CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

User avatar
Sweetie
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 4:46 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#26

Post by Sweetie » Wed May 11, 2016 11:50 am

So no one, plaintiff or defendant is a US Citizen? So why is Cloven suing in a US Federal Court? Shouldn't this be filed at the state level? :confused:



User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7604
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#27

Post by Flatpointhigh » Wed May 11, 2016 11:55 am

tek wrote:nothing says "knucklehead" SovCit quite like a fifty billion dollar demand.
FIFY



"It is wrong to say God made rich and poor; He only made male and female, and He gave them the Earth as their inheritance."- Thomas Paine, Forward to Agrarian Justice
Cancer broke me

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24517
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#28

Post by bob » Wed May 11, 2016 12:01 pm

Sweetie wrote:So no one, plaintiff or defendant is a US Citizen? So why is Cloven suing in a US Federal Court? Shouldn't this be filed at the state level? :confused:
"For the record," Bundy relies on the federal courts' jurisdiction over federal questions.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 17253
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#29

Post by RTH10260 » Wed May 11, 2016 12:53 pm

tek wrote:nothing says "knucklehead" quite like a fifty billion dollar demand.
Typical sovcitery amount, but they have to pay for the destroyer they want to dock at the admirality court :lol:



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9368
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#30

Post by Mikedunford » Wed May 11, 2016 12:55 pm

bob wrote:
Sweetie wrote:So no one, plaintiff or defendant is a US Citizen? So why is Cloven suing in a US Federal Court? Shouldn't this be filed at the state level? :confused:
"For the record," Bundy relies on the federal courts' jurisdiction over federal questions.
Such as grazing rights under the Taylor Act?


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#31

Post by Piffle » Wed May 11, 2016 1:39 pm

This (pretend) Bivens Action is a Federal tort.



User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 3990
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#32

Post by DejaMoo » Wed May 11, 2016 4:13 pm

From Esquire:
One Family's Government Paranoia Will Cost Taxpayers Millions of Dollars This Year
In merciful brief, Cliven Bundy, a half-mad freeloader, is trying to drag the federal court system into the bat-haunted fantasyland in which he and his supporters live. You might as well ask the judge to recuse herself because once, over coffee and a Danish, she expressed the opinion that the sun rose in the East. Demanding a judge as nutty as you are is a bold—if completely moronic—legal maneuver, which is also true of demanding to be represented by a lawyer who has proven to be as big a public nuisance as you have been. That Judge Navarro didn't throw these clowns down the courthouse steps fills me with no little dread.

The complaint itself is a bubbling stew of pure crazy. It revives the nutty notion that Senator Harry Reid was behind the whole standoff on Bundy's land last year because Reid and his son want to sell Bundyland to the Chinese in order to build a solar farm. Meanwhile, the rest of the complaint sounds like it was dialed in from someone's car to the worst talk-radio show on Planet Stupid. By the way, the president's sense of humor also is in on the plot...
:snippity:

Meanwhile, as Bundy pursues legal remedies based on the well-known legal maxim of "MOMMMMMM, HE'S MAKIN' FUN OF ME!," what are his biggest fans up to? Well, Michele Fiore of Nevada, who is running for the United States Congress because democracy is eating its own entrails, had to clarify some remarks she'd made about pointing her many guns at law-enforcement officers...
:snippity:

There is a cost to treating people like Bundy and his crackpot followers as if they have, you know, a case. There is a cost to indulging seditious paranoia. There is a cost to the constitutional order and a cost to the national sanity, and I'm damned if I know what's worse.



User avatar
mmmirele
Posts: 2382
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Xenu's Red Mountain Trap

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#33

Post by mmmirele » Wed May 11, 2016 5:21 pm

Charles Pierce is a National Treasure. That is all.



User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7646
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#34

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Wed May 11, 2016 5:33 pm

Piffle wrote:This (pretend) Bivens Action is a Federal tort.
:yeah: A Federal tort crafted to address a question of Federal constitutional interpretation by a Federal court that Cliven doesn't recognize as having authority because, well, Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided.


"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

chancery
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#35

Post by chancery » Thu May 12, 2016 1:41 am

Here's a thing about the "Bivens" action written by Klayman and filed by Hansen on behalf of Cliven Bundy.

