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

Obama/Reid appointed judge Miranda Du in Nevada is refusing to temporarily block new U.S. rules intended to protect the greater sage grouse.

RENO, Nev. (AP) – A federal judge in Nevada is refusing to temporarily block new U.S. rules intended to protect the greater sage grouse.

U.S. District Judge Miranda Du said Tuesday that nine Nevada counties challenging the regulations have failed to prove any irreparable harm that could be averted by immediately halting their implementation.

The lawsuit backed by Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt claims the restrictions on development were adopted illegally and would threaten the survival of miners, ranchers and rural economies across the West.

Du said opponents can argue their case at a trial, expected to begin early next year. But she says they’ve failed to meet the extraordinary standard required for a temporary injunction to halt the policy U.S. wildlife officials say is needed to ensure the hen-sized bird that lives in sage brush habitat doesn’t go extinct.

Judge Miranda Du in Nevada is postponing a decision on whether to block U.S. regulations protecting the greater sage grouse.

RENO, Nev. (AP) — A judge in Nevada is postponing a decision on whether to block U.S. regulations protecting the greater sage grouse.

U.S. District Judge Miranda Du says she’s not clear if the rules are really to blame for delays in construction of a rural water supply tank near Great Basin National Park along the Utah line.

She granted an extension so lawyers can supplement arguments they made last week during a two-day hearing in Reno.

That means Du won’t rule before Christmas on nine counties’ request for a temporary injunction freezing the regulations.

White Pine County officials say the new rules have thrown a monkey wrench in their plans to replace a leaking water tank posing a health and safety threat in Baker.

Du wants more details on other factors the government says are contributing to any possible delay.

Judge Mirand Du says injunction is unlikely in sage grouse suit

RENO (AP) — A federal judge says Nevada counties seeking a preliminary injunction to block new U.S. protections for the greater sage grouse must meet a high burden of proof to warrant such a drastic action.

U.S. District Judge Miranda Du said at the start of a Tuesday hearing in Reno she needs specific examples of projects that are being held up as a result of the government’s land planning amendments intended to conserve grouse habitat.

Du says she has no doubt about the seriousness of the concerns expressed by opponents of new restrictions on mining, livestock grazing and other development.

But without specific examples of activity that has been stopped by the regulations, she’s unlikely to grant an injunction on those rules before an upcoming trial on the merits of the case.

RENO, Nev. (AP) — Eight Nevada counties that want a court to block new U.S. protections for the greater sage grouse face a battle to show the move is necessary across thousands of square miles in the West, a federal judge said Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Miranda Du said she knows the counties and two mining companies have serious concerns about new restrictions on mining, livestock grazing and other development adopted when the federal government decided in September not to list the bird as threatened or endangered.

The groups are suing the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management and asking for a temporary injunction to block the proposed rules before a trial. Du called that request a “drastic remedy.”

“The burden is pretty high on the plaintiffs,” Du said during a daylong hearing in Reno. “My concern is the motion, and the testimony so far, lacks specificity to determine the likelihood of irreparable harm, not the possibility of harm.”

Among other things, the lawsuit says the rules would prevent construction of a wind energy project that would bring $500 million to Elko County’s economy and has the potential to run mining companies and ranchers out of business.

Du said there is “plenty of uncertainty” about the potential effects of the land-use planning amendments that the two agencies adopted to protect the bird found in 11 Western states. But she said she needs evidence of actual projects being halted or delayed to meet the legal threshold that would warrant a temporary injunction.

“Without specific information, I am not going to be able to get there,” Du said.

The judge didn’t say if she intended to rule from the bench but suggested she would not do so when she told lawyers they could file briefs at the conclusion of the hearing. Without an emergency order, the case is unlikely to go to trial until next year.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Holly Vance said in a brief filed before Tuesday’s hearing that the counties and mining companies are misrepresenting and exaggerating the potential effects of the rules. She said they have not proved the restrictions will cause irreparable harm and are prematurely challenging the amendments, which offer guidelines but no specific decisions on individual grazing, mining or other federal permits.

Washoe County Planning Director Bill Whitney testified Tuesday that the county school district’s plans to acquire BLM land to build a new middle school in Sun Valley, north of Reno, have been put on hold as a result of the sage grouse protections, even though the county doesn’t believe there are grouse “any place near there.”

Eureka County Commission Chairman Julian Goicoechea said the protections are stifling new development in his county and prohibiting officials in neighboring White Pine County from obtaining a right-of-way necessary to build a new water tower in Baker.

“There is real harm occurring because of what is in the documents,” he testified.

Goicoechea, who serves as chairman of Nevada’s Sage Grouse Ecosystem Council, said it worked closely with federal officials to develop Nevada’s alternative protection plan but were blindsided by the final U.S. regulations.

“We did not want to be here today,” he said. “We wanted to work this out for the last three years. We tried. We were ignored.”

Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, who ruffled the feathers of Gov. Brian Sandoval when he joined a lawsuit challenging sage grouse protections, won’t be allowed to argue Tuesday when a federal judge considers an injunction to block new public lands regulations

CARSON CITY — Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, who ruffled the feathers of Gov. Brian Sandoval when he joined a lawsuit challenging sage grouse protections, won’t be allowed to argue Tuesday when a federal judge considers an injunction to block new public lands regulations, the judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Miranda Du, in an order issued Friday, said only the original plaintiffs in the case — Elko and Eureka counties, Quantum Minerals LLC and Western Exploration LLC — will be permitted to present issues and arguments.

The AG’s office, seven other counties, another mining firm and a ranch joined the lawsuit after the original suit was filed on Sept. 23.

The first lawsuit was filed the day after Interior Secretary Sally Jewell announced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would not list the greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act because of continuing efforts by states and federal agencies to protect the bird’s habitat.

Critics argue new regulations for public land use imposed as an alternative to a listing are just as onerous and would hurt rural economies by curtailing mining, ranching and energy development.

The attorney general’s office and other counties added their names to the suit when an amended complaint against the federal government was filed Oct. 22.

Du, in a two-page order limiting the scope of Tuesday’s hearing, said the “added” plaintiffs didn’t join in the motion for a preliminary injunction until last Thursday, less than a week away from the scheduled hearing.

“Unsurprisingly, the motion and related briefs do not address the claims of the additional plaintiffs, nor how the additional plaintiffs can satisfy their burden in seeking preliminary injunctive relief …,” Du wrote.

She also noted she agreed to hear the case on an expedited basis and that the added plaintiffs, including the AG’s office, had “ample time” to join in the request for an injunction “yet waited until the verge of the scheduled hearing” to file their motion with the court.

Laxalt and Sandoval, both Republicans, exchanged testy statements in late October when Laxalt announced he was joining the lawsuit.

Laxalt said the lawsuit was necessary to protect Nevada’s interests. Sandoval, who hasn’t ruled out litigation over the land regulations, argued that Laxalt’s lawsuit was premature and would undermine efforts to reach a resolution through on-going discussions with federal agencies.

Citing flawed BLM report, federal judge Miranda Du sends Searchlight wind farm back to drawing board

By Kyle Roerink

Citing flawed analysis by the Bureau of Land Management, a federal judge halted an 87-turbine wind project slated to be built near Searchlight in some of the Mojave Desert’s most environmentally-sensitive habitat.

U.S. District Judge Miranda Du rebuked the BLM for “gaps” in the agency’s research about the project’s impact on golden eagles, tortoises and bats. The decision requires the project to restart its permitting process, which could trigger multiyear delays or halt it entirely.

The wind farm would have been developed by Virginia-based Apex Clean Energy and located on 18,949 acres of BLM land between Lake Mead National Recreation Area and Searchlight.

The BLM’s environmental study, approved by the Department of Interior in March 2013, said that the project would affect 119 desert tortoises. But Du said that number had “unexplained inconsistencies” and agreed with plaintiffs that there could be closer to 1,000 of the threatened tortoises in the project area.

The BLM estimated there to only be three golden eagle nests in the project’s vicinity. But a study conducted by the state found that there were more than nine times as many.

The decision comes after a three-year legal battle by environmentalists including Friends of Searchlight Desert and Mountains, Basin and Range Watch and Las Vegas resident Judy Bundorf to stop the project, which would have been the second of its kind in the state.

“This is a stupid place to try to build an industrial-scale energy facility,” said Dave Becker, an attorney who represented the plaintiffs.

While the decision was a “great victory,” it highlights a dilemma for environmental advocates across the nation, Becker said. Renewable energy projects, including solar and wind plants, reduce reliance on fossil fuels, but can be located on sensitive habitats.

