth Circuit reversed him and he recused himself rather than issue an opinion in accordance with the law. Sparred with Judge Reinhardt, who slapped Judge Jones’s “arrogance and assumption of power,” prompting Jones to write back a petulant opinion labeling Judge Reinhardt the arrogant one. Throw in siccing U.S. Marshals on Orrick partners who advance arguments he doesn’t agree with, and you have to think Judge Jones is the loosest cannon of the federal judiciary.
A perfect match for the Bundy crew. Too bad they’ve decided to expose themselves to criminal liability in Oregon.
Once again, the birdwatchers triumph.
(You can read more Ms. Morgendorffer Judge Graber quips and all about Judge Jones’s legal reasoning on the next page…)
Court Strikes Down Idaho And Nevada’s Marriage Bans [The Advocate]
Earlier: All Terrorists Should Be Treated Like White Terrorists In Oregon
Benchslap of the Day: Trust Judge Reinhardt, He’s An Expert
Benchslap of the Day: The District Court Strikes Back
This Federal Judge Does Not Like Hippies One Darn Bit
Judge Susan Graber: Bringing Sexy Back