Bundys, Pete Santilli and other defendants oppose long trial delay in Bunkerville standoff

The majority of the 19 defendants charged in the 2014 Bunkerville standoff — including rancher Cliven Bundy and four of his sons — indicated Friday they want to exercise their constitutional rights and go to trial as soon as possible.

The move appeared to surprise prosecutors, who told a federal judge that they had previously obtained the support of most of the defendants for an eight-month trial delay until February.

Many of the defendants and their lawyers announced in court that they had changed their minds, prompting the lead prosecutor in the case, Steven Myhre, to suggest some were “playing games” with the “extremely serious charges” they are facing.

All 19 defendants, who are in federal custody, appeared together for the first time. They were dressed in jail garb and chains and, with their lawyers, filled up the courtroom, including the jury box. A dozen deputy U.S. marshals were on hand for extra security.

Myhre said the trial delay was needed to give prosecutors more time to turn over to the defendants the massive amount of evidence authorities have collected since the April 12, 2014, armed confrontation with law enforcement near Bunkerville.

Most of the defendants are facing conspiracy, extortion, firearms and assault charges that could land them in prison for the rest of their lives if convicted.

Defense lawyers argued they needed to see the government’s evidence to make an informed decision about giving up their clients’ constitutional speedy-trial rights. The defendants have a right to go to trial within 70 days of being charged.

The defense arguments prompted U.S. Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen to order prosecutors to turn over a large portion of the evidence within two weeks.

Leen promised a written decision later on whether to declare the case complex and delay the trial into next year. She issued an order in the meantime putting off the scheduled May 2 trial without setting a new date.

She also ordered defense lawyers to let her know by next Friday their position on the government’s proposed protective order barring the lawyers from giving copies of key trial evidence, including government investigative reports, to the public and media. Prosecutors contend the order is needed to protect the safety of witnesses.

But many of the defense lawyers believe the proposed order is too broad.

Read more: http://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/bundys-other-defendants-oppose-long-trial-delay-bunkerville-standoff

Dozens of demonstrators stood in front of the federal courthouse in downtown Las Vegas this morning to support rancher Cliven Bundy, who is facing charges related to a 2014 armed standoff with federal authorities.

Featured

Image

Carol Bundy, wife of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, speaks to reporters in front of the U.S. Courthouse in downtown Las Vegas Thursday, March 10, 2016. Bundy is facing charges relating to an armed ranching standoff against Bureau of Land Management agents in April 2014.

Dozens of demonstrators stood in front of the federal courthouse in downtown Las Vegas this morning to support rancher Cliven Bundy, who is facing charges related to a 2014 armed standoff with federal authorities.
SOURCE: http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/mar/10/armed-demonstrators-expected-for-cliven-bundy-cour/

web1_BUNDYPROTEST4.jpgThe demonstration featured a concentration of members of the Guardians of the Oath movement, a radical, anti-government spin-off of the Oath Keeper movement, known for disobeying laws members don’t believe fall under the U.S. Constitution.

Also present at the rally were members of the Three Percenters group, a militant organization that pledges to uphold the U.S. Constitution using force, if necessary. The group’s name comes from an estimated 3 percent of the population that fought in the American Revolution.

“Obviously the second revolution is on the way,” said Bobby Florentz, 64, a self-proclaimed member of both movements.

web1_BUNDY-MARCH-11-16bt04.jpgFlorentz, waving a sign urging passer us to “save the patriots from the oathbreakers,” said the federal government was illegally charging Cliven Bundy for trespassing on land it doesn’t actually own.

“Bottom line is it’s unconstitutional for the federal government to own land,” he said. “So how can they charge Cliven Bundy for being on their land?”

Waving the Gadsden flag, named after American Revolution Gen. Christopher Gasden and often associated with libertarian and tea party groups, self-proclaimed patriot Steve Adams, 36, of North Las Vegas said the federal government has gone too far in prosecuting “innocent patriots.”