Most of what is requested in the prayer for relief is equitable relief, aside from a pro forma demand for damages in a silly amount. In fact, "equitable" doesn't quite do justice to the effrontery of the demand, which is for direct supervisory control of Judge Navarro's discretionary rulings in the ongoing prosecution.
Plaintiff Bundy ... seeks an order by this honorable court quashing his indictment and releasing him on his own recognizance from solitary confinement and from prison. . . .Plaintiff BUNDY hereby sues for an order removing and recusing Judge Navarro as the Judge in his criminal case. . . . Plaintiff BUNDY hereby sues for an order allowing counsel of his choice, Larry Klayman, to be allowed pro hac vice status in Nevada federal court for the purpose of defending BUNDY in the criminal case.
It's more in the nature of a petition for a writ, which should have been directed to (and peremptorily denied by) the Ninth Circuit. In addition, Judge Navarro is sued in her individual capacity, which makes the relief sought meaningless, since her power over the prosecution exists only in her capacity as a judge.

A few seconds of google research tended to confirm my non-expert impression that a "Bivens" action against federal employees can only seek damages for past wrongful conduct. (There was one obscure mention of possible equitable relief from unconstitutional prison conditions, but there are better ways to seek such relief.)

I won't say that it's never possible to obtain relief from rulings in an ongoing criminal action by filing a separate civil action in the same court.* But it's not going to happen here.

Judge Dorsey wouldn't entertain a motion for such relief for an instant, and I doubt that Klayman and Hansen are going to the trouble to write one. If they do, they should be sanctioned/disciplined. But it won't happen.

Meanwhile, this action deserves to languish on the slow/frivolous docket. The defendants who are government employees will enjoy a simple exit on grounds of immunity or (in the case of Senator Reid) the speech and debate clause. There's probably a simple exit for Rory Reid as well, although I haven't bothered to think through the argument. Hansen/Klayman will screech and demand discovery, and probably won't get any.

I could be wrong -- bob wisely warned that we "not underestimate the Klayman's ability to unnecessarily multiply the proceedings." But this unethical pile of junk may not provide as much amusement as we hope.

I do hope that some of the money diverted for Cliven's defense will be wasted on this, but I doubt it. Klayman has always depended on the kindness of strange people.
_________________
* There's the (not very close) example of the despicable "Kids for Cash" scandal in Wilkes-Barre Pennsylvania. The Juvenile Law Center filed an ultimately successful petition in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for the exercise of extraordinary "Kings Bench Jurisdiction," under which thousands of juvenile offender proceedings were put under control of a special master and ultimately dismissed, with sentences expunged. King's Bench Jurisdiction is a proceeding unique to Pennsylvania.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24517
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#36

Post by bob » Thu May 12, 2016 3:04 am

I think Rory Reid's exit will be rather mundane Rule 12 reasons. Reid the Younger, basically, is cursorily alleged to have acted in concert with the other defendants. But there's little actually alleged, and the other defendants' actions aren't actionable.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 7815
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: DHS Psy-Ops HQ

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#37

Post by Orlylicious » Thu May 12, 2016 4:09 am

Thank you Fogbow and Wonkette. I had passed on the Bundy story and the threads were overwhelming but this thread's been a great primer. I remember President Obama's comments at the dinner and the basics, but this was great. Now for sure he doesn't get out until at least May 25 since he asked for a ruling. :lol:



Hercule Parrot
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:58 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#38

Post by Hercule Parrot » Thu May 12, 2016 7:33 pm

This is first quality, corn-fed free-range lunacy, quite breathtaking in the range of mentalistic arguments presented. Here in ye olde England, a lawyer who submitted something half as offensive and deranged would likely be sanctioned or struck off.



User avatar
spiduh
Posts: 2002
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 1:00 pm
Location: Zuckerman farm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#39

Post by spiduh » Mon May 23, 2016 10:01 am



“If they kill me, grab my phone.” –Ammon Bundy (Reuters)
"Yes, I Did Turn the Flying Monkeys Loose!" -Anna von Reitz (FB)
"I 'Self Identify' as a female" -Jon Ritzheimer (FB)

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34509
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#40

Post by realist » Mon May 23, 2016 10:06 am

Jack apologizes for the delay. Baltimore had its computer challenges. But (H/T to chancery) here is the attachment, Exhibit A, Cliven's Declaration: ECF 427-1


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

chancery
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#41

Post by chancery » Mon May 23, 2016 12:01 pm

realist wrote:
Jack apologizes for the delay. Baltimore had its computer challenges. But (H/T to chancery) here is the attachment, Exhibit A, Cliven's Declaration: ECF 427-1
I should point out that this declaration is also posted in the Bundy Trials -- Nevada thread, because it was submitted in the United States v. Cliven Bundy criminal prosecution.

This thread (CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.) relates to the separate frivolous civil action brought by Bundy against Navarro, the President, and a host of others. The two cases are of course related, because the civil action was filed in order to create a pretext for moving to disqualify Judge Navarro in the criminal prosecution that we are following in the Bundy Trials -- Nevada thread.



