Proposed Changes to Federal Nevada Local Rules 2016 include deleting LR 7-5 and 7-6!!!

Proposed Changes to Federal Nevada Local Rules 2016 include deleting LR 7-5 and 7-6!!! see

Be sure to add a comment that LR7-5 and Lr 7-6 remain and include the use of email:

Comments: After carefully reviewing the proposed 2016 rules I immediately noticed my two favorite local rules LR 7-5 and LR 7-6 have been completely removed! I request that these rules remain and are updated to include “letter/mail” in rule 7-6 and add the option to send a ex parte motion via email for 7-5.

They were: LR 7-5. EX PARTE AND EMERGENCY MOTIONS. (a) Ex Parte Definition. An ex parte motion or application is a motion or application that is filed with the Court, but is not served upon the opposing or other parties. (b) All ex parte motions, applications or requests shall contain a statement showing good cause why the matter was submitted to the Court without notice to all parties. (c) Motions, applications or requests may be submitted ex parte only for compelling reasons, and not for unopposed or emergency motions. (d) Written requests for judicial assistance in resolving an emergency dispute shall be entitled “Emergency Motion” and be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth: (1) The nature of the emergency; (2) The office addresses and telephone numbers of movant and all affected parties; and, (3) A statement of movant certifying that, after personal consultation and sincere effort to do so, movant has been unable to resolve the matter without Court action. The statement also must state when and how the other affected party was notified of the motion or, if the other party was not notified, why it was not practicable to do so. If the nature of the emergency precludes such consultation with the other party, the statement shall include a detailed description of the emergency, so that the Court can evaluate whether consultation truly was precluded. It shall be within the sole discretion of the Court to determine whether any such matter is, in fact, an emergency.

Post image for A Lawyer’s Delight – – following those local rules, . . .LR 7-6. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. (a) Neither party nor counsel for any party shall make an ex parte communication with the Court except as specifically permitted by these Rules. (b) Any unrepresented party or counsel may send a letter to the Court at the expiration of sixty (60) days after any matter has been, or should have been, fully briefed if the Court has not entered its written ruling. If such a letter has been sent and a written ruling still has not been entered one hundred twenty (120) days after the matter has been or should have been fully briefed, any unrepresented party or counsel may send a letter to the Chief Judge, who shall inquire of the judge about the status of the matter.Copies of all such letters must be served upon all other counsel and unrepresented parties.

The Local Civil, Patent, and Criminal Rules Committees for the United States District Court for the District of Nevada have proposed amendments to the court’s local rules of practice and seek comment from the bench, bar, and public. All comments will be carefully considered by the rules committees. Please provide any comments as soon as possible but no later than Monday, March 7, 2016. Comments concerning the proposed amendments must be submitted using the electronic comment form on the court’s website. Click on the red box below to access the proposed amendments and electronic comment form.
Click hereto review and comment on the proposed amendments to the local rules.

All Northern Nevada Federal Judges are recused from TY ROBBEN v CARSON CITY lawsuit(S)


 Update March 2016: Judge Richard Franklin Boulware II
now presides over all cases since Judge James C. Mahan recused in February 2916! 

Richard Franklin Boulware II (born 1968) is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada and former assistant Federal Public Defender.

Boulware received an Artium Baccalaureus degree, cum laude, in 1993 from Harvard College and studied toward a PhD in Sociology from 1995–1998. He received a Juris Doctor in 2002 from Columbia Law School. From 2002 to 2003, he served as a law clerk to Judge Denise Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

From 2003 to 2007, he was a trial attorney in the Federal Public Defender’s Office in New York. He has served in the Federal Public Defender’s Office in Las Vegas,Nevada since 2007, serving as the lead attorney for complex white-collar cases since 2010.[1]

On January 16, 2014, President Obama nominated Boulware to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, to the seat vacated by Judge Philip Martin Pro, who took senior status on December 31, 2011.[2]

He received a hearing before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on March 12, 2014.[3]