Becker said there hasn’t been enough “discrimination” in approving projects: “We like to say the federal government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers, but when it comes to land management it’s exactly what the BLM should be doing — picking projects with big benefits and low impacts.”

A federal judge, Miranda Du is ordering Nevada meet a January 2014 promise to provide treatment within seven days for mentally ill jail inmates needing pretrial competency evaluations.

Judge Miranda DuA federal judge is ordering Nevada meet a January 2014 promise to provide treatment within seven days for mentally ill jail inmates needing pretrial competency evaluations.

U.S. District Judge Miranda Du warned Wednesday that she might appoint an independent monitor by the end of November if the state doesn’t comply with her order.

State officials say they’re trying to meet the goals.

They point to plans to open the 47-bed Stein Hospital treatment center in Las Vegas in mid-November to handle court-referred psychiatric patients.

The state has a backlog of inmates needing treatment, and one current facility, the 76-bed Lakes Crossing in Sparks.

The Clark County Public Defender’s Office maintains the constitutional rights of inmates are violated when they’re jailed with neither treatment nor a resolution to their case.

Feds Expand Area 51 by Taking Family’s Property Federal Judge Miranda Du decided to take the land from the Sheahans after the Air Force argued private land ownership in the area was no longer compatible with security and safety concerns connected with their training and testing.

Area 51, NevadaBY:

A federal judge signed an order stripping a Nevada family of their property overlooking Area 51 and handing it over to the United States Air Force on Friday.

The order comes a month after the Sheahan family, who owns the property and the mine located on it, refused a settlement offer from the government that offered to buy the land for $5.2 million.

“I have a geologist friend who I took out there, who’s just a buff, and he said it is literally almost priceless,”  Barbara Sheahan told CBS 8. “There is so much there, not only the ore, which is in the ground that can be mined but in all the intrinsic value of what’s on the land.”

The property, located next to the Air Force base at Groom Lake that’s commonly referred to as Area 51, has been in the Sheahan family since the 1870s. The family had no interest in selling it to the Air Force despite the large amount of money offered.

Federal Judge Miranda Du decided to take the land from the Sheahans after the Air Force argued private land ownership in the area was no longer compatible with security and safety concerns connected with their training and testing.

Federal Judge Miranda Du decided to take the land from the Sheahans after the Air Force argued private land ownership in the area was no longer compatible with security and safety concerns connected with their training and testing.

Federal Judge Miranda Du decided to take the land from the Sheahans after the Air Force argued private land ownership in the area was no longer compatible with security and safety concerns connected with their training and testing.

The family said the use of eminent domain was just another example of government abuse they’d faced.

“This has been, like I said, a 60-plus-year nothing short of criminal activity on the part of the federal government, the AEC, Black Ops, CIA and you can go on and on,” Joe Sheahan told the news station. “There’s nothing fair, there’s nothing anything remotely close to that involved in this process.”

“But there never has been either, so it’s nothing new,” Barbara Sheahan added. “But we would like to change it at least to get our stuff out and be paid the value.”

A jury will now decide how much compensation the Sheahans will receive for their land.

SOURCE: http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-expand-area-51-by-taking-familys-property/

FEDERAL JUDGE KICKS FAMILY OFF PROPERTY NEAR AREA 51, GIVES LAND TO AIR FORCE
“[N]othing short of criminal activity on the part of the federal government…”

Watch: The Groom Mine Family spoke to Infowars last month about how the federal government was trying to force them off their land which has been in their family since the 1870’s. During the interview, family members describe bombing raids, 50 caliber machine gun assaults and open air nuclear testing all done by our federal government in order to scare the Sheahans off their working mine:

by TREY SANCHEZ | TRUTH REVOLT | OCTOBER 20, 2015

Last month, the Sheahan family was facing eviction threats from the U.S. federal government for refusing a $5.2 million buyout to vacate their 400-acre mine near Area 51 that has been in their family since the late 1800s. And it’s now official: a federal judge’s pen officially took the land and handed it over to the United States Air Force.

The family resisted the initial offer saying the property is worth far more because of the rich ore it contains but also the buildings, mining equipment, and the unique history of the property, which still holds the remains of past family members. An agreement has yet to be worked out as to where the bones will go.
A News Channel 8 report states the family has asked for a jury trial to determine what the Air Force will have to pay for the contents of the property. Though the USAF valued the acreage at only $1.5 million, they offered nearly five times as much to the family. The report states that “the issues will be limited” in a jury trial as to what financial responsibility belongs to the Air Force.
“This has been, like I said, a 60-plus year nothing short of criminal activity on the part of the federal government, the AEC, Black Ops, CIA and you can go on and on,” said Joe Sheahan.

For now, the family will continue its efforts to receive a proper valuation of their property; one that has survived nuclear blast testing in the ’50s and ’60s, as well as building damage from a jettisoned engine from an aircraft.

“There’s nothing fair, there’s nothing anything remotely close to that involved in this process,” Sheahan said. “But there never has been either, so it’s nothing new. But we would like to change it at least to get our stuff out and be paid the value.”

Feds: Efforts to block sage grouse protection could backfire

RENO, Nev. (AP) — Attempts by rural Nevada counties, mining companies and others to block new U.S. policies intended to protect the greater sage grouse could backfire on the critics and ultimately force the reconsideration of a recent decision to keep the bird off the list of endangered species, federal land managers warn.

Justice Department lawyers representing three U.S. agencies say it took an unprecedented effort by officials in 11 western states from California to the Dakotas to persuade the Fish and Wildlife Service last month to reverse its 2010 conclusion that protection of the grouse was warranted under the Endangered Species Act.

The new finding was based on assumptions that added protections in the land-planning amendments being challenged will be carried out to ensure the grouse no longer is threatened with extinction, they said in a brief filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Reno.

Any injunction blocking implementation would “diminish the protections for sage grouse … undo four years of collaboration and could undermine FWS’ finding,” U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden wrote.

U.S. District Judge Miranda Du has set a hearing for Nov. 12 in Reno to consider granting a preliminary injunction blocking the amendments.

Elko and Eureka counties and others filed the lawsuit on Sept. 23 — the day after Interior Secretary Sally Jewell announced the listing decision. The Wyoming Stock Growers Association also is suing in federal court there, and Idaho’s governor has signed onto a separate lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington, D.C.

The Nevada lawsuit says the plans could run mining companies and ranchers out of business, block construction of a wind energy project that could bring Elko County $500 million and deny firefighters and law officers access to existing roads during emergencies.

Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt added his name to the lawsuit last week — over the objections of Gov. Brian Sandoval — along with Churchill, Humboldt, Lander, Lincoln, Pershing and Washoe counties in the state.

The government, in its first formal response, says the opponents misrepresent and exaggerate the potential effects. It says they have proven no irreparable harm and are challenging prematurely the planning-level amendments that offer guidelines but render no specific decisions on individual grazing, mining or other federal permits.

“They allege speculative injuries that will come to pass, if at all, only after future site-specific decisions are made,” Bogden wrote. He especially challenged claims the protections could restrict use of thousands of miles of existing roads and threaten public safety by inhibiting the travel of emergency responders.

“The amendments do not close any existing routes,” Bogden wrote. “But even if they did, the agencies’ regulations exempt emergency vehicles from OHV (off-highway vehicle) restrictions.”

The lawsuit accuses the government of “attempting a massive management change” for more than 20 million acres of public land in Nevada without proper environmental review — nearly 3 million acres where new mining claims are prohibited for at least two years and more than 16 million acres subject to what the lawsuit calls onerous travel restrictions.

The two-year freeze on some new mining claims was triggered by Jewell’s proposal last month to withdraw 10 million acres of public lands in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming under the 1872 Mining Law, which was passed then to encourage the development of lands in the western U.S.

But Bogden said the proposed withdrawal is subject to “valid existing rights and has no immediate effect on mining operations.” It’s subject to public comment through Dec. 23.

Likewise, nothing in the guidelines themselves would prevent construction of the $500 million China Mountain Wind Energy Project in Elko County, he said. “Elko’s County’s speculation that ultimately it will not be approved is not an imminent injury,” Bogden said.

The lawsuit says the government inappropriately dismissed Elko County’s plan to increase livestock grazing as a way to bolster grouse habitat by slowing the growth of vegetation that fuel wildfires. But Bogden said there is “no scientific evidence to support a correlation between increased grazing and improved sage grouse habitat.”

