LVRJ: Nevada’s most-reversed federal judge Rober C. Jones should call it quits

web1_web_clivejones.jpg

It’s time for Senior U.S. District Judge Robert Clive Jones to retire.

I mean really retire. He took senior status in February, so he’s still hearing cases.

He’s the most-appealed and most-reversed federal judge in Nevada, according to the legal research service Westlaw.

The Reno-based judge should be ashamed of his reversal rate over the past 12 years. When 44 percent of your cases are appealed and only 55 percent of those appealed are affirmed, it’s a sign you’re not doing a good job.

Out of 321 cases heard by Jones since late 2003, 38 (12 percent) have been flat-out reversed, the highest rate among all Nevada federal judges. An additional 35 cases (11 percent) were affirmed in part and reversed in part, also the highest rate among the 12 U.S. District Court judges in Las Vegas and Reno.

To answer my query about which Nevada federal judge is reversed the most, Westlaw ran reports starting in 2003 until the present for Jones, who was a bankruptcy judge for 10 years. Other judges’ reports were based on their length of service with 2000 as the earliest available year.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently thwacked Jones for the sixth time.

“We have in the past expressed concern over the district court’s handling of a number of cases that have reached this court, and we unfortunately must do so against here,” the appellate judges wrote.

The 9th Circuit’s most recent reversal of Jones was a First Amendment case brought by Black Rock City, the company that runs the Burning Man festival, against Pershing County officials. Filed in August 2012, it was close to settling in November 2013.

At the settlement hearing, the appellate judges said, “Judge Jones excoriated and mocked counsel and offered lengthy criticisms of the settlement agreement despite counsel’s repeated statements that the parties were not seeking the court’s approval.”

“Among other things, Judge Jones noted his own laughter on the record, repeatedly lobbed accusations of malpractice, described counsel’s comments as ‘mealy-mouthed,’ and suggested that counsel return to law school.”

The appellate judges also wrote, “The fact that parties have entered into a settlement agreement does not render this appeal moot. Where district courts have issued wrongful orders, this court has exercised the party to vacate them.”

The four-page opinion went beyond the case at hand, listing the five other cases in which they previously had expressed concerns about Jones.

The appellate judges haven’t issued such sharp slap-downs in every decision to overturn a Jones ruling, but those six cases since 2012 raise doubts about Jones’ abilities.

He seems to be growing increasingly rude, increasingly wrong and increasingly anti-government, at least in the 9th Circuit’s opinion. Certain cases seem to be decided on his philosophy instead of the law.

Jones did not respond to a request for comment.

I last wrote about Jones in July, after two of his cases were reversed. In one, he was told to stop his practice of barring out-of-state U.S. attorneys from appearing before him.

In the second, he injected himself into a plea agreement, which was not his job.

The appellate judges said they wanted to “offer guidance” to Jones. Their guidance: Stop it.

In another case, involving Nevada’s unique “None of These Candidates” ballot option, he was bashed for playing politics because he delayed action on his ruling, clearly hoping that stalling would prevent its reversal before the 2012 presidential election. Backers of GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney thought the “None of These Candidates” option would hurt his chances by giving hard-line conservatives an opportunity to cast a protest vote against Romney. Jones took their side, declaring the option unconstitutional less than three months before the election. The appeals court took that case away from Jones and left “None of These Candidates” on the ballot.

“Such arrogance and assumption of power by one individual is not acceptable in our judicial system,” the judges wrote.

In January, the 9th Circuit reversed Jones’ ruling in favor of the late Wayne Hage, one of the leaders of the Sagebrush Rebellion, saying the Hage family openly trespassed on federal land and that Jones’ ruling “plainly contravenes the law.” Jones’ legal theory was dismissed as idiosyncratic.

Hage’s trespass? He grazed his cattle on public lands without paying fees.

Sound familiar?

Presumably, in light of such serious setdowns showing Jones’ antipathy for federal officials and federal laws, the lifetime appointee should ask himself whether it’s time for him, as the most reversed federal judge in Nevada, to do the right thing and quit.