On April 3, 2014 his nomination was reported out of committee by a vote of 11-7.[4] On June 5, 2014 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed for cloture on the nomination. On Monday, June 9, 2014 The United States Senate agreed on the motion to invoke cloture by a vote of 53-34.[5] On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 The U.S. Senate voted 58-35 in favor of final confirmation.[6] He received his judicial commission on June 10, 2014.[7] He was sworn in on June 12, 2014.[8]

On September 9, 2015 President Barack Obama nominated Boulware to a position on the United States Sentencing Commission. If confirmed he would replace former Commissioner Ketanji Brown Jackson and his term would expire October 31, 2019.[9] His nomination is now pending before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary.[10]

Judge Richard F. Boulware

The letter comes pursuant to LR 7-6 and 7-5. Case number 3:13-cv-00438-RFB-VPC is now assigned to Judge Richard F. Boulware and has various motions that have been pending over 60 and 120 days including a motion for summary judgment, motion for PACER fee waiver and several ex parte 7-5 motions to void/vacate all orders issued by the former judge Miranda Du and Magistrate Valerie Cooke.

Case number 3:15-cv-00529-RFB-VPC is now assigned to Judge Richard F. Boulware  and has a motion for fee waiver outstanding past 60 days.
Case number 3:15-cv-00530-JCM-VPC is now assigned to  Judge James C. Mahan  Judge Richard F. Boulware and  and has a motion for fee waiver outstanding past 60 days.

Judge James C. Mahan

I have filed several Local Rule LR 7-6 and 7-5 letters and motions that are not on the record. I have resent these to  Judge Richard F. Boulware  and Judge James C. Mahan via email and called their chambers to verify hey received the emails that were also sent to the Defendants’ counsel Brian M. Brown.

As I’ve stated in the previous emails, I may file a petition for writ-of-mandate in the 9th circuit court of appeals if my cases continue to remain in limbo. As you know, the entire Northern District of the Federal Court has recused from all three cases and I did suggest to the Chief Judge Gloria Navarro that the entire Nevada Federal Court should be recused and the cases assigned to the 9th circuit for the appointment of an out-of-state judge on all 3 cases. This did not happen and instead Navarro reassigned the cases to Judge Richard F. Boulware and Judge James C. Mahan.
There is urgency since these cases need the fee waivers granted for PACER along with allowing the Plaintiff (me) the ability to file on-line with PACER. I’ve also requested filing fee wavers for both 3:15-cv-00529-RFB-VPC and 3:15-cv-00530-JCM-VPC need to be “filed” so the statute-of-limitations does not become an issue.
Case 3:13-cv-00438-RFB-VPC has been sitting around over 1 1/2/ years on a summary judgment motion. I’ve argued that summary judgment is unconstitutional pursuant to the 7th Amendment in addition to opposing the motion. This motion is ripe and past the 120 day waiting for a decision. Additionally, the motion will exceed 6 months and need to be filed Every six months (October 1 and April 1) every judge must submit a report to Washington that becomes publicly available. Among other things, the judge must report on whether any motion has been under submission more than six months.
I’ve started to write a petition for writ of mandamus to the 9th circuit. Here is some law in addition to the judicial code-of-conduct (canons) that a judge has a duty to decide a case.

A Writ of Mandamus is Necessary to Compel the Court of Appeals to Decide the Emergency Motion for a Stay of Proceedings “Repeated decisions of this court have established the rule that this court has power to issue a mandamus, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and that the writ will lie in a proper case to direct a subordinate Federal court to decide a pending cause.” Knickerbocker Ins. Co. v. Comstock, 16 Wall. 258, 270 (1872). Where a lower court’s failure to act obstructs litigants from having their claims adjudicated and ultimately brought before a higher court, this Court and the courts of appeals have consistently issued writs of mandamus so that the legal process can proceed. In Ex parte Crane, 5 Pet. 190 (1831), this Court issued a writ of mandamus to compel a lower court to render its judgment, because failing to do so prevented the petitioner from pursuing an appeal.