Las Vegas police pay $80,000 to Chentile Goodman who was falsely accused of prostitution

Las Vegas police will pay more than $80,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a woman who said officers detained her for two hours in The Cosmopolitan after falsely accusing her of being a prostitute.

A federal judge U.S. District Judge Miranda Du wrote that the case showed Metro’s prostitution sweeps in casinos were overly broad and threatened people’s constitutional rights.

Chentile Goodman was released without charge after the 2011 incident and filed a lawsuit later that year.

The $82,500 settlement of her case was approved this week by Metro’s Fiscal Affairs Committee, an oversight board of two Clark County commissioners, two Las Vegas City Council members and a citizen member.

In her lawsuit, Goodman said she had picked her friend Ayda Mosafer up at the airport the night of Feb. 9, 2011, and the two were planning to meet Goodman’s boyfriend for a late dinner and drinks.

In court filings, police said undercover vice officers were at The Cosmopolitan that night because it was known to be “overrun with prostitutes.”

Two of the officers, Sgt. James Signorello and Detective John Segura, spotted Goodman and Mosafer near the elevators. Police said Signorello recognized Mosafer from her arrest on suspicion of prostitution days earlier at the Spearmint Rhino strip club, where both Mosafer and Goodman worked.

Goodman said Segura approached her and asked if she knew where he could have some “fun.” By both sides’ accounts, the women showed no interest.

Despite that, the detectives identified themselves as police, asked for the women’s phones and said they needed to talk to them in the casino security office, Metro’s lawyers wrote in a court filing.

Goodman’s lawyer, Robert Nersesian, said she has never worked as a prostitute in her life. The women told the officers they were on their way to meet Goodman’s boyfriend at The Henry, a 24-hour restaurant in the hotel.

Goodman said the officers grabbed her and Mosafer by the arms, seized her cell phone and purse and took the women to the security office, where they were held and threatened with arrest. Goodman said police called her “whore” while holding her.

“LVMPD has developed a policy and practice of broad-scale prostitution sweeps in public casinos in a manner that threatens the constitutional rights of the women they target,” U.S. District Judge Miranda Du wrote in a 2013 order granting some of Goodman’s claims.

“As evidenced by Goodman’s detention and arrest in February 2011, the imprecise nature of Vice’s undercover activity results in a chaotic atmosphere that portends serious constitutional violations in cases where officers fail to appropriately assess the suspicion of their targets, all without appropriate checks on individual officers’ actions. The Constitution requires more.”

Du ruled police had no “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity that justified detaining Goodman, which made the search of her purse and seizure of her phone unconstitutional.

That ruling was overturned in June by a federal appeals court, which said the case should go to trial “because the facts here are so thoroughly disputed, and the resolution of the federal claims depends entirely on who is believed.” After that, the two sides held a settlement conference and agreed on the $82,500 payment.

Goodman also sued the owners of The Cosmopolitan, arguing casino security officers improperly helped detain her. Nersesian said the casino and Goodman reached a settlement, but he would not elaborate. The Cosmopolitan declined to comment.

Metro’s public information office didn’t respond to a request for comment Tuesday on the lawsuit settlement.

In a court filing, Metro lawyers said the detectives were justified in detaining Goodman for several reasons, including that she worked at a strip club, was “dressed provocatively” at 2 a.m. and was seen near the hotel elevators, which police said called “a known area for loitering for prostitution.”

Du, the judge, wrote that such vague standards could “scoop up many, if not most, women visiting the Cosmopolitan at the time.”

Goodman’s lawyer, Nersesian, said he thinks the detectives’ explanations were invented after the fact. Asked why he thinks the officers really stopped his client, he said: “They just go into these places and sweep everybody they think looks hot.”

Goodman, who is in her early 30s, is now living in another state and working as a nurse, Nersesian said. She could not be reached for comment.

Goodman’s lawsuit said the incident caused her emotional distress, and her lawyer said it took courage for her to pursue the lawsuit in hopes of changing police behavior.

“We have a constitution for a reason,” Nersesian said. “One of the biggest reasons is so that good people aren’t swept up in bad situations. And from my perspective … this was a glaring example of the failure to recognize constitutional limits, sweeping in a good person and causing her great harm.”

Contact Eric Hartley at ehartley@reviewjournal.com or 702-550-9229. Find him on Twitter: @ethartley

Massive CRIME SCENE at the Reno Federal Courthouse – The 7th Amendment protest resumes…

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

Reno Federal Courthouse protest by Ty Robben who demands his day in court

Today August 19, 2015 Ty Robben resumed his protest at the Reno Federal Courthouse in Reno, Nevada. Ty Robben want’s his day in court and has argued that the use of Summary Judgment also called FRCP 56 is unconstitutional and a violation of the 7th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The protests seem to have had a positive affect, the court has responded very quickly in denying the Defendants Carson City et al latest delay tacit. Reno Federal District Court Judge Miranda Du denied Reno Attorney Brian Brown of the unscrupulous Reno law firm thorndal armstrong delk balkenbush & eisinger

Miranda Du, Brian Browm, reno, nevada,federal courthouse, crime scene, ty robben, thorndal armstrong delk balkenbush & eisinger,

Reno Federal Court turns into a CRIME SCENE

Miranda Du, Reno federal courthouse,

Reno Federal court protest

ThisIsReno.com covers the 7th Amendment protest! More protests are coming Monday 08/17/2015 to ???

7th Amendment Protest Held At Federal Courthouse

7th-amendmnet-protest-reno

A small protest was held Friday at the federal courthouse downtown. According to organizers Ty Robben and Mike Weston, the issue at hand is the use of summary judgments in lawsuits, what they called a violation of the Seventh Amendment that guarantees the right to a civil jury trial.

“I would like to thank the Courthouse security, ‘Homeland Security,’ for being professional and keeping us safe,” said Robben. He also thanked the Reno Police Department “who were on hand for what turned out to be a very, very casual protest. We didn’t chalk the sidewalks even though we could have.”

Robben said they will be holding more protests in front of Reno Federal Court this week.

Check back on the http://NevadaStatePersonnelWATCH.wordpress.com website.

We expect to resume protesting Wednesday 08/19/2015 at both the Federal Courthouse at 400 So. Virginal St. and the Washoe County Courthouse down the street on Sierra St.

The exact time depends on various factors, we like starting early, and we should be up and protesting by 8:00am to Noonish. Wind always causes problems with the signs and our massive “crime scene tape”.

We do plan to protest every day possible until we get justice! Email robben.ty@gmail for information. The public is welcome and if you have an issue to protest, we accept people who have been victimized. The protest is non-violent. 

“If you have been victimized by judicial corruption, police corruption, or government corruption – come on out to out next protest,” he said.

Please see the original story here and please like and share on Facebook:

http://thisisreno.com/2015/08/7th-amendment-protest-held-at-federal-courthouse/

We “updated” Reno Judge Miranda Du’s Wiki page and added “Controversy”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_Du#Controversy
Controversy
Judge Miranda Du

We “updated” Reno Judge Miranda Du’s Wiki page and added “Controversy”

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval as a judge in 2008, he signed off on sanctions against the attorney after she was found by U.S. Magistrate Judge Valerie Cooke to have mishandled a case. After conducting a fresh review of the record, “the court accepts and adopts the magistrate judge’s recommendation,” he wrote in an Oct. 28, 2008, order. Sandoval issued a statement Thursday after being asked why he would recommend someone for a federal judgeship after having participated in a discipline finding against her. “I have reviewed the documents related to my approval of Magistrate Judge Cooke’s order, and I find nothing that would cause me to change my belief that Miranda Du would make an excellent federal judge,” Sandoval said. [10]

Judge Miranda Du and Reno lawyer Brian Brown protest

Judge Miranda Du and Reno lawyer Brian Brown protest

 In August 2015, a Plaintiff Ty Robben in a civil rights lawsuit against Defendants Carson City, et al, protested [11] against Judge Miranda Du for the use of Summary Judgment (FRCP 56) calling it an unconstitutional violation of the 7th amendment [12] Summary Judgment is unconstitutional. “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” – – The 7th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. [13]

In August 09, 2015 The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel recently overturned a 2013 ruling by federal judge Mirnada Du in Reno who threw out most of the lawsuit filed by the Colorado-based WildEarth Guardians. [14]Judge Miranda Du had concluded the harm cited by the conservationists would not be alleviated by halting the operations in Nevada because the state has said it would carry out the killings of coyotes, mountain lions, ravens and other predators itself. But the three-judge panel in San Francisco said in the new opinion that Du’s conclusion was “speculative at best” and ordered her to reconsider the case.[15]

Come help protest the rampant corruption this Friday 08/14/15 at 8am to noon in front of the federal courthouse on So. Virginia St. in Reno.

judge miranda du protest

This picture shows the size of the CRIME SCENE tape we will display in front of the Reno Federal courthouse.

