Three weeks before trial, Ammon Bundy has appealed to a higher court for pretrial release, arguing that he's being kept in jail without any evidence that he would present a danger to the community or flee if let out of custody now.

Bundy led a lawful, nonviolent occupation at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge "where citizens were meaningfully petitioning their government for redress,'' according to a 40-page brief filed this week with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by his attorney, Marcus Mumford.

Bundy isn't a flight risk because he's eager to "advance his arguments'' in court, particularly his advocacy of the "constitutional limits placed on the federal government,'' Mumford wrote.

The appeal follows a July 19 ruling by Oregon's U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones declining to release Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, after reviewing their detention. Jones said he was concerned the brothers might fail to return to court or recruit others to stage another unlawful standoff if released.

Prosecutors have highlighted statements that Ammon Bundy has made in the past, such as "There is no justice in a federal court'' and "The feds have used the courts to take rights not protect them.''

But Mumford said the court can't rely on those statements to keep Ammon Bundy behind bars.

"The government cannot seriously construe a defendant's political opinion to support a finding of flight without any actual evidence of that defendant's propensity to flee,'' he wrote.

Ammon Bundy and his brother are among 26 defendants charged in federal court with conspiring to impede federal employees at the eastern Oregon wildlife sanctuary through intimidation, threats or force. Eleven have pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge. The Bundy brothers are among eight defendants set to go to trial Sept. 7. Seven others have a Feb. 14 trial date.

Even if the 9th Circuit were to reverse the Bundys' continued detention, the brothers face a federal hold on a federal indictment in Nevada.

There, the Bundys are accused of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and other charges in the April 2014 armed standoff with U.S. Bureau of Land Management officers trying to corral the cattle of their father, Cliven Bundy, that had been grazing on federal land near his ranch in Bunkerville.

Mumford described his client as a family man committed to his church, community and business. He claimed that Ammon Bundy repeatedly urged others not to use violence during the Nevada standoff.

Mumford also described Ryan Bundy as a man of moral character who didn't grab nearby guns when police shot at occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy" Finicum's truck on Jan. 26 in Oregon. Bundy was in the truck. State police shot and killed Finicum during the police stop on a rural road outside the refuge. Finicum reached several times inside his jacket, investigators said. He was found with a loaded handgun.

"This is the first time they have been held to answer for serious criminal charges, and all evidence indicates they take this seriously, that they respect this Court and have a strong desire to defend themselves and vindicate their principles through legal process,'' Mumford wrote.

In a separate brief filed this week in Oregon's federal court, Mumford urged the court to allow the Bundys to argue the "adverse possession'' defense at trial. Adverse possession is the occupation of land that belongs to someone else with the intention of possessing it as one's own.

He wrote that the court must consider that Ammon and Ryan Bundy intended to stake claim to the refuge as part of a "deeply important and passionate political dispute.''

"The issue becomes whether those actions in pursuit of their constitutional and statutory rights can simultaneously be criminal,'' Mumford wrote.

Judge Jones last month dismissed the adverse possession defense as implausible, noting it doesn't apply to federal government property.

Mumford initially filed a 28-page brief that included references to former Vice President Al Gore, presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, radio commentator Paul Harvey and Olympic gold medal swimmer Michael Phelps.

U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown, the trial judge, this week pointed out Mumford's brief exceeded the court's page limit, prompting him to file a new, pared-down 11-page brief.

"Regardless of whether Mr. Bundy's attempted adverse possession of the refuge would have been successful - it was unquestionably legal to try,'' Mumford wrote.

Prosecutors have asked the court to prevent the Bundys from raising the defense at trial. Generally, property owned by the United States isn't subject to adverse possession, and the defendants had previous knowledge that the federal government has title to the land, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight wrote. Such a civil claim can't be used as a defense to alleged criminal conduct, prosecutors have argued.

Mumford countered that prosecutors have no authority to exclude the defense. Doing so, he wrote, would be akin to the government chaining "Michael Phelps to the wall of the swimming pool'' to beat him in the 100m butterfly.

Pretrial conferences in the Oregon standoff case, to determine what evidence can be allowed in at trial, are set to start Monday morning before Judge Brown.

-- Maxine Bernstein

mbernstein@oregonian.com

503-221-8212

@maxoregonian