Chief Justice Marshall, writing for the Court, held that “We cannot perceive a reason why the single case of a refusal by an inferior court to sign a bill of exceptions, and thus to place the law of the case on the record, should be withdrawn from that general power to issue writs of mandamus to inferior courts, which is conferred by statute.” Id. at 194; see also Ex parte United States, 287 U.S. 241 (1932) (writ issued to district judge instructing him to issue a bench warrant); Ex parte Bradstreet, 32 U.S. 634 (1833); Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 323 (1879) (extraordinary writs have “very much extended in modern times, and now it may be said to be an established remedy to oblige inferior courts and magistrates to do that justice which they are in duty, and by virtue of their office, bound to do.”). Likewise in Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 437 U.S. 655 (1978), this Court affirmed the Circuit Court’s issuance of the writ of mandamus to a district judge, who deferred the adjudication of the petitioner’s federal claims during the pendency of a state court action. This Court held that “There can be no doubt that, where a district court persistently and without reason refuses to adjudicate a case properly before it, the court of appeals may issue the writ ‘in order that [it] may exercise the jurisdiction of review given by law.’”

Id. at 661-62 (quoting Knickerbocker, 16 Wall. at 270). To hold otherwise, the Court has explained, would be to give the lower court a pocket-veto over the higher court’s supervisory jurisdiction and result in an indefinite obstruction of the appellate process. See Roche, 319 U.S. at 25 (“Otherwise the appellate jurisdiction could be defeated and the purpose of the statute authorizing the writ thwarted by unauthorized action of the district court obstructing the appeal”). Following this Court’s direction, the courts of appeal have issued writs of mandamus when the failure of a district court judge to rule on a dispositive motion prejudices the litigants’ ability to seek a timely appeal.5 In McClellan v. Young, 421 F.2d 690 (6th Cir. 1970), for example, a district court had allowed four months to elapse before ruling on a prisoner’s petition for habeas corpus. Citing La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 (1957), the Sixth Circuit issued the writ and ordered the district judge to render his decision within ten days of the mandate being issued. Id. at 691; see also In re Sharon Steel Corp., 918 F.2d 434, 437 (3d Cir. 1990) (writ issued to a district judge who declined to rule on a dispositive motion, where “the district court’s inaction [was] an unexplained abdication of judicial power” because the district judge “had a duty to dispose of that motion, a duty inherent in a judicial system which guarantees a conditional right to an appeal.”). Petitioner concedes that “[m]andamus, prohibition and injunction against judges are drastic and extraordinary remedies.” Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. at 259. Nevertheless, this Court’s issuance of the writ has become necessary to preserve its own appellate jurisdiction. In the circumstances presented here, “appeal is a clearly inadequate remedy,” id. at 260, insofar as it is the appeal itself that is obstructed by the Court of Appeals’ failure to rule.

Continue reading

Ty Robben’s letter to the Reno Federal Court


Plaintiff In Pro Se


















Case No. 3:13-CV-00438-RCJ-VPC















7th amendment, seventh amendment, Reno, Reno federal court, Miranda Du, Brian Brown lawyer, brian brown attorney, thorndal, ty robben,

Ty Robben protests the Reno Federal courthouse 2015 “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied”

Click here: Tahoe Mountain News covers Ty Robben’s protest

and part II here: Tahoe Mountain News covers part II of the Ty Robben vs. Justin Brothers Bail Bonds ‘Bounty Hunter’ case where criminal charges have been filed against agent Doug Lewis

Taxpayer money spent on RETALATION


LVRJ logo

Embattled federal judge taking senior status

Embattled Federal Judge Robert Cliven Jones calls it quits


A longtime Reno federal judge who has repeatedly clashed with an appeals court is taking senior status next month.

Robert Clive Jones, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in October 2003, becomes a part-time judge on Feb. 1, according to court officials.