He’d still get a generous retirement for the rest of his life.

But he wouldn’t be wasting taxpayers’ money and the time and resources of the court and the people involved in civil and criminal cases before him.

Review-Journal Data Editor Adelaide Chen contributed to this report. Jane Ann Morrison’s column runs Thursdays. Leave messages for her at 702-383-0275 or email jmorrison@reviewjournal.com. Find her on Twitter:@janeannmorrison

 

SOURCE: http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/columns-blogs/jane-ann-morrison/nevada-s-most-reversed-federal-judge-should-call-it-quits

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 http://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/PublicComments/default.aspx

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.

http://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/PublicComments/default.aspx

Embattled federal judge taking senior status

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.

Ty Robben’s letter to the Reno Federal Court

TODD ROBBEN

Plaintiff In Pro Se

Vs.

 

CARSON CITY, NEVADA; DEPARTMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING ET AL; DAS CHIEF RORY PLANETA IN HIS INDIVIDUAL and official capacities, DAS ASSISTANT CHIEF KATE SUMMERS IN HER INDIVIDUAL and official capacities, DAS OFFICER MARTIN HALE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL and official capacities, DAS DOES 1-10 IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL and official capacities, CARSON CITY JUDGE JOHN TATRO IN HIS INDIVIDUAL and official capacities, CARSON CITY DISTRICT ATTORNEY NEIL ROMBARDO IN HIS INDIVIDUAL and official capacities, CARSON CITY DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY TRAVIS LUCIA IN HIS INDIVIDUAL and official capacities, CARSON CITY JAILHOUSE DOCTOR Joseph e mcellistrem phd IN HIS INDIVIDUAL and official capacities

 

Defendants

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S LR 7-6 **OPEN** “LETTER TO THE COURT”

 

 

LR 7-5 EX PARTE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE JONES

 

LR 7-5 EX PARTE MOTION VACATE/VOID ANY/ALL JUDGE DU AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE COOKE AND CHIEF JUDGE NAVARRO ORDERS DUE TO FRAUD FRCP 60(B)(D)(1)(3).

 

…IN THE ALTERNATIVE LR 7-5 EX PARTE MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND ALTER/AMEND SAID ORDERS PURSUANT TO  FRCP 52(B) FRCP 59(E) & FRCP 60(B)(D)(1)(3).

 

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

UPDATE JANUARY 22, 2016 RENO FEDERAL  JUDGE ROBERT C. JONES HAS BEEN RECUSED AND ANNOUNCES RETIREMENT  AFTER READING THIS 

LVRJ logo

Embattled federal judge taking senior status

Embattled Federal Judge Robert Cliven Jones calls it quits

SOURCE: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/embattled-federal-judge-taking-senior-status

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 jgerman@reviewjournal.com 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.

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.

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 Wikipedia.com. 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.

SOURCE: http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/nov/13/jury-awards-2-million-to-sons-in-case-of-looted-es/

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.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2011/10/354721/#l5M1JTWkHVBzOd1Z.99.

NEVADA STATE PERSONNEL WATCH

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.

lady_justice_of_death_by_shawncoss-d5vgmv5

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

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

Federal Judge Robert C. Jones Rules for Property Rights, Smacks Down Abusive Feds

govt organized crime

No, this particular article isn’t about the Hammond case in Oregon, or the Bundys in Nevada, but it is about ranchers in Nevada. The judge actually calls it a government conspiracy. There’s a switch.

There’s no point in sugar-coating the truth. The US government IS organized crime. They prove it every day.

Judge Jones said he found that “the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.

We can see that the feds are actively persecuting land owners across the country AND constitutional supreme court judges have been finding for The People—this particular article from 2013.

The court noted, “There is great probability that the Government will continue to cite Defendants and potentially impound Defendant’s cattle in the future in derogation of their water rights and those statutory privileges of which the Government has arbitrarily and vindictively stripped them.

The harassment and intimidation are nothing new. Multiple generations of this family have been fighting the battle that should never have had to be fought.