“A rattlesnake doesn’t bother anyone unless you step on it,” Adams said, referring to the design on the flag, which features a coiled snake. “I think the government is starting to step too much on American ranchers.”

A message from Arden Bundy

LeVoy Finnicum’s daughter Thara Tenney, 32, and her younger sister stood in front of the courthouse and with megaphones and sang an original song met by loud cheering. “Are you, are you, going to stand with me?,” they sang.

Finnicum was shot to death by authorities in January when a vehicle was stopped after leaving a wildlife refuge in Oregon taken over by armed protesters. Officials said authorities opened fire after he reached for a weapon.

Cliven Bundy’s wife, Carol Bundy, meanwhile, held a sign that said, “It’s Simple: The Land Belongs To The People.” She said her husband is being treated like he’s already been convicted and sentenced.

The government is treating him like a “mass murderer” when he’s only a father, a husband and a grandfather, she said. She expects today’s hearing will be “short and, I’m sure, sweet.”

“This isn’t a fight for the Bundys,” she said. “It’s a fight for we, the American people.”

11:08 a.m. — About an hour into the demonstration, Metro Lt. Reggie Rader said there have been no confrontations among law enforcement and the roughly 50 protesters on hand.

“It’s just a normal day; we have no issues with this. We’re just here to make sure everyone remains peaceful,” Rader said.

Rader, who was with four other Metro officers outside the federal courthouse, said protests happen frequently and a small police presence is standard for such events.

“Usually these folks are very peaceful and respectful,” he said.

Leonard Siebert showed up to support the Bundy family. “That was a great day for America,” he said of the day of the standoff, because patriots stood up to the Bureau of Land Management and the government.

Siebert, who said he is part of the Oath Keepers, a patriot group that vows to defend the Constitution, and the Three Percenters, a patriot group dedicated to protecting constitutional rights, said he anticipated a peaceful demonstration.

“We’re not here to riot. We’re not here to complain. We’re out here to voice as we can with the First Amendment.”

Brian Enright of Southern California arrived at the courthouse with his wife, daughter and their dog.

He carried an American flag and said he was here to support Bundy and the patriot movement. He said the federal government is “out of control” when it comes to “state matters.”

He said he is not a member of any movement.

10:45 a.m.

Demonstrators carried anti-Bureau of Land Management signs and U.S. and Gadsden flags, but no guns were spotted. Law enforcement officials had anticipated demonstrators would openly carry guns.

The Gadsden flag, designed during the American revolution, depicts a rattlesnake and the words “Don’t tread of me.” It has been used more recently as a symbol of American patriotism and disagreement with the government.

Interactions between police ad protestors, meanwhile, appeared to be polite and friendly.

Randy Peck, 54, of Las Vegas held a sign reading, “BLM: Give Up Your Land, Give Up Your FREEDOM.”

He said he belongs to the patriot movement and is a Bundy supporter. He described Bundy as a “political prisoner.”

Peck said he came out to protest the overreach of the U.S. government and that he hopes Bundy is released.

Armed demonstrators expected for Cliven Bundy hearing

Demonstrators, some of them openly carrying guns, are expected outside the federal courthouse in Las Vegas today as Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy faces a hearing on charges related to a 2014 armed standoff with federal agents.

Bundy’s wife and other family members and friends said they want to show they’re keeping up their fight against the federal government.

“We’re a strong family and we stand together,” family matriarch Carol Bundy said. “I want the world to see that.”

Nevada allows the open-carrying of guns, and Metro Police and the U.S. Marshals Service said they expect some protesters will be armed but will remain peaceful.

“Our mission is to protect people’s right to peacefully assemble and protest,” Metro Officer Larry Hadfield said. “One’s position does not matter. We are happy to accommodate them.”

On April 12, 2014, an estimated 400 people engaged in an armed standoff with the Bureau of Land Management as authorities attempted to round up and impound Bundy’s cattle over nonpayment of grazing fees on public land. Authorities eventually backed down.