Federal Clerk of Courts Lance Wilson said Jones plans to keep his cases but will reduce his new caseload to 35 percent of what he is now receiving.

One case Jones won’t be keeping is the longstanding legal dispute between the government and the family of the late Nevada rancher Wayne Hage. The family was accused of trespassing for grazing cattle without a permit on federal land.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this week reversed Jones and sided with the government. The court ordered Jones, who was openly critical of the government’s actions, removed from the case because of his apparent bias.

The decades-long dispute centers on the Hage family’s Pine Creek Ranch near Tonopah, and is well known in the West and among property rights advocates who charge the government exercises a heavy hand in relations with those who make their livelihood off the land.

Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro in Nevada on Tuesday assigned the Hage case to herself.

Jones, who was born and raised in Las Vegas, served as a bankruptcy judge for years before he became a district judge. He is a graduate of the UCLA School of law.

Several of his other high-profile decisions in recent years have been overturned by the 9th Circuit.

His rejection of same-sex marriage in Nevada in 2012 was reversed in 2014. So was his 2012 effort to pull “None of These Candidates” off the ballots.

Jones also was overturned in September 2015 when the 9th Circuit revived a lawsuit against the Nevada Health and Human Services Department over the issue of disenfranchising potential low-income and disabled voters.

Jones, who did not return a call for comment, will continue to keep his full-time salary while on senior status, even with a reduced caseload.

Senior judges in the federal court system must be at least 65 and have served on the bench for 15 years.

The full-time position Jones is vacating will be filled by presidential appointment, according to Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law in Virginia.

But a nominee likely won’t be confirmed by the U.S. Senate until 2017 because of the election year, Tobias said.

Contact Jeff German at or 702-380-8135. Find him on Twitter: @JGermanRJ.

Ty Robben filming of lawless America movie

Ty Robben filming of lawless America movie

Plaintiff, Todd Robben comes now before “the court” which is more than a “presiding judge”. “A judge is not the court” People v Zajic, 88 Ill. App.3rd 477,410 N.E.2nd 626 (1980). The court encompasses the entire “court” pursuant to Local Rule LR 7-6.


(a) Neither party nor counsel for any party shall make an ex parte communication with the Court except as specifically permitted by these Rules.

(b) Any unrepresented party or counsel may send a letter to the Court at the expiration of sixty (60) days after any matter has been, or should have been, fully briefed if the Court has not entered its written ruling. If such a letter has been sent and a written ruling still has not been entered one hundred twenty (120) days after the matter has been or should have been fully briefed, any unrepresented party or counsel may send a letter to the Chief Judge, who shall inquire of the judge about the status of the matter. Copies of all such letters must be served upon all other counsel and unrepresented parties.

Judge Robert C. Jones

This letter will be printed and sent to the newly assigned current presiding judge Robert C. Jones if I am unable to obtain his email address. I will also email this letter to the entire court and post the “open” letter/motion on his website Nevada State Personnel WATCH[1] where I can link sources, facts and evidence to this letter akin to The on-line version on my website will bring this document to life with explosively stunning proof including legal documents, vetted news articles from Nevada Appeal, government records, KRNV news videos, Carson City Sheriff videos, courtroom videos and pictures of all my allegations set forth in this pleading.


Chief Judge Gloria Navarro

LR  7-6 allows a Plaintiff to write a letter to the court when a matter/motion is taking an exceptionally long time to resolve. This is such a letter. My cases(s) have pending matters/motions that have been ripe for over 60 days and over 90 days. In fact, an unconstitutional motion for summary judgment has been lingering for well over a year and a half.

My outstanding motions include fee waivers and request to file electronically using PACER/CMECF thus I will utilize email to broadcast this LR 7-6 letter and LR 7-5 motion since the court/judge can’t seem to make a decision on my motions for fee waivers and request to file electronically.

