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

Proposed Changes to Federal Nevada Local Rules 2016 include deleting LR 7-5 and 7-6!!! see http://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/PublicComments/default.aspx

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

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

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

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

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

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

Embattled federal judge taking senior status

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After years of cover-ups and complicity by the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, Captain Rodney Stich filed an unprecedented federal lawsuit, naming as defendants the Supreme Court Justices. The basis was their repeated complicity in the criminal acts that he had documented, and a belief that the media publicity would focus attention on the charges. The Justices did not deny any of the allegations in the filing, primarily arguing that they were immune.

The information at this site reveals decades of conduct of key people in powerful governmentpositions  that resulted in major events affecting the people and the nation, in which the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court played enabling roles. The consequences had profound effects on many lives and national security. While the end effects were obviously well known, the enabling causes were totally unknown.
Much of the Information Based on Experiences of Key Insiders
The following facts are a sampling of information relating to the role of the Justices of  the U.S. Supreme Court, much of it based upon the actual experiences and findings of key insiders in covert and overt government operations, and other key insiders, and cover several decades.
Consequences Include First Series of Terrorist Successes
The conduct described here played direct or enabling roles in events affecting individual Americans,national security, the series of terrorist successes, and events in other nations, especially the Middle East. This presentation focuses upon the complicity of federal judges, starting in the 1970s.
Initial Discovery of the Consequences of Conduct
By Powerful Personnel in the U.S. Government

The problems were first discovered by Captain Rodney Stich after he was given, as a federal airline safety inspector, an official and unprecedented life-and-death-assignment in 1964 to correct the conditions at a politically-powerful airline that was experienced a world-record series of airlinedisasters. As he discovered and sought to correct the serious problems, he came under attack from powerful political forces in the FAA (known at that time by knowledgeable insiders as the “tombstone agency”). During these attacks, three additional aviation disasters occurring, each enabled by the safety problems Stich had reported in writing and sought to correct.
Acting Similar to Independent Prosecutor in FAA
The horror of the crashes and the continuing corruption caused him to take unprecedented actions. The first was to use the law in such a way that he acted similar to an independent prosecutor in FAA. His 1965 complaints to members of Congress were followed by Congress abolishing the Federal Aviation Agency in 1967 and replacing it with the Federal Aviation Administration, under the newly created Department of Transportation.
The same personnel and the same culture remained in place, and the large numbers of resultingairline disasters continued for many years before other factors compensated for the problems related to crew training and competency checks. The standard cover-up continued. Complaints to Department of Justice personnel concerning the conduct of powerful people in the government oligarchy proved useless.
Resigning in Protest, and Becoming a Corruption-Fighter
Refusing to be part of a deadly environment, Stich resigned. As a private citizen, he crusaded as acorruption-fighter, writing not-for-profit books, giving lectures, and appearing as guest on hundreds of radio and televisions shows, starting in 1978. The publicity resulted in a continuing series of insidesources proving him information on other areas of government that were resulting in serious harm in national and international areas. The information provided by those sources extended to areas affecting other national interests, and eventually to conduct that generated outrage in the Middle East and then enabled the first series of al Qaeda terrorist successes.
Again Using Unprecedented Efforts
Seeking to Halt Enabling Conduct
Unable to force corrective action through government and non-government checks and balances, Stich used the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, to file papers in federal courts to provide the information to a federal judge, expecting the publicity to force corrective action. In violation of law, Department of Justice personnel and federal judges blocked Stich from proceeding with producing the evidence of high-level corruption and the consequences. The practice was to protect the government oligarchy. In almost every filing, Stich appealed to federal appellate judges, and then to the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sampling of such filings:
  • Lawsuit against FAA to report corruption that enabled a series of airline crashes.
  • Lawsuit against NTSB for withholding material evidence that enabled the direct cause of the world’s worst airline disaster at that time.
  • Lawsuits addressing the following:
    • DOJ personnel and federal judges charging the corruption-fighter with criminal contempt of court for filing a federal action to halt the corruption-enabled start of a series of corruption-enabled terrorist successes.
    • Department of Justice personnel and federal judges illegally and unconstitutionally seizing and liquidating his life assets that funded his corruption-fighting crusade, converting him from a multimillionaire to a state of poverty—while everyone watched, and did nothing.
    • Judicial orders that illegally and unconstitutionally denied him access to the federal courts, which prevented him and his sources from reporting the corrupt practices in the government oligarchy that he and his sources discovered that enabled the harm to occur that is listed herein.
    • Those judicial orders terminated his defenses in law and the Constitution. Stich was subjected to six years of great personal and financial harm resulting from a scheme controlled by Department of Justice personnel, and started with a sham lawsuit  in 1982, filed by the CIA-front San Francisco law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross. That lawsuit was barred by the facts, and was barred by dozens of state and federal statutes and controlling case law, and landmark Supreme Court decisions. California judges at every level were complicit in those early attempts to halt the corruption fighter, making theCalifornia judges acting as a RICO criminal enterprise and early enablers of great tragedies.

