IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMMON BUNDY, RYAN BUNDY, 

SHAWNA COX, DAVID LEE FRY, 

JEFF WAYNE BANTA, KENNETH 

MEDENBACH, and NEIL WAMPLER, 

Defendants. 

BROWN, Judge. 

3:16-cr-00051-BR 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 

AMMON BUNDY'S MOTION TO 

DISMISS FOR LACK OF 

SUBJECT-MATTER 

JURISDICTION RE: ADVERSE 

POSSESSION 

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Ammon 

Bundy's Motion (#1155) to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter 

Jurisdiction re: Adverse Possession. The Court concludes the 

record is sufficiently developed to decide this Motion without 

oral argument. 

In his Motion Ammon Bundy argues Congress limited the 

Court's subject-matter jurisdiction over this case in the Color 

1 - ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR 

LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION RE: ADVERSE POSSESSION 
of Title Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1068, and its enacting regulation, 43 

C.F.R. § 2541.1. The Color of Title Act provides: 

The Secretary of the Interior (a) shall, whenever it 

shall be shown to his satisfaction that a tract of 

public land has been held in good faith and in 

peaceful, adverse, possession by a claimant, his 

ancestors or grantors, under claim or color of title 

for more than twenty years, and that valuable 

improvements have been placed on such land or some part 

thereof has been reduced to cultivation, or (b) may, in 

his discretion, whenever it shall be shown to his 

satisfaction that a tract of public land has been held 

in good faith and in peaceful, adverse, possession by a 

claimant, his ancestors or grantors, under claim or 

color of title for the period commencing not later than 

January 1, 1901, to the date of application during 

which time they have paid taxes levied on the land by 

State and local governmental units, issue a patent for 

not to exceed one hundred and sixty acres of such land 

upon the payment of not less than $1.25 per acre. 

In particular, Ammon Bundy contends the Color of Title Act 

created a right to occupy and to effectuate an ouster on property 

occupied by the government. Ammon Bundy asserts the Color of 

Title Act deprives the Court of subject-matter jurisdiction over 

this matter because this case involves criminal charges based on 

Bundy's attempt to oust the government from occupation of the 

land that constitutes the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which 

he contends is expressly authorized by the Color of Title Act. 

Ammon Bundy contends the government did not take any action to 

effectuate a civil ejectment of Ammon Bundy and the other 

Defendants, and, therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction 

over these criminal proceedings. 

2 - ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR 

LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION RE: ADVERSE POSSESSION 
Ammon Bundy, however, has not cited any authority that the 

Color of Title Act deprives the Court of subject-matter 

jurisdiction over a criminal matter in which a grand jury issued 

a Superseding Indictment (#282) after a finding of probable cause 

that the Defendants violated the federal criminal statutes 

charged in that Superseding Indictment. The Color of Title Act 

does not divest the district courts of the United States of 

original jurisdiction over offenses against the laws of the 

United States under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and this Court's 

jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2, of the United States 

Constitution. 

Moreover, although Defendants' potential assertions that 

they acted with an intention to effect an adverse-possession 

claim may be relevant to contradict the government's allegation 

that they acted with the intent to join and to accomplish the 

illegal object of the conspiracy alleged in Count One, 

Defendants' asserted claim pursuant to the Color of Title Act and 

related regulations is not a legal defense to the conspiracy 

charged in Count One or any of the other Counts in the 

Superseding Indictment. Accordingly, the Court concludes 

Defendants' assertions regarding adverse possession are only 

relevant to the issue of intent and do not deprive this Court of 

subject-matter jurisdiction over these criminal proceedings. 

On this record, therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant Ammon 

3 - ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR 

LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION RE: ADVERSE POSSESSION 
Bundy's Motion (#1155) to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter 

Jurisdiction re: Adverse Possession. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 9th day of September, 2016. 

ANNA J. BROWN 

United States District Judge 

4 - ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR 

LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION RE: ADVERSE POSSESSION