Judge Miranda Du

Judge Miranda Du

The Plaintiff questions the sudden disqualification of Judge Miranda Du after over 2 years into this instant case and after issuing numerous orders that must now be vacated and voided as a matter of law. On top of that Chief Judge Navarro responded to Plaintiff’s LR 7-6 letters by making orders! Any and all said orders by Chief Judge Navarro must also now be vacated and voided as a matter of law since she never had jurisdiction in any of these ROBBEN v CARSON CITY case(s). [2]

I suggested all my cases be assigned to Chief Judge Navarro since she is the “chief” judge and represents the court in my controversial cases. Chief Judge Navarro declined.

The stink of judicial corruption is so ripe; I can smell it hundreds of miles away on the west side of the Sierra!

judge john tatro team

My cases are ripe for a fair and neutral judge unlike Judge Robert C. Jones[3] where are serious conflict-of-interest persists. 28 U.S. Code § 455 (a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Miranda Du, Reno federal courthouse,

reno fed court

Perhaps the only solution is to assign all my cases to a retired federal judge or the other option is to have a 9th Circuit Appeals judge or U.S. Supreme Court judge sit on my case which is both possible and highly unlikely.

I also understand the federal court system is backlogged and understaffed. Waiting years for a case like mine is unacceptable. I would like to see the U.S. congress address the deficiencies and perhaps when may matters are resolved I can direct may activism  towards the U.S. congress to rectify to unacceptable conditions in the U.S. judiciary   and make this a win-win for everyone.

Videos produced by Ty Robben

CSI Nevada: The Nevada ANTI Corruption Movement

The Brian Sandoval Deception 

In Harris v. Maricopa County Superior Court, 631 F. 3d 963 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2011 the Court states Congress and the courts have long recognized that creating broad compliance with our civil rights laws, a policy of the “highest priority,” requires that private   individuals bring their civil rights grievances to court.” See Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968).Such suits provide an important outlet for resolving grievances in an orderly manner and achieving non-violent resolutions of highly controversial, and often inflammatory, disputes. Guaranteeing  individuals an opportunity to be heard in court instead of leaving them only with self-help as the means of remedying perceived injustices creates respect for law and ameliorates the injury that individuals feel when they believe that they have been wronged because society views them as inferior.” Id.

Monsanto protest Reno

protest at the Reno Federal Court

My cases are highly controversial and highly inflammatory and should have been given the “highest priority” since they go to the core of civil rights and the epicenter of the National debate on gun control and the need to preserve and expand the 2nd Amendment to defend against a tyrannical government. My case(s) showcase how corrupt and dysfunctional the court systems are in Nevada from the top down and exemplify that for some of us, the only justice we will receive will come in the form of exercising the 2nd Amendment rights in an armed revolt/protest as we’re witnessing with the Nevada ranchers in the Bundy militia standoff(s) in Oregon and the previous standoff in Bunkerville, NV at the Bundy ranch.

NV Appeal coverage of ANTI-CURRPTION protest against Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto

NV Appeal coverage of ANTI-CURRPTION protest against Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto

Amendment II: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This letter/motion is not a threat of harm to anyone. Instead, this is my way to redress my grievances before taking up arms. If this matter escalates, I’ve done my part for the world to see that I had no other choice than to escalate and perhaps die in an armed confrontation which could have and should have been preventable had the U.S. court system worked properly.  I am prepared to die for this cause. Read the pleading to understand why.

justin brothers bail bonds

Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke

Since the court including Judge Miranda Du, Chief Judge Navarro and Magistrate Judge Cooke have essentially suspended the rules-of-the-court, Local Rule LR IA 3-1 by making orders sua sponte and ignoring the rules and controlling case law. It’s clear that Judge Robert C. Jones is going probably to do whatever he wants sua sponte. The ex parte motions in this pleading allow the judge to act sua sponte or the judge may ask the Defendants’ to file an opposition. In fact, this letter may exceed a page length rule (although LR 7-6 has no page requirement) and I’ve combined ex parte motions in this pleading which may or may not be unorthodox and the court can suspend the rules for this pleading in the interest of justice.