After years of cover-ups and complicity by the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, Captain Rodney Stich filed an unprecedented federal lawsuit, naming as defendants the Supreme Court Justices. The basis was their repeated complicity in the criminal acts that he had documented, and a belief that the media publicity would focus attention on the charges. The Justices did not deny any of the allegations in the filing, primarily arguing that they were immune.
The years of prior media cover-ups continued to withhold any information on that filing, continuing the Operation Mockingbird and similar cover-ups.

Sampling of the Consequences In the Later
Segments of the Futile Anti-Corruption Crusade
DOJ Culture involved in the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing over Lockerbie
Forewarned Downing of TWA Flight 800
|And FBI-CIA-NTSB Personnel Cover-Ups
Downing of TWA Flight 800. The first forewarned attack occurred several weeks after FBI personnel were notified by the mole and his New York City attorney that a U.S. airlinerdeparting nearby JFK airport would be downed. TWA Flight 800 was downed shortly after departing New York City’s JFK Airport. That downing required falsification of evidence by Department of Justice employees; and CIA employees.
After the downing of TWA Flight 800, the perpetrators of the deep-sixing withholding of information on planned al Qaeda attacks saw the consequences of their acts. If they now made known the information on  the next attacks, the deaths in Flight 800 would be blamed on their criminal cover-up scheme. The deep-sixing continued. The bombings of U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania then occurred, with hundreds of deaths and hundreds of injuries. Another cover-up had to occur.
Stich took several actions, risking another criminal contempt of court for reporting the deadly corruption:
Complicity of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.
During this period, the FBI and other DOJ personnel were also involved in murders, and were deep sixing advance information on planned al Qaeda terrorist attacks. The murders reflected the culture in that corrupted government agency; and the deep-sixing of advance information of the al Qaeda attacks insured the success of the horrific al Qaeda multiple airline hijackings on September 11, 2001. The dozens of people jumping to their deaths from the World Trade Center were a few of the victims of the corruption stated here.

Unprecedented Response, Support,
And Apology, By
Supreme Court Justice Byron White
While that lawsuit was going through the courts, the gravity of the start of terrorist successes, enabled by the continuing corruption, motivated Stich to send an Emergency Petition to highly respected Supreme Court Justice Byron White. He was the only Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to show to deviate from the total gridlock protecting the serious problems in the controlling government oligarchy.
Upon receiving the Emergency Petition, Justice White sent a personal letter. rather than the standard court clerk reply, that contained an unprecedented apology for being unable—as a single justice—to help.
AUSA and Attorney General Eric Holder in Complicity
Role of former Department of Justice Eric Holder in the cover-ups that led to more tragedies, resulting in his promotion to Attorney General in  President Barack Obama’s presidency.www.wikileaksusa.org/holder_enabled_american_tragedies.html.
Worsening Consequences: Start of Series of al Qaeda Attacks
The judicial cover-ups enabled the wrongful conduct to continue—along with the more severe consequences. These worsening consequences progressed in the later 1980s to the start of a series of terrorist successes. Stich, helped by his sources, including a former New York City Mafiosi who was a mole in a key al Qaeda cell, sent an Emergency Petition to highly respected Supreme Court Justice Byron White.

America’s Worst One-Day’s Multiple
Aviation Disasters—And
Record Number of Enablers
On September 11, 2001, the culture in the “tombstone agency” would surface as never before, enabling the simultaneous hijackings of four U.S. airliners that subjected nearly 3,000 people to possibly the greatest horror in world  aviation history. And it was enabled first by the deep-seated culture in the FAA. FAA (but assisted by many other people and groups).
9/11 Easily-Preventable Multiple Hijackings
   
The group of four al Qaeda personnel invaded the cockpit of the four airliners, suddenly confronting and disabling or killing the pilots. They then flew the aircraft into buildings, or in one airliner, dove the aircraft into the ground. The red-flag safety shortcomings were obvious to any passenger. The cabin flight attendants, mostly female, were easily overpowered and the cockpit door keys seized.
Additional enablers:
The elite in government and their shills in the U.S. media  easily kept the American public illiterate about the actual enablers of the 9/11 hijackings, and continued the corrupt culture and fed the American public fabricated lies about Afghanistan and Iraq, which were easily seen as lies to anyone who paid any attention to reliable sources outside of the U.S. government and U.S. media. Tens of thousands of expected deaths—minor matter!
Compounding the already world-record scandal, two world-record New York City world record air disasters were involved 40 years apart, both involving corruption, and both involving Captain Rodney Stich.
More details on aviation disasters at http://www.wikileaksusa.org/ma_aviation_disasters.html.

Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices,
Now Complicit In America’s Worst
Corruption-Enabled Terrorist Attacks—
Continued Their Deadly Culture
With the latest consequences enabled by the corruption and consequences, the hijackings of four U.S. airliners on September 11, 2001, the Supreme Court Justices were again informed of the corruption and consequences—and continued the deadly scenario:
Blocking the Post-9/11 Federal Actions:
Violating Federal Crimes Reporting Statue
Post-9/11 lawsuit filed in federal courts in the District of Columbia was filed, and blocked from being heard, based upon a prior order of federal judge Stanley Sporkin. (Interesting background of Sporkin  at www.wikileaksusa.org/secret_bank_accounts.html.)
Continued Judicial Cover-Ups By
Federal Judges in New York

Post-9/11 lawsuit filed in federal courts in New York City index. That attempt was blocked for a year, with chief Judge Michael Mukasey refusing to file the lawsuit in defiance of court procedures, and constituting obstruction of justice. That report was blocked from being filed for a years until Stich sent letters to every Supreme Court Justice advising them of the latest obstruction of justice by federal judges. Judge Mukasey then filed the lawsuit that should have been filed a year earlier—and then immediately ordered its dismissal. In that way, the worst series of government scandals in the nation’s  history, combined with the worse terrorist attacks, remained secret from the people, and enabled to continue as before. The Supreme Court Justices obviously knew this. (Mukasey was later promoted to the position of U.S. Attorney General, enabling him to do damage control.)

Letters to Every Supreme Court Justice Continued
To Make a Record of Their Complicity
“Conveniently,” a ruling by the Supreme Court Justices made reporting of high-level crimes in government— a criminal offense: Supreme Court whistleblower decision.
Another ruling of the Supreme Court Justices, sometime passing with one supporting vote in a 5-to-4 decision, greatly increasing the bribing of politicians, was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,  (2010). The unlimited financial bribing of politicians by powerful corporations made the individual voter almost meaningless.

First Consequence of Supreme Court Justices’
Cover-Up: 9/11 Commission Cover-Up

Some of the same Department of Justice personnel involved in the deadly deep-sixing were now placed in key positions in the 9/11 Commission. The falsified 9/11 Commission report omitted thedeep sixing of advance information of the planned hijackings (and earlier al Qaeda attacks) by high officials in the U.S. Department of Justice (some of whom were in controlling positions in the 9/11 Commission).
The commission also protected the secondary enablers of the easily preventable hijackings: the politics, incompetence, and corruption in the “tombstone agency.”
In that way, the corrupt culture then enabled the next stage of corruption consequences, resulting in  far greater deaths and consequences.


Second Consequences of Cover-Ups:
Murderous U.S. Attacks on
Afghanistan and Iraq

The DOJ-controlled 9/11 Commission insured that none of the information stated here would be revealed. That tactic, continuing the same tragedy-enabling corruption, protecting the actual enablers of the al Qaeda attacks, to Afghanistan and Iraq, neither of which had any knowledge of theal Qaeda plans (but were known to Department of Justice officials, who were periodically informed the planned al Qaeda attacks, recognized as extremely important  information, but deep sixth by top DOJ personnel in Washington). That series of deep-sixing advance notice of the planned al Qaeda attacks:

  • Enabled the deadliest series of terrorist attacks and deaths in U.S. history.
  • Involved the greatest number of enablers among top personnel in the U.S. government, in which their respective government department possibly met the criteria of a RICO criminal organization.

The Taliban government of Afghanistan even offered to turn the small al Qaeda group over to a third nation for trial (as was done with the alleged Pan Am Flight 103 bombers), but President George Bush (Jr) refused the offer. Instead, using lies he carpet-bombed Afghanistan and then ordered the invasion of Iraq, a nation totally blameless for the al Qaeda attacks and a nation where terrorists could not survive (that pleased Israeli Zionists).

Where the funding, arming, and enabling by U.S. politicians of Israel’s brutal occupation and annexation of Palestine (and thousands of murders of Gaza residents, most of which were women and children) was the admitted basis by al Qaeda for the attacks on U.S. targets, the murderous attacks on Iraq infuriated people throughout the Middle East.