The dispute dates to 1993, and BLM officials estimated two years ago that Bundy owed more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees.

Bundy heads a list of 19 people — including four Bundy sons — accused of leading the standoff near his ranch in Bunkerville.

Bundy was arrested Feb. 10 in Oregon as he arrived at Portland International Airport to visit two sons jailed on charges that they led a 41-day armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge.

He faces 16 charges, including conspiracy, assault, obstruction and threatening a federal officer. Convictions could result in penalties up to life in prison.

While Bundy’s hearing isn’t set to begin until 2 p.m., the demonstration, organized via the Bundy ranch Facebook and Twitter accounts, is set for 10 a.m. outside the downtown Las Vegas courthouse at 333 Las Vegas Blvd.

The social media accounts said demonstrators planned on “filling the sidewalks” from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. before “filling the courtroom.” The posts, first reported Monday, were deleted from the accounts as of Wednesday night.

Reid speaks to White House about Scalia replacement

WASHINGTON — Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who has urged President Barack Obama to move “right away” in filling the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, has spoken to the White House on what is shaping up to be a major partisan battle, a Reid aide said Monday.

The conservative justice died in Texas on Saturday at age 79.

Reid press aide Kristen Orthman said she was unsure whether the senator has spoken directly to the president about the controversial matter.

It also was not known whether the Nevadan has made any specific recommendations to the White House on who should get the nomination. If so, he clearly is not ready to go public with any recommendation.

“Not unveiling any favorites yet,” Orthman said in response to questions submitted by the Review-Journal.

Going public with such a recommendation would be unusual for a Senate leader, especially this early in the process.

Obama took roughly a month to nominate Justices Sonia Sotomayor in 2009 and Elena Kagan in 2010 after their predecessors announced their plans to retire.

In 2005, when Republican George W. Bush was president, Reid had recommended that Bush nominate Harriet Miers, the president’s White House general counsel, to the nation’s highest court.

Miers’ nomination was withdrawn after it drew opposition, including from conservatives.

Senate Republicans, meanwhile, continue to line up behind their leadership’s plan to use their majority power to block Obama from naming Scalia’s successor in the president’s last year, regardless of who he selects.

That includes Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who is running for re-election this year.

“We are in the midst of a presidential election and a vigorous debate within both political parties on the direction of the country, with the election less than nine months away,” Portman said. “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations.”

Both Reid and Obama have rejected that stance.

“The president can and should send the Senate a nominee right away,” Reid said in a statement released Saturday after hearing about Scalia’s unexpected death during a trip to Texas.

“It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat. Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential constitutional responsibilities.”

Early speculation so far has focused on a few potential nominees, including Judges Merrick Garland and Sri Srinivasan, both of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, Judges Paul Watford and Jacqueline Nguyen of the 9th Circuit, which includes Nevada, and Jane Kelly of the 8th Circuit, a possible favorite of Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Frank Fahrenkopf, a former Republican National Committee chairman and a former American Gaming Association president who co-chairs the Commission on Presidential Debates, said no names from Nevada have surfaced in Washington, D.C., as potential successors.

But Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law in Virginia, said he recalls Reid once touting 9th Circuit Court Judge Johnnie Rawlinson, a former U.S. District Court judge in Las Vegas, as potential high court talent.

And Robert Langford, a prominent Las Vegas attorney, suggested U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware.

“If there is anyone in Nevada who is most qualified to be a Supreme Court justice, it would be Judge Boulware,” Langford said about the Las Vegas native. “He would be on any president’s list… I promise you he would be a good thing for Nevada and the West.”

SOURCE: http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/national/reid-speaks-white-house-about-scalia-replacement

Review-Journal writers Jeff German and David Ferrara contributed to this report. Contact Jim Myers atjmyers@reviewjournal.com or 202-783-1760. Find him on Twitter: @myers_dc

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

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

Featured


 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