User avatar
spiduh
Posts: 2002
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 1:00 pm
Location: Zuckerman farm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#42

Post by spiduh » Mon May 23, 2016 12:05 pm

Ah. The recusal motion is in the other case. Got it. Thx!


“If they kill me, grab my phone.” –Ammon Bundy (Reuters)
"Yes, I Did Turn the Flying Monkeys Loose!" -Anna von Reitz (FB)
"I 'Self Identify' as a female" -Jon Ritzheimer (FB)

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34509
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#43

Post by realist » Mon May 23, 2016 2:43 pm

spiduh wrote:Ah. The recusal motion is in the other case. Got it. Thx!
Yes, it is. But as chancery points out, they are related.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

boots
Posts: 2869
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#44

Post by boots » Mon May 23, 2016 4:11 pm

Well, filing suit against a judge is a cornball rookie pro per move. And his attorneys know that.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24517
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#45

Post by bob » Fri May 27, 2016 5:27 pm

Amended complaint was filed on Tuesday.

Reid's legislative aide is added as a defendant.


Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34509
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#46

Post by realist » Fri May 27, 2016 5:32 pm

bob wrote:Amended complaint was filed on Tuesday.
Conspiracy, False Light, Defamation. OH MY!!


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24517
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#47

Post by bob » Fri May 27, 2016 5:35 pm

realist wrote:Conspiracy, False Light, Defamation. OH MY!!
Calling Bundy the Elder a "domestic terrorist" is now tortious. :roll:

And the demand is now $90M. :roll:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34509
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#48

Post by realist » Fri May 27, 2016 5:38 pm

Thanks, bob...

At Jack's:
5-24-16 ECF 3 CLIVEN BUNDY v NAVARRO, et al. - Amended Complaint


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
particularindividual
Posts: 168
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:27 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#49

Post by particularindividual » Fri May 27, 2016 7:02 pm

realist wrote:
bob wrote:Amended complaint was filed on Tuesday.
Conspiracy, False Light, Defamation. OH MY!!
What is up with this footnote and the error codes? It looks like it's taken from a bad blog - I've read a lot of lawyerly stuff since I've become a member here but this seems beyond the pale.

“[Error! Main Document Only.]The Bureau of Land Management’s current director moved to that
job from a position on Harry Reid’s staff. The BLM study objecting to the Bundy cattle, and tying it to
a “mitigation proposal” for solar-energy projects, is also relevant. . . . Error! Main Document
Only.The hinge-point of this investigation is, however, the “mitigation” project for Gold Butte, which
lies just south of Bunkerville, Nevada. A swath of northern Gold Butte is where the Bundy cattle
graze. BLM designated Gold Butte an “Area of Critical Environmental Concern” (ACEC) in 1998. . . .
Error! Main Document Only.The BLM mitigation strategy, intended to mitigate the damage to the
regional ecosystem expected from developing the Dry Lake SEZ, is to beef up environmental
“protections” for Gold Butte. As desert tortoises, and other fauna and flora, decline in the SEZ, they
are to be encouraged and protected in the Gold Butte ACEC. This may include measures like
relocating desert tortoises to Gold Butte. . . . Error! Main Document Only.But, as documented by
Free Republic and others, a separate BLM document naming Cliven Bundy, last updated in March
2014, had this to say about his cattle: Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that
the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location
for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not
durable with the presence of trespass cattle. . . . [So] Error! Main Document Only.who is proposing
to invest in Dry Lake? What do you know. It turns out to be our old pal, crony-corruption firm
extraordinaire First Solar. A BLM document from July 2012 reflects First Solar as the only company
with an active application for a solar-energy project in the Dry Lake SEZ,
. . . . BLM confirms that the
First Solar application is the only one on record. . . . First Solar proposes to build a 400 megawatt solar energy
plant in the Dry Lake SEZ.First Solar, you’ll remember, is the crony firm whose chairman
of the board, Michael Ahearn, bundled hundreds of thousands in political donations for Obama
and other Democrats, including the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Harry
Reid.
First Solar was rewarded for this special excellence with over $3 billion in taxpayer “green
energy” subsidies. . . .(Emphasis added.)
Edit: Found it. It's not a bad blog, it's worse. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-blo ... eplies?c=1



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24517
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#50

Post by bob » Fri May 27, 2016 7:05 pm

particularindividual wrote:What is up with this footnote and the error codes? It looks like it's taken from a bad blog - I've read a lot of lawyerly stuff since I've become a member here but this seems beyond the pale.
Great catch!

I believe it was lifted from this 2012 (bad) blog post (by J.E. Dyer).


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Bundy Ranch/Malheur NWR”