Third Consequences: Continuation Of
Prior Corruption Resulting In
Explosive Growth of Terrorists
Wanting to Kill Americans
The deadly carpet bombing of Afghanistan shortly after the 9/11 attacks, added to the U.S. Middle East destabilization that started in 1953. It also generated outrage by people throughout the Middle East. That was similar to the growth of the small al Qaeda group who blamed their attacks on U.S. targets up0on the brutalities inflicted upon the Palestinians by Israel, and made possible by U.S. politicians acting as proxies for Israel’s Zionist politicians and pressure by Israel’s AIPAC lobby .
The brutal attacks on the Iraqi people, that left tens of thousands of innocent people dead, resulted in possibly the greatest number of people in a major section of the world wanting to kill Americans, and willing to die in the process. That led to the formation of brutal terrorist groups, ISIS, ISIL, and others. Their anger at the U.S. brutalities are yet to have a worldwide effect upon Americans.
U.S. politicians then compounded their corrupt conduct by helping to destabilize other nations in the area  beyond Afghanistan and Iraq; Libya and Syria, adding to failed nations and civil wars.
One nation that may have felt benefited by the actions of U.S. politicians was Israel  and its Israeli Zionist politicians, who then had no functioning nation  that could threaten their takeover of all of the Palestinian  people.

Sources and Accuracy of Information, And
Credibility of Corruption-Fighter
And His Key Sources
Captain Rodney Stich, who discovered much of the information, with further contributions by several dozen key sources, including former professionals in the CIA, DEA, FBI, Customs, FAA, military, former drug smugglers—working for CIA personnel; former Mafia insiders, including a mole in al Qaeda’s primary terrorist cell, obtaining advance information on several of the most catastrophic terrorist successes in the nation’s history.
  • The confidence of the aviation safety group in the FAA’s Los Angeles regional offices in Stich’s abilities and credibility his ability to give his the unprecedented life-and-death-assignment.
  • Captain Rodney Stich unique background starting as Naval Aviator in World War II, and being the youngest prestigious Patrol Plane Commander in Privateers during that war.
  • Appreciative communications sent to him after they learned about his corruption-fighting activities.

Massive corruption of judges in the federal courts:
No one ever denied the charges made by Stich and his many key sources.
Another more detailed description of the Supreme Court Justices.http://www.wikileaksusa.org/supreme_court_justices_two.html.

Your help is needed. Go on a crusade, mentioning this information on social sites, and maybe the uninformed or indifferent American people will realize the enormous human tragedies resulting from the culture in the three branches of the U.S. government.

Documentaries on 50 Years of Corruption In
Government Positions, and the Resulting Tragedies,
Provided by Unique Insiders 
Unprecedented misconduct in any Modern Industrial Nation, and
how the American public acted as a feeding trough
for the above enablers of great tragedies.EBooks Worldwide

 
 
  
      
        
   

All of the books are available at amazon.com, in print and on digital formats, and at many other Internet sites. They bring together the various pieces of the puzzle to better understand the overall picture, and why the same conditions continue year after year. Information on the books by former government agent Captain Rodney Stich.

Print and EBooks in United States and Europe from www.amaxon.com and www.amaazon.co.uk.
EBook Sources Worldwide

Prior and Future Protection Against Issues Stated Here:
Controlled by U.S. Media

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/

7th Amendment protest goes off at the Reno Federal Court – Ty Robben proclaims summary judgment unconstitutional

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. 

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

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

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/

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,

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

Judge blocks Nevada auction of unbranded horses in second opinion

wild horsesCARSON CITY — Wild horse advocates Saturday hailed a judge’s ruling that temporarily stops unbranded horses gathered by a Nevada tribe from being auctioned for possible slaughter.

The ruling late Friday by U.S. District Judge Miranda Du came the same day Du rejected another request to block Saturday’s auction in a separate action against the BLM.

But in a five-page order Friday night, Du said a coalition of wild horse advocates raised “serious questions” that animals were improperly rounded up by the Fort McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone tribe under an agreement with the U.S. Forest Service. She issued a temporary restraining order and scheduled another hearing Wednesday in Reno. Continue reading

Lawless America Movie Interview: Tonya Frances Brown for Nolan Klein. Nevada killed an innocent man

Please watch this powerful and enraging video featuring Tonja Brown, Nolan Klein’s sister, who fought and still fights hard to battle injustice done to her brother and also to fight for basic human rights of others still inside.
On Sept. 20th, please remember Nolan Klein, an innocent man who died in 2009 on that day, while still in prison, all because evidence that could have exonerated him, lay hidden and was never presented by the prosecution.

www.justicefornolanklein.net

Continue reading