CNN coverage of ANTI-CURRPTION protest against Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto

CNN coverage of ANTI-CURRPTION protest against Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto

Since the court has ignored its own rules and acted unorthodox, it appears we’ve entered judicial anarchy and the rules have been suspended pursuant to Local Rule LR IA 3-1 anyway. There really is no pretty way or politically correct way to write this letter/motion in light of the reality and facts involved.

I’ve been unconstitutionally jailed for my 1st Amendment free speech; I’ve received calls from the Sheriff, the FBI and the U.S. Marshall for what I say in my court pleadings and websites. The authorities always say “We just want to talk with you”… “We will buy you coffee if you sit down with us and just talk about what you’re saying Mr. Robben”… They can keep their change and just read this along with everyone else.

2013 Nevada legislature session protest

2013 Nevada legislature session protest

I must take this effort to control the narrative and quash the dis-information and propaganda spewed out by the Defendants’ and their lawyer Brain M. Brown and his THORNDAL ARMSTRONG DELK BALKENBUSH & EISINGER law firm who just lost a recent case in the Las Vegas federal court where the jury awarded over $2 million dollars to victims of Lyon county corruption (estate looting) that reached levels of criminal wrongdoing by the county recorder. Perhaps may case should be moved to Las Vegas as well.

Las Vegas Sun Brian Sandoval Security beefed up

Jury awards $2 million to sons in case of looted estate in Nevada
By Ken Ritter, Associated Press
Friday, Nov. 13, 2015 | 2:46 p.m.


Attorney Brian Brown, representing Lyon County, said officials were disappointed in the decision.

A federal jury in Las Vegas is ordering a rural Nevada county and its former elected public administrator to pay more than $2 million to three sons who maintained that their father’s home was looted of valuables before they arrived after he died in 2006.
Lyon County is on the hook to pay $1.6 million to sons of Joe Robinson Mathis, and former county Public Administrator Richard Glover was held accountable for $280,000, said Brian Irvine, an attorney for the sons.

The county and Glover were both also held responsible to repay $217,000 for missing property, Irvine said.

The verdict was handed down Tuesday, after a five-day civil trial before U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon.

Irvine said he expects an appeal, but he felt relieved for the Mathis brothers: Richard Mathis of Las Vegas; Anthony Mathis of Montpelier, Vermont; and James Mathis of Ellensburg, Washington.

“It’s been a long haul,” said Irvine, who argued the case with attorney Justin Bustos. “They’re pleased with the result. They hope that it will be a good final result for them.”


Brian Brown attorney

Disgraced attorney Brian M. Brown

Attorney Brian Brown, representing Lyon County, said officials were disappointed in the decision. Brown and county Manager Jeff Page said a decision whether to appeal wasn’t immediately made.


The county of about 53,000 people has an annual operating budget of about $30 million. It has insurance for acts performed by officials in their public capacity, Page said.

“We’re weighing our options at this stage,” the county manager said.

Attorneys for Glover didn’t immediately respond to messages.

The allegations revolved around the role of the elected officer entrusted to oversee administration of the estates of people who die with no qualified relative or designee to administer their affairs.

The jury found that Lyon County violated the constitutional right to due process of the Mathis family by failing to provide an opportunity for a hearing before allowing Glover into the property.

Joe Mathis died in May 29, 2006, at his home in Smith Valley, about 80 miles southeast of Reno and 30 miles southwest of the Lyon County seat of Yerington.

Family members and Glover were notified by the county sheriff, and Glover went to the home before Anthony Mathis arrived June 1. Mathis reported the house had been ransacked and that items including firearms, jewelry, silver coins, military decorations and tools had been removed, according to the complaint filed in May 2007.

Glover didn’t face criminal charges related to Mathis property. He didn’t run for re-election in 2010.

“One of the key determinations was that Mr. Glover was acting as a final policymaker on behalf of the county … without any real oversight from the county,” Irvine said.