Judge Miranda Du Reno Nevada Federal Court

Judge Miranda Du and Reno Attorney Brian Brown Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional! Justice delayed is justice denied

Today Friday August 14th 2015 Ty Robben and Mike Weston along with some friends made that statement that the use of Summary Judgment is unconstitutional and a violation of the 7th Amendment of the US Constitution that guarantees the right to a civil jury trial.

I would like to thank the Courthouse security “Homeland Security” for being professional and “keeping us safe”! says Robben who also thanks the Reno Police Department who were on hand for what turned out to be a very, very casual protest.

We didn’t chalk the sidewalks even though we could have said Robben who said he will continue the “peaceful protest” and hopes other join him in solidarity. After all, an injustice to one is an injustice to all. 

read more: Why summary judgment is unconstitutional

Miranda Du

Judge Miranda Du and Reno Attorney Brian Brown Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional! Justice delayed is justice denied

Judge Miranda Du

Judge Miranda Du and Reno Attorney Brian Brown Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional! Justice delayed is justice denied

justice delayed is justice denied

Judge Miranda Du and Reno Attorney Brian Brown Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional! Justice delayed is justice denied

Constitutional Conversation: 7th Amendment

We are doing a photo shoot and need some people to hold the “worlds largest crime scene tape” in front of the courthouse. we’ll be doing more protests and this is for the photo shoot to promote the next series of protests. If you have experienced government/judicial/police corruption, this protest is for you!

Contact robben.ty@gmail.com

Here’s the banner we need help displaying for a few hours.

  • Reno Federal Judge Miranda Du is at the center of the 7th Amendment Summary Judgment is unconstitutional protest in Reno Nevada. Dirty harry Reid introduces Miranda Du at nomination hearing and calls her a “boat child“.

Slow-balled, Stone-walled and Corn-holed…

Summary Judgment is unconstitutional.

“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” – – The 7th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Summary judgment is cited as a significant reason for the dramatic decline in the number of jury trials in civil cases in federal court. Judges extensively use the device to clear the federal docket of cases deemed meritless. Recent scholarship even has called for the mandatory use of summary judgment prior to settlement. While other scholars question the use of summary judgment in certain types of cases (for example, civil rights cases), all scholars and judges assume away a critical question: whether summary judgment is constitutional. The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court settled the issue a century ago in Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States. But a review of that case reveals that the conventional wisdom is wrong: the constitutionality of summary judgment has never been resolved by the Supreme Court. This Essay is the first to examine the question and takes the seemingly heretical position that summary judgment is unconstitutional. The question is governed by the Seventh Amendment which provides that “[i]n Suits at common law, . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

Judge Du Reno

Judge Miranda Du and dirty Harry Reid

The Supreme Court has held that “common law” in the Seventh Amendment refers to the English common law in 1791. This Essay demonstrates that no procedure similar to summary judgment existed under the English common law and also reveals that summary judgment violates the core principles or “substance” of the English common law. The Essay concludes that, despite the uniform acceptance of the device, summary judgment is unconstitutional.

The Essay then responds to likely objections, including that the federal courts cannot function properly without summary judgment. By describing the burden that the procedure of summary judgment imposes upon the courts, the Essay argues that summary judgment may not be necessary to the judicial system but rather, by contrast, imposes significant costs upon the system.

read more: Why summary judgment is unconstitutional

Stay tuned as this story develops.

Read more about Judge Miranda Du here: Harry Reid introduces his 2011 Judge Miranda Du at nomination hearing and calls her a “boat child”

Constitutional Conversation: 7th Amendment

Judge Miranda Du

7th Amendment protest coming to Reno next week to demand the use of summary judgment as unconstitutional?

 Ty Robben on Infowars

Ty Robben at the Reno Monsanto protest showcasing the “World’s largest CRIME SCENE tape” 

5/07/30/7th-amendment-protest-coming-to-reno-next-week-to-demand-the-use-of-summary-judgment-as-unconstitutional/

Reno Federal Judge Miranda Du over tuned by three-judge panel, Du’s conclusion was “speculative at best” and ordered her to reconsider the case.

Judge Miranda Du

Reno Federal Judge Miranda Du over tuned by three-judge panel, Du’s conclusion was “speculative at best” and ordered her to reconsider the case.

RENO, Nev. — A U.S. appeals court has breathed new life into a conservation group’s legal battle in Nevada aimed at shutting down a Depression-era government program that spends more than $100 million a year to subsidize the killing of predators that threaten livestock.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel recently overturned a 2013 ruling by a federal judge in Reno named Miranda Du whom Harry Reid referred to as a “boat child” who threw out most of the lawsuit filed by the Colorado-based WildEarth Guardians.

The lawsuit claims the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services is acting illegally because it relies on scientific and environmental data that is decades old.

They want the program suspended until the underlying data is more current.
Judge Miranda Du had concluded the harm cited by the conservationists would not be alleviated by halting the operations in Nevada because the state has said it would carry out the killings of coyotes, mountain lions, ravens and other predators itself.
But the three-judge panel in San Francisco said in the new opinion that Du’s conclusion was “speculative at best” and ordered her to reconsider the case.

“Any independent predator damage management activities by Nevada are hypothetical rather than actual,” Circuit Judge Michelle T. Friedland wrote Aug. 3.

The Wildlife Services program has given money to Nevada and other states across the West for more than 80 years.

Bethany Cotton, wildlife director for WildEarth Guardians, said it’s a critical ruling.

“For decades, Wildlife Services has operated in the shadows as though it were above the law,” Cotton said.bad judge

Du has not yet set a briefing schedule for the case to continue in Reno. USDA officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Officials for the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation and Nevada Cattlemen’s Association said they were disappointed and disagreed with the circuit court ruling.

The “predator control program not only benefits the livestock industry, but it benefits wildlife sustainability as well,” said Ron Torell of Elko, president of the cattlemen’s group. He said sage grouse specifically benefit from reductions in the population of coyotes, which sometimes feed on the birds, and ravens, which sometimes eat their eggs.
The conservationists said the program that spent $127 million to exterminate more than 5 million animals in 2010 should be suspended nationally until USDA updates its scientific analysis that’s based largely on an environmental impact statement conducted in 1994.

Cotton said most of the science the program relies on dates to the 1970s and 1980s and has largely been disproven by recent research.

“For example, peer-reviewed science shows that indiscriminant killing of coyotes triggers a biological response that actually leads to an increase in the coyote population,” she said. She said a better way to protect sage grouse from coyotes — and their eggs from ravens — is to enforce livestock grazing standards that prevent overgrazing that eliminates grass and sage brush the birds need for cover.

The conservationists said in their appeal that Nevada doesn’t have the resources to continue all the work in a state where federal officials spend $1.5 million to kill about 6,000 coyotes annually. They cited state documents supporting their view, and a Nevada Department of Wildlife official acknowledged earlier they probably were right.
“We wouldn’t have the manpower,” NDOW spokesman Chris Healy told AP at the time. “They are in some wild places in Nevada doing that kind of predator work where we have zero personnel. We already have a full plate.”

Judge Du concluded a Nevada member of the group, Don Molde, legally established actual harm as a result of a reduction in his ability to view coyotes, mountain lions and ravens. But she agreed with the government’s argument that “there’s no relief they can obtain that would redress their alleged injury.”

Andrew E. Wetzler, wildlife conservation director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the consequences of the appellate ruling “are hard to understate.”
“If USDA had prevailed, it would have been virtually impossible to ever challenge any predator management plan undertaken with a state or local government in federal court,” he wrote on the group’s staff blog. “All Wildlife Services would have to do is to get a letter from the state or locality saying: ‘we would do this anyway.”

SOURCE: http://www.mailtribune.com/article/20150808/NEWS/150809645

Harry Reid introduces his 2011 Judge Miranda Du at nomination hearing and calls her a “boat child”

The “Boat Child” comment is at the 2 minute mark 

Senator Reid this week introduced Miranda Du, nominee to be United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Du is currently a partner at McDonald Carano Wilson LLP in Reno and was recommended by Reid.