In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.

Yet the feds persist, and things are coming to a head. Again. Agenda 21/2030 in full swing. But why are certain cases sensationalized, while others are not?

The answer: perhaps when they say the feds are setting these (Bundy/Hammond situations) up for the intentional shedding of patriots’ blood is correct. Their long-term agenda seems to be to frighten the rest so badly that they will no longer offer resistance or fight back.

It is looking to me like the standoff in Bunkerville, Nevada was a test to see how the militias/patriots would respond. Hence the feds retreated. Now they know, and they’re setting up for the kill; a potential massacre if The People don’t let this go. It isn’t worth dying over. They won’t get away with stealing the land—at least not for long. The land belongs to The People.

Thanks for the heads up, Drake.  ~ BP


 

Monday, 03 June 2013

In an historic 104-page ruling, Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada has struck a major blow for property rights and, at the same time, has smacked down federal agencies that have been riding roughshod over Western ranchers and property owners. The long-awaited ruling, which had been expected before the end of last year, was finally issued at the end of May. The court case,U.S. v. Hage, has been keenly watched by legal analysts and constitutional scholars — but has been completely ignored by the major media.

As we reported last November (“Judge Blasts Federal Conspiracy; Ranch Family Vindicated — Again!”), in June 2012, Judge Jones had issued a scorching preliminary bench ruling that charged federal officials of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with an ongoing series of illegal actions against Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage (shown on left) that the judge described as “abhorrent” and a literal, criminal conspiracy.

Judge Jones said he found that “the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.”

In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”

The Hage family has waged a heroic decades-long legal battle against these abusive agencies, in a David vs. Goliath contest against the combined might of the U.S. Department of Justice and the BLM/USFS legal teams. Precious few individual citizens are willing to undertake such a seemingly hopeless and costly effort as to challenge the formidable power and bottomless resources of the federal government. Wayne Hage and his wife Jean did so repeatedly, winning judgements only to have them endlessly appealed by the taxpayer-funded agencies. Jean Hage died in 1996. Wayne Hage and his second wife, former U.S. Congresswoman of Idaho Helen Chenoweth Hage, both died in 2006.

The Hages’ son, Wayne N. Hage (shown next to father), and other family members have continued ranching and have continued the legal fight. Hage hailed Judge Jones’ May 24 decision as a landmark ruling for property rights, which the American Founding Fathers recognized as the bedrock of liberty and an essential security against tyrannical government.

“This decision is landmark for Western ranchers,” Hage commented from the family’s Pine Creek Ranch in Nevada. “I am pleased to announce for the ranchers of the Western states that it has been proven that a permit is not simply a revocable privilege, but rather there is a property interest in the permit for the purpose of the Due Process Clause, both procedural and substantive. This is important because it will safeguard rancher’s rights and historical grazing practices.”

Hage added, “More importantly we proved a ‘forage right.’ Ranchers in the state of Nevada are protected from trespass within a half-mile from a water source.”

Notably, the court said, “The Government may not abuse its discretion in refusing to renew, or in revoking, a [grazing] privilege.” Significantly, the family will be under permanent injunctive relief and the government shall not reduce the Hages’ permits by more than 25 percent for any period of time without the courts’ consent, and never permanently.

Specifically, the court found, “The Government has abused its discretion in the present case through a series of actions designed to strip the [Hage] Estate of its grazing permits, and ultimately to strip Defendants of their ability to use their water rights.” He explained, “Substantive due process protects individuals from arbitrary deprivation of their liberty by government.”

The court further explained, “The Government cannot withdraw them (grazing permits) or refuse to renew them vindictively or for reasons totally unrelated to the merits of the application as governed by published laws and regulations, lest the Government abuse its executive power in a way that shocks the conscience.”

Because of the government’s refusal to consider any grazing applications from the Hages, the court found the subsequent “chain of events is the result of the Government’s arbitrary denial of E. Wayne Hage’s renewal permit for 1993-2003, and the effects of this due process violation is continuing.”

