LISSA CASEY, OSB #086541

MICHAEL ARNOLD, OSB #011873

lissa@arnoldlawfirm.com

mike@arnoldlawfirm.com

Arnold Law

401 East 10th Ave. Ste 400

Eugene, OR 97401

Ph: 541-338-9111

Attorneys for Ammon Bundy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AMMON BUNDY et al,

 Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-CR-00051

DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT 

AMMON BUNDY’S UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO EXTEND 

DEADLINE FOR MOTION TO 

DISMISS FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION

I, Lissa Casey, declare and state that I am one of the attorneys of record 

herein for the above-named defendant, and I make this Declaration in support of 

the Motion to Extend Deadline for Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed 

herewith. I make this declaration based on information and belief and my 

professional opinions, which when made are based on a reasonable degree of 

professional certainty.

1. The motion to dismiss in this case will challenge the Federal 

Government’s authority to assert ownership over the land that is now 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 454 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 5
known as the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. It is Defendant’s 

position that this authority is critical to the Federal Government’s 

authority to have federal employees work on that land. Jurisdiction in 

this case will determine whether the Federal Government can prosecute 

protesters for being there at all.

2. The theory of the motion is, with the information we currently have, as 

follows: the original intent of the United States Constitution was to 

create the sovereign States out of the original thirteen colonies with the 

intention of a very limited federal government with powers outlined in 

the Constitution. The purposes intended for the federal government, 

were, among other things, defense, trade, and to settle disputes between 

States. Defendant will argue that the Constitution only intended to give 

broad federal power of property in Territories, as the Founders 

contemplated the expansion westward. The Federal Government’s power 

of such Territories, which Oregon formerly was, is outlined in the 

Property Clause. Defendant will cite to the Enclave Clause for the 

Government’s power over such property once it stops being a Territory 

and becomes a State. 

3. Defendant further intends to argue that once statehood occurred for 

Oregon, Congress lost the right to own the land inside the state, except 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 454 Filed 04/22/16 Page 2 of 5
for purposes outlined in Article I, section 8, clause 17 (Enclave Clause)

of the United States Constitution.

4. However, to argue this and have a sufficient record in this Court 

Defendant intends to produce evidence. This is because the land that is 

now the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was not always “federal 

land.” The federal government relinquished that land when it was 

previously deeded and homesteaded, thus relinquishing jurisdiction. It 

was mainly through property acquisition from the original deed holders 

that created this vast area now considered the wildlife refuge. The 

constitution gives specific instructions on what needs to be done in order 

for the government to reacquire what was previously deposed of federal 

lands from the new owners. One of such requirements is to go the State 

legislature and get permission after getting consent from Congress. 

Evidence must be produced regarding chain of title and actions/inactions 

by the government. Given the age of some of the documents and chain 

of title over the years, Defendant intends to call witnesses, as was needed 

in United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1 (1935). In that case, the court, 

understanding that a large amount of factual information would be 

required to analyze who actually owned the land, referred the case to a 

“master of chancery.” That person then distilled and presented evidence 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 454 Filed 04/22/16 Page 3 of 5
to the Court. Given that the defense is asking the Court to analyze legal 

authority to own land based on facts such as homesteads and deeds, we 

will need to present evidence.

5. Defense counsel intends to confer with the Government on the proposed 

structure of such hearing and what can be stipulated to streamline such 

hearing. 

6. Without showing that the sequence of the deeding and homesteading of 

the land, the Court will not have sufficient information to determine the 

constitutionality of the Government acquiring the land, and therefore 

jurisdiction in that case. In the event the Court rules adversely to the 

protesters in this case, the defense wants to ensure the record is sufficient 

for appellate review.

7. In addition to putting evidence into the record about land ownership, the 

defense also needs to provide evidence about foundational documents 

from the Federal Convention of 1787. These documents will be critical 

to the Court’s consideration about jurisdiction in this matter. These 

documents were reportedly not discovered until much of the case law 

surrounding the Enclave and Property Clause was created. The defense 

fully intends to cite all contrary authority to the Court, but these 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 454 Filed 04/22/16 Page 4 of 5
documents will inform the Court’s analysis in light of the case law 

surrounding these constitutional provisions. 

I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE 

TO THE BEST OF MYKNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT I 

UNDERSTAND THEY ARE MADE FOR USE AS EVIDENCE IN 

COURT AND ARE SUBJECT TO PENALTY FOR PERJURY. 

DATED this 22nd day of April, 2016.

By: /s/ Lissa Casey 

Lissa Casey OSB #086541

lissa@arnoldlawfirm.com

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 454 Filed 04/22/16 Page 5 of 5