Miranda Du’s WIKI page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_Du

Miranda Mai Du (born December 11, 1969) is a United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

Born in Cà Mau, Vietnam, Du left the country at age 9, when her family sought asylum in Malaysia.[1] They spent a year in Malaysianrefugee camps before ultimately being granted asylum in the United States.[1]

Du received a Bachelor of Arts from University of California, Davis in 1991 and a Juris Doctor from University of California, Berkeley School of Law in 1994.[2]

Upon graduating law school, Du took a job as an associate at Reno law firm McDonald Carano Wilson LLP. She was promoted to partner in 2002.

On August 2, 2011, President Barack Obama nominated Du to replace Judge Roger L. Hunt who took senior status in 2011.[2]

On November 3, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee narrowly reported her nomination to the Senate floor in a party-line, 10–8 vote.[3] The reasons cited by some of the eight Republican senators on the committee who voted against sending Du’s nomination to the Senate floor were her lack of criminal-law experience and a 2008 sanction against Du imposed by the very judge, serving on the court to which she was being nominated, who in 2011 was recommending her nomination.[4] The sanction related to Du’s representation of a water district in a 2006 worker grievance case and the fact that she either failed to recognize or did not adequately pursue the argument that the federal court had lacked jurisdiction in the case.[4]

In a statement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who as a Nevadan recommended Du to Obama, said he had planned a “swift confirmation” of Du.[4][5] On March 28, 2012, Du’s nomination was confirmed by a vote of 59 ayes to 39 nays.[6] She received her commission on March 30, 2012.[7][8]

Controversy

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval as a judge in 2008, he signed off on sanctions against the attorney after she was found by U.S. Magistrate Judge Valerie Cooke to have mishandled a case. After conducting a fresh review of the record, “the court accepts and adopts the magistrate judge’s recommendation,” he wrote in an Oct. 28, 2008, order. Sandoval issued a statement Thursday after being asked why he would recommend someone for a federal judgeship after having participated in a discipline finding against her. “I have reviewed the documents related to my approval of Magistrate Judge Cooke’s order, and I find nothing that would cause me to change my belief that Miranda Du would make an excellent federal judge,” Sandoval said. [10]

In August 2015, a Plaintiff Ty Robben in a civil rights lawsuit against Defendants Carson City, et al, protested against Judge Miranda Du for the use of Summary Judgment (FRCP 56) calling it an unconstitutional violation of the 7th amendment [11] Summary Judgment is unconstitutional. “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” – – The 7th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. [12]

Continue reading

Help Ty Robben at gofundme.com and support the 7th Amendment protest coming to Reno Nevada August 2015.

Help support the 7th Amendment protest coming to Reno Nevada August 2015.

We got funding and did the protest – see the story here: 

https://nevadastatepersonnelwatch.wordpress.com/2015/08/14/7th-amendment-protest-goes-off-at-the-reno-federal-court-ty-robben-proclaims-summary-judgment-unconstitutional/

http://www.gofundme.com/8g6pqpf7es

We got funding and did the protest – see the story here: 

https://nevadastatepersonnelwatch.wordpress.com/2015/08/14/7th-amendment-protest-goes-off-at-the-reno-federal-court-ty-robben-proclaims-summary-judgment-unconstitutional/

UPDATE 08/09/2015: I got funding – Thanks to those who supported me as this protest starts this week. We are making new signs and I’ll have pictures up as soon as we hit the streets this week (or next depending on weather).

Reno Nevada resident Ty Robben plans to demonstrate in the very near future about the Reno Federal Court and in particular, Judge Miranda Du’s use of summary judgement to dismiss certain causes of action in his civil rights lawsuit against various Carson City officials including former disgraced DA Neil Rombardo , his corrupt assistant DA Mark Krueger and corrupt Carson City justice of the peace “judge” John Tatro.

“I plan to stay in front of the Reno courthouse with my signs until I get my day in court” says Robben.

Miranda Du judge,

Ty Robben says “This is hurting me financially and preventing me from getting treatment for my dog Tytan who’s suffering from bone cancer. They destroyed me and my family and now I am going to lose my dog.”

Ty Robben says “This is hurting me financially and preventing me from getting treatment for my dog Tytan who’s suffering from bone cancer. They destroyed me and my family and now I am going to lose my dog.” Update 08/04/2015 my dog passed. 

Ty Robben needs funding at http://www.gofundme.com/8g6pqpf7es to bring “The WORLDS LARGEST CRIME SCENE TAPE” to the Reno Federal Courthouse where he want’s to display the signs and use his 1st Amendment rights to protest the violation of his 7th Amendment rights. See previous KOLO news story here: https://youtu.be/gbk0rKPnbfs

Those listed are Defendants’ in a civil rights lawsuit filed by Robben that includes a cornucopia of claims including malicious prosecution, defamation, RICO (racketeering), false imprisonment, false arrest, and virtually every Constitutional amendment a person can suffer from including the 1st 2nd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th and 14th amendments of the US Constitution!

Ty Robben is fed-up and demands justice or there will be no peace. Stay tuned as the next Bundy Ranch heats up in crazy Nevada.

Reno Federal Judge Miranda Du is at the center of the 7th Amendment Summary Judgment is unconstitutional protest in Reno Nevada.

Reno Federal Judge Miranda Du is at the center of the 7th Amendment Summary Judgment is unconstitutional protest in Reno Nevada. Dirty harry Reid introduces Miranda Du at nomination hearing

Judge Miranda Du

Reno Federal Judge Miranda Du is at the center of the 7th Amendment Summary Judgment is unconstitutional protest in Reno Nevada.

Summary Judgment is unconstitutional. “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” – – The 7th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Summary judgment is cited as a significant reason for the dramatic decline in the number of jury trials in civil cases in federal court. Judges extensively use the device to clear the federal docket of cases deemed meritless. Recent scholarship even has called for the mandatory use of summary judgment prior to settlement. While other scholars question the use of summary judgment in certain types of cases (for example, civil rights cases), all scholars and judges assume away a critical question: whether summary judgment is constitutional. The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court settled the issue a century ago in Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States. But a review of that case reveals that the conventional wisdom is wrong: the constitutionality of summary judgment has never been resolved by the Supreme Court. This Essay is the first to examine the question and takes the seemingly heretical position that summary judgment is unconstitutional. The question is governed by the Seventh Amendment which provides that “[i]n Suits at common law, . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

Judge Du Reno

Judge Miranda Du and dirty Harry Reid

The Supreme Court has held that “common law” in the Seventh Amendment refers to the English common law in 1791. This Essay demonstrates that no procedure similar to summary judgment existed under the English common law and also reveals that summary judgment violates the core principles or “substance” of the English common law. The Essay concludes that, despite the uniform acceptance of the device, summary judgment is unconstitutional.

The Essay then responds to likely objections, including that the federal courts cannot function properly without summary judgment. By describing the burden that the procedure of summary judgment imposes upon the courts, the Essay argues that summary judgment may not be necessary to the judicial system but rather, by contrast, imposes significant costs upon the system.

read more: Why summary judgment is unconstitutional

Stay tuned as this story develops.

Read more about Judge Miranda Du here: Harry Reid introduces his 2011 Judge Miranda Du at nomination hearing and calls her a “boat child”

Constitutional Conversation: 7th Amendment

Judge Miranda Du

7th Amendment protest coming to Reno next week to demand the use of summary judgment as unconstitutional?

7th Amendment protest coming to Reno next week to demand the use of summary judgment as unconstitutional?

5/07/30/7th-amendment-protest-coming-to-reno-next-week-to-demand-the-use-of-summary-judgment-as-unconstitutional/

7th Amendment protest coming to Reno next week to demand the use of summary judgment as unconstitutional?

Miranda Du

 Is Ty Robben’s 7th Amendment protest against Judge Miranda Du coming to Reno next week?

Judge Miranda Du Reno nevada

7th Amendment protest coming to Reno Judge Miranda Du next week to demand the use of summary judgment as unconstitutional?

Judge Miranda Du

7th Amendment protest coming to Reno Judge Miranda Du next week to demand the use of summary judgment as unconstitutional?


Is a 7th Amendment protest coming to Reno next week? Stay tuned. Summary Judgement is unconstitutional. Ty Robben plans to demonstrate in the very near future about the Reno Federal Court and in particular, Judge Miranda Du’s use of summary judgement to dismiss certain causes of action in his civil rights lawsuit against various Carson City officials including former disgraced DA Neil Rombardo and his corrupt assistant DA Mark Krueger.