“Government’s actions … shock the conscience of the Court”

The court found, “In the present case, the Government’s actions over the past two decades shock the conscience of the Court.” This finding, coupled with the court’s finding that agents of the BLM and the USFS engaged in a conspiracy to deprive the Hage family of their vested property rights, opens the door to potential lawsuits against the individual agents personally for their unconstitutional actions.

The ruling chronicles the drama of the 21-day trial in Reno, Nevada, last spring between rancher Wayne N. Hage who, unable to afford an attorney, represented himself, and Mark Pollot, the estate’s attorney, who were defending their case against two federal agencies represented by a cadre of attorneys and staff from the Justice Department.

The court noted the government’s motive for their pursuit of the present trespass case. “In 2007, … the Government brought the present civil trespass action against Hage and the Estate” because the USFS and BLM were “unsatisfied with the outcome” in the ongoing related 1991 Constitutional Fifth Amendment takings case of Hage v. U.S. before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC).

However, during the pendency of the trespass case, the agencies pursued remedies outside the jurisdiction of the court, leading to a referral to the U.S. attorney for obstruction of justice and findings of contempt of court. Specifically, the BLM invited others, including Gary Snow of Fallon, to apply for grazing permits on allotments where the Hages previously had permits; the BLM testified they knew Snow’s cattle would use Hage waters; the BLM and USFS both applied to the State of Nevada for stock watering rights over Hage waters, even though neither agency owns cattle, for the “purpose of obtaining rights for third parties other than Hage in order to interfere with Hage’s rights”; and they attempted to intimidate witnesses in the trespass case by issuing trespass notices and demands for payments against persons who had cattle pastured at Pine Creek Ranch, despite having been notified that Hage was responsible for these cattle.

Judge Jones reasoned the trespass notices and demands for payment were meant “to pressure other parties not to do business with the Hages, and even to discourage or punish testimony in the present case.” The court noted such demands for payment were even issued to “witnesses soon after they testified in this case.”

Tonopah BLM manager, Tom Seley, and Forest Ranger Steve Williams were both found to be in contempt of court, and were referred to the U.S. attorney for possible prosecution for criminal obstruction of justice. Noting that Seley and Williams knew of ongoing litigation between the parties in this court and the CFC, they “took actions to interfere with the defense of the present trespass action by intimidating witnesses.” A written order is pending from the separate August 2012 contempt hearing.

A permanent injunction was granted to prevent the government from denying the Hages’ continuation of their grazing permits and from imposing trespass charges against them every time the Hages’ cattle incidentally stray onto BLM/USFS land in the vast open range area. The court noted, “There is great probability that the Government will continue to cite Defendants and potentially impound Defendant’s cattle in the future in derogation of their water rights and those statutory privileges of which the Government has arbitrarily and vindictively stripped them.”

The court will require Hage to apply for a permit, but will also require the government to grant it. The government is enjoined from issuing trespass or impound notices to Hage or anyone leasing cattle to him; the government must request permission from the court to issue such notices.

The court added, “The government’s normal discretion is restricted under the present injunction, an injunction required in this extreme case because of the conspiracy noted and the history of violations of the Hages’ due process rights in their permits and vested property rights in the use of water, and the obvious continuing animus against Hage by the government officials charged with administering his permits.”

Although Hage noted defending this case created a tremendous personal hardship, “I hold the successful defense of my family’s rights, particularly for the beneficiaries of the Estates, the most important part of this decision and worth all the time and work that went into this case.  No longer are we subject to the arbitrary and vindictive rule of man—we now have the protection of the rule of law.”

The related Hage v. U.S. takings case has been appealed by the Hages to the U.S. Supreme Court on the narrow issue of whether or not a permit is required for normal maintenance of a historic 1866 Mining Act ditch right-of-way. That case is slated for a June 18 conference in the U.S. Supreme Court to determine if the court will grant the Hages’ appeal. A similar right-of-way case from the City of Tombstone, Arizona, is also on appeal to the USSC.

Source