KOLO coverage of ANTI-CURRPTION protest against Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto

KOLO coverage of ANTI-CURRPTION protest against Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto

As an activist and outspoken advocate against judicial and government corruption, Judge Robert C. Jones hate people like me who have dug into to the Mormon/LDS Inc. and exposed the infiltration of the Mormon/LDS Corporation into top government positions in Nevada (and other States like California) to promote the “Mormon/LDS agenda”.

The author, who herself was married in a Mormon temple at age 19 but now considers herself a non-denominational Christian, says there’s a secret agenda  Mormon officials don’t like to talk about publicly.

nevada appeal story

“A complete takeover of the government,” she said. “They have more people in the CIA, the FBI. They have an employment office for Mormons in D.C. to be able to infiltrate them into the government.”

“They’ve been trying since the beginning to get someone in the presidency, because they believe they have to establish their authority so when Jesus comes to Earth, the Mormon Church will take control of the government and the Mormons will be the government of God on Earth,” she continued.



In fact, Judge Robert C. Jones is one who attempted to use his position to sway the LGBT marriage issues in Nevada[4]. This Plaintiff is not gay or a member of any LGBT community. Discriminating against the LGBT people is wrong and a violation of the Judicial Code of Conduct when it was done to support the Mormon/LDS agenda. The LGBT marriage issue is actually a positive economic situation for Nevada, especially in Las Vegas where people get married (and in Reno where people get divorced).

Judge James E. Wilson Jr. corrupt

Judge James E. Wilson Jr. Carson City corruption

That said, the Plaintiff first requests Judge Jones to disqualify himself. The Plaintiff knows Judge Jones is a very high ranking Mormon/LDS bishop and the Plaintiff respects this fact.  The Plaintiff also knows his case(s) now before Judge Jones involve other high ranking Mormon/LDS church/corporation members including another LDS District judge from Carson City named James E. Wilson Jr. and numerous others. In fact, this Plaintiff questions if a Mormon/LDS judge is impartial pursuant to canon 2, 2A and 2C. The numerous news articles and reviews concerning Judge Robert C. Jones is very, very concerning to this Plaintiff. Judge Robert C. Jones was recently rebuked by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals about discriminatory and unethical practices against non Mormons and the use of out of state lawyers. The Plaintiff also questions if there is any Mormon/LDS or other relationship with Robert C. Jones and the Defendants’ lawyer Brian M. Brown and the Thorndal law-firm the must be disclosed. Based on previous bad acts and the admonishment from  the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Robert C. Jones can not possibly be impartial in any of my cases and he must disqualify.

Judge Tatro Carson City Corruption

Judge Tatro Carson City Corruption

Instead of any appearance of justice, this court discriminates against me and other pro se litigants’ and treats this as some kind of game of slow-ball corn-hole. Apparently Miranda Du didn’t want to play anymore so she took her gavel and cut-and-ran instead of making a decision that she was obligated to do pursuant to the Code of Judicial conduct to decide my cases timely, fairly and impartially. Miranda Du did not even disclose her reason for her disqualification. All Miranda Du’s orders must be vacated and voided.

This letter and motion(s) will be the most important thing you’ve ever read because everyone is wondering if and when my “peaceful” protests will turn into an armed revolt you’ll need to read the following memorandum of points and authorities to find out… This pleading is being written on Martin Luther King day 2016. Justice long delayed is justice denied –MLK.



Ty Robben

Ty Robben

ABOUT ME: Fist off, who is Todd “Ty” Robben? I am the Plaintiff in this case and the other cases (case# 3:13-CV-00438-RCJ-VPC, case# 3:2015cv00529-RCJ-VPC, case# 3:2015cv00530-RCJ-VPC ) now somehow all “randomly” assigned to Judge Robert C.  Jones and Magistrate Judge Cooke.  This is very suspicious and not credible that my three cases were “randomly” assigned to the same two people.

Continue reading