Ty Robben started a go fund me website to help raise money for the protest and his dog Tytan who has medical needs because of a recent discovery of bone cancer in his leg.

Ty Robben’s lawsuit also includes corrupt Carson City justice of the peace “judge” John Tatro. judge tatro

The complaint also includes the Carson City Department  of Alternative Sentencing (DAS) and names numerous Defendants including Sheriff Kenny Furlong and even jailhouse Dr. Joe Joseph E. McEllistrem.

Those listed are Defendants’ in a civil rights lawsuit file by Robben that includes a cornucopia of claims including malicious prosecution, defamation, RICO (racketeering), false imprisonment, false arrest, and virtually every Constitutional amendment a person can suffer from including the 1st 2nd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th and 14th amendments of the US Constitution!

Ty Robben is fed-up and demands justice or there will be no peace. Stay tuned as the next Bundy Ranch heats up in crazy Nevada.

Ty Robben says he want’s peace and justice. No justice is no peace. This is a crazy case where Judge Tatro falsify accused Robben of hiring a hit man to kill him and well as trying to frame Robben on the shooting of Tatro’s home which turned out to be the crazy drunk judges mistress! Only in Carson City can you find hillbilly justice like this.

Miranda Du judge, 7th amendment, protest,

Ty Robben says “This is hurting me financially and preventing me from getting treatment for my dog Tytan who’s suffering from bone cancer.”

Ty Robben says “This is hurting me financially and preventing me from getting treatment for my dog Tytan who’s suffering from bone cancer.”

Stay tuned as this story develops.

Why Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional

Suja A. Thomas

Abstract:

Summary judgment is cited as a significant reason for the dramatic decline in the number of jury trials in civil cases in federal court. Judges extensively use the device to clear the federal docket of cases deemed meritless. Recent scholarship even has called for the mandatory use of summary judgment prior to settlement. While other scholars question the use of summary judgment in certain types of cases (for example, civil rights cases), all scholars and judges assume away a critical question: whether summary judgment is constitutional. The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court settled the issue a century ago in Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States. But a review of that case reveals that the conventional wisdom is wrong: the constitutionality of summary judgment has never been resolved by the Supreme Court. This Essay is the first to examine the question and takes the seemingly heretical position that summary judgment is unconstitutional. The question is governed by the Seventh Amendment which provides that “[i]n Suits at common law, . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” The Supreme Court has held that “common law” in the Seventh Amendment refers to the English common law in 1791. This Essay demonstrates that no procedure similar to summary judgment existed under the English common law and also reveals that summary judgment violates the core principles or “substance” of the English common law. The Essay concludes that, despite the uniform acceptance of the device, summary judgment is unconstitutional. The Essay then responds to likely objections, including that the federal courts cannot function properly without summary judgment. By describing the burden that the procedure of summary judgment imposes upon the courts, the Essay argues that summary judgment may not be necessary to the judicial system but rather, by contrast, imposes significant costs upon the system.

read more: Why summary judgment is unconstitutional

Judge Du

judge miranda du,

CORRUPT COURTS = DEAD PEOPLE

lady_justice_of_death_by_shawncoss-d5vgmv5In 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. Id. 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.

Judicial Sodomy: Why summary judgment is unconstitutional

Featured

THE CASE OF THE PEOPLE VERSUS SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Prof. Suja Thomas knows how to start a story with a riveting lead:

Gavel_flickr_383476178_8fe0f5e767Summary judgment is unconstitutional.

Say what?

That’s the first sentence of her article, “Why Summary Judgment Is Unconstitutional,” about to be published in the Virginia Law Review and available for download at SSRN.  She knows you’ll be skeptical:

I understand that this assertion will face resistance from many. The procedure is well-entrenched in our federal courts through its ubiquity and lengthy history. Nevertheless, I will show that summary judgment fails to preserve a civil litigant’s right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.

Summary judgment means no jury

I have a few intrepid readers whose work has nothing to do with law, and a few more who haven’t thought about civil procedure since law school, so let’s be sure we’re on the same page.  Summary judgment means you skip the jury and decide a civil lawsuit “on the papers.”  If the judge rules that the undisputed facts lead to only one legal conclusion, the case is over — without a jury trial.  A common example is an explicit contract.  If I lend you money, you sign a promissory note, and you don’t pay, the judge will usually tell me I win the case “as a matter of law,” since there is nothing a jury could say that would take you off the hook.

To a business litigator like me, rethinking summary judgment is like rethinking breathing.  We have never considered what we would do without it.  As Prof. Thomas notes, summary judgment is a a fixture of civil practice:

A large number of civil cases do not move beyond discovery without at least one motion for summary judgment from the defendant.  . . .  Indeed, the extensive use of summary judgment is cited as a significant reason for the dramatic decline in the number of jury trials in civil cases in the federal courts.

But unconstitutional?

I always thought the Supreme Court liked summary judgment, too.  In our motions, civil lawyers always cite Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, which in 1986 formed part of a well-known trilogy of Supreme Court opinions addressing summary judgment:

Summary judgment procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed “to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.”  . . . [The summary judgment rule] must be construed with due regard not only for the rights of persons asserting claims and defenses that are adequately based in fact to have those claims and defenses tried to a jury, but also for the rights of persons opposing such claims and defenses to demonstrate in the manner provided by the Rule, prior to trial, that the claims and defenses have no factual basis.

(Emphasis added, as we always do.)  Prof. Thomas points out there is actually data showing how much we love this quote; she cites Adam N. Steinman, The Irrepressible Myth of Celotex: Reconsidering Summary Judgment Burdens Twenty Years after the Trilogy, 63 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 81, 82, 86–88, 143–44 (2006) (SSRN download here) as “presenting data that demonstrates that federal courts cite the trilogy of cases on summary judgment more often than any other cases.”

Prof. Thomas reviews the Supreme Court’s summary judgment cases and argues that the court has never specifically decided whether summary judgment denies the constitutional right to jury trial.  Since the question is unresolved, she argues, we should now resolve it, and eliminate summary judgment.  She argues here — as she did in an earlier article, “Judicial Modesty And The Jury,” SSRN download here — that summary judgment shifts the balance of power from juries, where she thinks it should be, to judges, where she thinks it shouldn’t.

Practical questions

There are going to be questions, of course.  Some are practical.  Prof. Thomas draws a line, for example, between constitutionally acceptable motions to dismiss, where the facts are fixed because the complaint is taken as true, and unconstitutional motions for summary judgment, where the judge decides what a jury could reasonably infer from agreed facts.  In practice, the distinction is not so clean.  If I’m suing on a promissory note and the defendant files a mushy denial, the motion I need to file is for summary judgment, even though the facts and all inferences from them are fixed.

Then there’s the very practical question of what would happen to civil lawsuits if every disputed case went to a jury.  Prof. Thomas suggests that many more cases would settle, and that seems certain.  It’s likely too that many more cases would be diverted to arbitration, as banks, utility companies, and other businesses started writing arbitration clauses into their contracts.

What about the legislature?

Since summary judgment probably won’t be outlawed any time soon, though, the conceptual questions are more interesting than the practical ones.  What is the proper role of juries in our legal system?

Prof. Thomas is making a choice between judges and juries, but judges and juries are not the only pieces on the board.  The change she proposes would change the legislature’s role as well.  Many lawsuits are based on statutes that are dramatically counterintuitive.  Many patent cases, for example, have this fact pattern:  the defendant did in fact copy the plaintiff’s product, but changed it, so that the defendant’s product does not include all the features listed in the patent’s “claims.”  Patent law says that plaintiff loses, without question.  But copying your neighbor’s work is something jurors have learned from kindergarten is wrong, and it’s a difficult statute for them to enforce.  In  cases like that, summary judgment is an important tool in making sure the legislature gets what it wanted.

A consistent approach

Whether you agree or disagree with Prof. Thomas, it’s worth a minute to admire the consistency of her argument.  Much of the talk about the role of juries seems to focus more on the ends than the underlying ideas.  Thus for example the libertarian Cato Institute argues here against excessive punitive damages, but here for jury nullification.  At the level of principle, they’re the same thing.  When you give jurors more power, they may use it to nullify the jury instructions or multiply the punitive damages, but either way they’re using the power you gave them.  Prof. Thomas’s paper embraces that; it’s an argument for greater jury power, whereever it may lead.  For that and for its audacity, it’s a cogent addition to the ongoing conversation on this topic.

