Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#1401

Post by RVInit » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:45 am

scirreeve wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:34 am
bob wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:15 am
Klayman wrote:To see my motion, go to Cliven Bundy Defense Fund to also support Cliven’s defense
I did that, and it isn't there. :torches:
I looked for it there too. Glad it just wasn't me. I thought I mighta drank one more beer than necessary.
:confused: It's possible to do that?
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26821
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#1402

Post by bob » Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:21 pm

WND: 9th Circuit rebuffs U.S. government in Bundy case:
DOJ veteran argues this is opportunity to complete record with whistleblower testimony

A federal appeals court has put a roadblock in front of the government’s attempt to appeal a district judge’s decision to throw out its case against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.
:panic: :panic: :panic:
But it also refused the government’s submission of an oversized brief, at 16,634 words. The limit is 14,000, and the government was ordered to submit a new one.
:yawn:

Oh:
Klayman took the opportunity to move to supplement the record with the testimony of Wooten, whose statements had not been incorporated.

He suggested the appeals court return the case to the lower court, which likely would end the case.

In his motion, Klayman points out that Wooten is a former BLM investigator turned whistleblower who wrote a report detailing the apparently unethical actions of federal agents against the Bundys.

* * *

“Mr. Wooten details a pattern and practiced of disturbing behavior by federal agents, carefully calculated to inflict maximum damage, and even death, on Mr. Bundy and his family, as well as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada, Mr. Steven Phyre’s policy of ‘preferred ignorance’ when it came to potential information from the federal land agency that would have been helpful to the Bundy case.”

The judge’s decision to drop the case with prejudice because of misconduct appeared to be supported in Klayman’s motion.

He wrote: “Among the disturbing revelations set forth by Mr. Wooten include (1) BLM Supervisory agents repeatedly mocking and degrading Mr. Bundy, his family, and his co-defendants in an ‘amateurish carnival atmosphere’ that displayed ‘clear prejudice’ against the Bundys personally and their Mormon faith; (2) federal agents bragging about roughing up Mr. Bundy’s son, Dave, and violently grinding his face into the ground; (3) BLM agents failing to turn over required discover evidence to the prosecution team that was helpful to defendants; (4) top agents ‘instigating’ the monitoring of jail phone calls between the defendants and their wives; (5) SSA Dan P. Love, the lead BLM agent conducting the ill-fated paramilitary raid on the Bundy ranch, intentionally ignoring direction from the U.S. attorney’s office and his superiors ‘in order to command the most intrusive, oppressive, large scale and militaristic trespass cattle impound possible;’ (6) SSA Love having a ‘Kill Book’ as a trophy where he ‘bragged about getting three individuals in Utah to commit suicide’; and (7) that a secure command post at FBI headquarters in Las Vegas of an ‘Arrest Tracking Wall,’ where photos of Cliven Bundy and co-defendant Eric Parker were marked with an ‘X’ over them.”

Klayman said that when Wooten pointed out the misbehavior, he was summarily removed from the case and threatened.

In fact, he became aware that his supervisor “was already aware of the issues, participated in, or instigated the misconduct himself.”

Klayman told the appeals court: “This is truly an ‘extraordinary circumstance,’ as Judge Navarro and the district court dismissed the superseding indictment against appellees due to gross abuse of process and prosecutorial misconduct within even the benefit of Mr. Wooten’s testimony.”
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Jcolvin2
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:40 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#1403

Post by Jcolvin2 » Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:24 pm

On Bundy's behalf, Klayman sought permission to file an amicus brief on behalf of an unidentified "interested party."
42 US v Bundy- Bundy Mot to file brief on behalf on interested party.pdf
This was denied by the Court as the proposed amicus brief did not comply with the rules governing such briefs.
46 Order on Various Mots 2019-03-11.pdf
Appellee Cliven Bundy’s motion (Docket Entry No. 42) to file an amicus brief on behalf of an unidentified party is denied. The proposed “amicus brief” states that it is a “judicial notice,” is unsigned, and does not comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(3) & (4).
Whoever prepared the brief, verified the truth of the matters therein and certified service under the name "Amicus Curiae."
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
LtDansLegs
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 3:57 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#1404

Post by LtDansLegs » Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:42 pm

Definitely curious who wrote that, it's almost as bad/snarky as the one some "family" wrote and attempted to mail into the record in the HATJ case :lol:

_
Screen Shot 2019-03-18 at 8.39.16 PM.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Whip
Posts: 3850
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#1405

Post by Whip » Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:44 pm

Jcolvin2 wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:24 pm

Whoever prepared the brief, verified the truth of the matters therein and certified service under the name "Amicus Curiae."
Amicus Finch obviously.

User avatar
scirreeve
Posts: 3288
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:51 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#1406

Post by scirreeve » Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:48 pm

Might be Pretend Judge Embry - just guessing.

Jcolvin2
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:40 am

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#1407

Post by Jcolvin2 » Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:50 pm

Whip wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:44 pm
Jcolvin2 wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:24 pm

Whoever prepared the brief, verified the truth of the matters therein and certified service under the name "Amicus Curiae."
Amicus Finch obviously.
It's almost as if the writer was frightened of being identified. Perhaps, he/she is Curiae Yellow?

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 8920
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Bundy Ranch Trial #2--The Big One: Cliven, Ammon, cRyan, Ryan Payne, Pete Santilli

#1408

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:05 pm

Jcolvin2 wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:50 pm
Whip wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:44 pm
Jcolvin2 wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:24 pm

Whoever prepared the brief, verified the truth of the matters therein and certified service under the name "Amicus Curiae."
Amicus Finch obviously.
It's almost as if the writer was frightened of being identified. Perhaps, he/she is Curiae Yellow?
:rimshot:
“A black woman can invent something for the benefit of humankind.” -Bessie Blount-Griffin, physical therapist, inventor of devices for disabled WWII veterans, and forensic scientist.

Post Reply

Return to “Bundy Ranch/Malheur NWR”