Back to voir dire questions

What does all this mean to a trial lawyer?  The world of academic discussion and the politics of juries can look very distant from our desks.  Some lawyers are routinely on the same side of an issue, and have a policy view to match; personal injury plaintiffs’ lawyers, for example, tend to oppose restrictions on punitive-damages awards.  In a business practice, on the other hand, we can easily represent — and our clients can easily be — plaintiffs in one case and defendants in another.  We don’t tend to talk about the role-of-the-jury debate around the coffee machine.

Even for the most opinionated lawyer, though, the politics fall away when jury selection begins.  It’s this jury, these witnesses, this judge, these lawyers, these issues, this day, and trying to get a sense of how it will all work together.

In that moment, the only politics that matter are the jurors’.  Are there jurors on the panel who feel strongly about the role of the jury?  Have they read about this issue?  Have they read anything to prepare for their job as a juror?  (You’re looking for something like the Fully Informed Jury Association’s Juror’s Handbook, which urges jurors to exercise independent power.)  Are they aware there are materials like that out there?  Can they agree to take their instruction from the judge, and not what they’ve read?  What groups do they feel associated with, or what groups’ publications do they follow?  (You want to know that for a hundred reasons, but here, you’re looking for groups who advocate as to either punitive damages or jury nullification.)  In most courts you need to make these questions very open-ended, or the judge will call it argument and shut you down.  But ask.

____________________

Related notes and sources:

1.  Eric Turkewitz’s post yesterday on New York Personal Injury Attorney Blog reminds us not to stereotype juries’ orjudge’s decisionmaking.  It’s so pithy it’s practically a haiku.

2.  For more on the conceptual relationship of punitive damages and nullification, a good article is Wenger and Hoffman, “Nullificatory Juries,” published in the Wisconsin Law Journal in 2004 and also here.  Wenger and Hoffman argue that “some kinds of damages have much in common with nullification,” and they collect references to several scholars who “have noted potential conceptual links between jury nullification and punitive damages.”

3.  For the future of this issue, keep an eye on Tellabs v. Makor Issues & Rights, to be argued before the Supreme Court on March 28.  SCOTUSblog describes the issue as the trial court’s “power to draw inferences in considering dismissal of securities fraud lawsuits.”

judge john tatroWHY SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

By Suja A. Thomas∗

Summary  judgment is cited as a significant reason for the dramatic decline in the number of jury trials in civil cases in federal court. Judges extensively use the device to clear the federal docket of cases deemed meritless. Recent scholarship even has called for the mandatory use of summary judgment prior to settlement. While other scholars question the use of summary judgment in certain types of cases (for example, civil rights cases), all scholars and judges assume away a critical question: whether summary judgment is constitutional. The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court settled the issue a century ago in Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States. But a review of that case reveals that the conventional wisdom is wrong: the constitutionality of summary judgment has never been resolved by the Supreme Court.

This Essay is the first to examine the question and takes the seemingly heretical position that summary judgment is unconstitutional. The question is governed by the Seventh Amendment which provides that “[i]n Suits at common law, . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” The Supreme Court has held that “common law” in the Seventh Amendment refers to the English common law in 1791.

read more: Why summary judgment is unconstitutional

Elko County Legal Bills Top $250K in Jarbidge Fight

Bags-Of-Money-Dollar-Signs-Bills-CoinsELKO, Nev. (AP) | Elko County’s legal bills have climbed past $250,000 with no end in sight in a 16-year-old court battle with environmentalists and the U.S. government over control of a remote Forest Service road near the Idaho line.

Assistant District Attorney Kristen McQueary doesn’t expect a judge to make a ruling before the end of the year on conservationists’ latest attempt to throw out a settlement agreement between the county and the Forest Service.

She also anticipates the case eventually will again return to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

The Wilderness Society and others say the federal agency has no authority to cede control of the road that runs along the Jarbidge River, home of the threatened bull trout.

The appellate court twice has struck down previous versions of the agreement. The parties spent two weeks in federal court in Reno this month gathering additional testimony before U.S. District Judge Miranda Du, and pouring over thousands of pages documents.

“By the time the judge goes through an enormous amount of information, I would be surprised if we had a decision by the end of the year,” McQueary told county officials last week. “But that all depends on when the transcript comes.”

“In all likelihood, however it turns out, the side that is unhappy will appeal to the 9th Circuit,” McQueary said. “This is just a step on the way.”

Elko County officials maintain the South Canyon Road belongs to them based on claims it existed before the national forest was created more than a century ago.

Lawyers for environmental groups say there’s no record of any road along the Jarbidge River before the area near the Idaho line was placed in reserve in 1905 and formally designated part of the Humboldt National Forest by President Teddy Roosevelt in 1909.

McQueary said last year the case was “by far the most man-hour intensive case” she’d ever seen in her nearly 20 years in the county’s civil division. But she had no estimate at that time on the cost.

A public records request by the Elko Daily Free Press (http://tinyurl.com/lr3bkq2 ) put the total as of last week at about $251,000.

Assistant County Manager Cash Minor said that doesn’t include a host of expenses from the latest two-week hearing, including attorney fees and payments for expert witnesses, as well as travel and lodging reimbursement.

McQueary said more is at stake than just the legal ownership of the road.

“The case is important for the precedent it sets for the West,” she said.

SOURCE: http://magicvalley.com/news/local/elko-county-legal-bills-top-k-in-jarbidge-fight/article_ca32d1bb-7da6-5150-b9c5-71d21de0aff9.html

Elko County’s lawyers head back to federal court Monday with century-old newspaper clippings and mining claim maps from the 1890s that they say prove they’re in charge of a road on a national forest near the Idaho border.

Carson City lawsuitsRENO (AP) — Elko County’s lawyers head back to federal court Monday with century-old newspaper clippings and mining claim maps from the 1890s that they say prove they’re in charge of a road on a national forest near the Idaho border.

The county, U.S. government and environmentalists have been arguing for two decades over the South Canyon Road and protection of a threatened fish in the river next to it.

The government first sued the county and leaders of a group called the “Shovel Brigade” in 1999, accusing them of violating the Endangered Species Act with the unauthorized reconstruction of the washed out road along the Jarbidge River.

Legal arguments center on an 1866 law that established so-called RS 2477 roads by granting states and counties the right of way to build highways on federal lands. Congress repealed such rights of way in 1976, but grandfathered in roads established on lands before national forests were formed or the land was placed into federal reserve.

Elko County maintains their road enjoys such status because miners and ranchers regularly traveled the route before the area first was reserved in 1905, then designated a national forest by President Teddy Roosevelt in 1909.

The government denies such a right of way exists. But under political pressure, the Forest Service signed a settlement agreement in 2003 with assurances it no longer would challenge the county’s claim.

The Wilderness Society and Great Old Broads for Wilderness sued to block the deal, saying U.S. officials lacked the authority to cede control of the road and shirked their responsibility to protect the bull trout. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and tossed the agreement out in 2005, before the agency signed a similar deal in 2011 and conservationists sued again.

The latest evidentiary hearing began last Monday and continues this week before U.S. District Judge Miranda Du.

Environmentalists say the county must prove a highway formally was established under Nevada law before the forest designation.

“Not a single map shows a trail or road there before 1909,” said Michael Freeman, a lawyer for The Wilderness Society. Dennis Scully, who surveyed the land for the U.S. General Land Office 1896, described the canyon as “some of the roughest country in the United States.”

Conflicting accounts introduced as evidence include a Western Shoshone legend of an evil man-eating devil that supposedly kept Indians from venturing into Jarbidge Canyon, and a livestock census estimating 500,000 sheep were grazing in the area by 1908.

County officials cite mining claims filed as early as 1894, a cabin built in 1903 and the 1910 U.S. Census with the town of Jarbidge, population 650.

Professional land surveyor William Price testified on behalf of the county for nearly eight hours last week, pointing to maps of mining claims and reading Elko Free Press accounts of the canyon’s development, including a 1907 report about a state senator who was fined $400 and sentenced to a day in jail for illegally fencing public land nearby.

Price said more than a half-dozen claims were “placer claims,” meaning they searched stream bottoms for gold, not mountain outcrops. He said miners with claims both north and south of the river canyon couldn’t have moved between them without traveling the same route that exists today between 10,000-foot mountain peaks.

“On foot, there was only one practical way to go,” he said.

Conflicting accounts introduced as evidence include a Western Shoshone legend of an evil man-eating devil that supposedly kept Indians from venturing into Jarbidge Canyon, and a livestock census estimating 500,000 sheep were grazing in the area by 1908.

s

Why didn’t judge recuse himself in the long ago trial of Jose Ecchavarria? “It was constitutionally intolerable for the trial judge to preside over the case,” said Federal Judge Miranda Du

The man who killed Las Vegas FBI agent John Bailey may get a new trial more than 25 years after the fact. But not because he didn’t do it.

The evidence is clear that Jose Echavarria shot the agent three times during an attempted bank robbery on June 25, 1990. The 29-year-old dealer was disguised as a woman and dropped his wallet as he fled. Agents went to the apartment just six blocks away and found the disguise. His fingerprints were on two $100 bills dropped inside the bank. The evidence against him was overwhelming.

His roommate and getaway driver, Carlos Gurry, a 27-year-old laundry worker, was also arrested and convicted of charges, but not murder. He waited outside the bank and didn’t fire a weapon. Echavarria fled to Mexico, where he was arrested and returned to Las Vegas.

If ever there was an open-and-shut case, this was it. Echavarria received the death penalty. Gurry received life with the possibility of parole.

In death penalty cases, extensive appeals are routine, so Echavarria’s attorneys filed appeal after appeal on various legal issues. The Nevada Supreme Court denied them all, and in an appeal to the federal court, U.S. District Judge Miranda Du kicked all but one issue.

In January, Du issued a 57-page opinion concluding Echavarria had one valid point. He deserved a new trial because of the appearance of judicial bias. The judge who tried the case, District Judge Jack Lehman, should have told Echavarria and his attorneys that in 1986 and 1987, Lehman, then the chairman of the Colorado River Commission, had been investigated by the FBI on suspicion of serious fraud allegations involving land transactions. Lehman wasn’t charged, but he was investigated.

Echavarria claimed his constitutional rights to a fair trial were violated because Lehman had been biased. Du said that there was no proof of bias, but that it should have been disclosed by the judge so Echavarria could have asked for a new judge. “It was constitutionally intolerable for the trial judge to preside over the case,” Du wrote.

Here’s the ironic twist. Lehman did disclose it. Just not to Echavarria and his attorneys.

On Sept. 17, 1990, Lehman told Gurry’s defense attorney, David Wall, and prosecutor Bill Henry. No one objected to Lehman remaining on the case. The next month, there was a meeting between FBI officials and Clark County prosecutors to discuss it. A prosecutor said he would suggest a chambers meeting with all the parties to discuss the potential conflict.

But Echavarria’s attorneys Michael Stuhff and David Schieck said they were never told of the investigation or they would have asked for a new judge.

Judge Miranda Du

Judge Miranda Du’s opinion has outraged the FBI, and Attorney General Adam Laxalt decided his office will appeal her ruling.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will have to decide whether to uphold or reject Du’s ruling, and in all likelihood, it could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Should Lehman have voluntarily recused himself from the case against shooter Echavarria and getaway driver Gurry?

In retrospect, absolutely.

Someone actually told Lehman’s wife he shouldn’t be hearing the case, which went to trial in 1991.

A new trial brings plenty of problems. After 25 years, witnesses are dead. Others are going to have trouble remembering. There’s a chance the man who murdered Bailey might walk.

I knew John Bailey. He was a funny, likable professional who in 21 years with the FBI, 13 in Las Vegas, worked on many cases I covered as the Review-Journal’s federal court reporter. I didn’t know his wife, Beth, or his two teenage daughters, 15 and 14 at the time of his death, but I considered him a friend.

When they named the Las Vegas FBI building after him following his murder, I was glad. Just now, pouring over old newspaper clips, the Las Vegas Sun’s color photo of him on a gurney being rushed to the hospital where he died made me tear up.

He was involved in high-profile cases, including the tax evasion case against federal Judge Harry Claiborne, the 1978 unsolved kidnapping case of 6-year-old Cary Sayegh, the 1978 case in which two men tried to bribe then Gaming Commission Chairman Harry Reid, the 1979 torching of the Chicken Ranch brothel, and the 1984 bank robbery in which he recovered $1 million of the $2.5 million stolen.

Bailey, 47, was in the wrong place and the wrong time. He was serving a subpoena for records for someone being investigated when Echavarria entered the bank in his clownish disguise and pulled a gun on a teller, who screamed and jumped back. The would-be bank robber changed his plan and tried to leave.

Bailey was a Vietnam veteran with two Bronze Stars and a marathon runner weighing about 155 pounds and standing 5 feet 9 inches tall. He tried to stop Echavarria. He identified himself as FBI and ordered him to halt. When Echavarria kept walking, Bailey fired a shot shattering the bank’s front door.

Du’s order described it this way: “Echavarria stopped. Bailey grabbed the gunman, held him against the wall, and ordered him to drop his gun, which Echavarria eventually did.”

Bailey asked someone to call the FBI and asked a bank employee to get his handcuffs from his car, seating Echavarria in a chair. When the handcuffs arrived, Du wrote, Echavarria jumped out of the chair and collided with Bailey. During the scuffle, Bailey fell and the gunman retrieved his own .38 revolver and shot the agent. Three times. In the right arm, the lower left chest and the fatal shot to the upper right chest.

Why didn’t Lehman realize there would be at least an appearance of bias on his part? We’ll never know. He’s in no condition to discuss it. He’s in fragile health and moved to California.

If his investigation by the FBI created an appearance of bias, why didn’t Henry or Wall, who later became a judge himself, see that as a problem? After all, he could have been biased in either direction, either for or against the FBI. He could have wanted to seek the FBI’s favor or he could have resented that investigation. The fact that neither the prosecutor or Gurry’s defense attorney saw it as a problem speaks volumes.

Du’s opinion has outraged the FBI, and Attorney General Adam Laxalt decided his office will appeal her ruling. The case is in the hands of defense attorney Michael Pescetta, a expert in death penalty cases, and Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Conner.

The first trial lasted four weeks and is chronicled in the 2014 book by retired agent Gary Magnesen.

“FBI Agent Down” focuses on Bailey’s life and death, the investigation into his murder and the backgrounds of Echavarria and Gurry, both refugees from Castro’s Cuba, as well as the trial itself.

Now he’ll have to add an addendum, especially if Echavarria goes free.

If Echavarria walks, a tragic story becomes a horror story.

Jane Ann Morrison’s column appears Thursdays. Email her at jmorrison@reviewjournal.com or leave a message at 702-383-0275. Find her on Twitter @janeannmorrison

Groups protest dismissal of horse lawsuit

Judge Miranda DuThe Nevada Association of Counties and Farm Bureau Federation have objected to the federal court decision dismissing their lawsuit against the Interior Department over management of the state’s wild horse and burro populations.

In a joint statement, they said the 2013 lawsuit was filed to protect Nevada rangelands and the state’s limited natural resources.

“The significant overpopulation of wild horses and burros in Nevada has severe impacts on the health of horses as well as the ecological health and sustainability of Nevada rangelands,” the statement says. “It also results in the degradation of natural springs and riparian areas and negative effects on native wildlife and vegetation.”

They said the suit was filed to try force the federal government to comply with the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act to properly manage the horse and burro populations in the state.wild-horse-roundup

The lawsuit was dismissed Thursday. U.S. District Judge Miranda Du said in her nine-page order the plaintiffs failed to identify any agency action for review, instead calling on the court to ensure the management of the animals complied with the 1971 act.

“The court lacks jurisdiction to oversee such a sweeping request,” she said.

Groups protest dismissal of horse lawsuit by U.S. District Judge Miranda Du

HorsemanThe Nevada Association of Counties and Farm Bureau Federation have objected to the federal court decision dismissing their lawsuit against the Interior Department over management of the state’s wild horse and burro populations.

In a joint statement, they said the 2013 lawsuit was filed to protect Nevada rangelands and the state’s limited natural resources.

“The significant overpopulation of wild horses and burros in Nevada has severe impacts on the health of horses as well as the ecological health and sustainability of Nevada rangelands,” the statement says. “It also results in the degradation of natural springs and riparian areas and negative effects on native wildlife and vegetation.”

They said the suit was filed to try force the federal government to comply with the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act to properly manage the horse and burro populations in the state.

The lawsuit was dismissed Thursday. U.S. District Judge Miranda Du said in her nine-page order the plaintiffs failed to identify any agency action for review, instead calling on the court to ensure the management of the animals complied with the 1971 act.

“The court lacks jurisdiction to oversee such a sweeping request,” she said.