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

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8950
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 »

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: 28423
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 »

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: 316
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 »

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: 509
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 »

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: 4093
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 »

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: 4237
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 »

Might be Pretend Judge Embry - just guessing.

Jcolvin2
Posts: 316
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 »

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: 9933
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

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

#1408

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

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 19th Amendment Centennial Moment:
The 19th Amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1878, yet it was not approved by Congress until 1919 – 41 years later.
- https://legaldictionary.net/19th-amendment/

Jcolvin2
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:40 am

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

#1409

Post by Jcolvin2 »

Briefing having been completed, the Ninth Circuit is placing the case on a March 23-27 oral argument calendar in Las Vegas:
11/01/2019 104 This case is being considered for an upcoming oral argument calendar in Las Vegas.

Please review the Las Vegas sitting dates for March 2020 at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/court_sessions. If you have an unavoidable conflict on any of the dates, please file Form 32 within 3 business days of this notice using the CM/ECF filing type Response to Case Being Considered for Oral Argument. Please follow the form's instructions carefully.

When setting your argument date, the court will try to work around unavoidable conflicts; the court is not able to accommodate mere scheduling preferences. You will receive notice that your case has been assigned to a calendar approximately 10 weeks before the scheduled oral argument date.

If the parties wish to discuss settlement before an argument date is set, they should jointly request referral to the mediation unit by filing a letter within 3 business days of this notice, using CM/ECF (Type of Document: File Correspondence to Court; Subject: request for mediation). [11485962] (KJC) [Entered: 11/01/2019 11:21 AM

User avatar
scirreeve
Posts: 4237
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:51 am

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

#1410

Post by scirreeve »

Jcolvin2 wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:45 pm
Briefing having been completed, the Ninth Circuit is placing the case on a March 23-27 oral argument calendar in Las Vegas:
11/01/2019 104 This case is being considered for an upcoming oral argument calendar in Las Vegas.

Please review the Las Vegas sitting dates for March 2020 at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/court_sessions. If you have an unavoidable conflict on any of the dates, please file Form 32 within 3 business days of this notice using the CM/ECF filing type Response to Case Being Considered for Oral Argument. Please follow the form's instructions carefully.

When setting your argument date, the court will try to work around unavoidable conflicts; the court is not able to accommodate mere scheduling preferences. You will receive notice that your case has been assigned to a calendar approximately 10 weeks before the scheduled oral argument date.

If the parties wish to discuss settlement before an argument date is set, they should jointly request referral to the mediation unit by filing a letter within 3 business days of this notice, using CM/ECF (Type of Document: File Correspondence to Court; Subject: request for mediation). [11485962] (KJC) [Entered: 11/01/2019 11:21 AM
Thanks for that! I had been wondering about where that was at. Couldn't find anything last time I looked a month or so ago.

Jcolvin2
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:40 am

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

#1411

Post by Jcolvin2 »

scirreeve wrote:
Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:53 am
Thanks for that! I had been wondering about where that was at. Couldn't find anything last time I looked a month or so ago.
The Ninth Circuit can take some time. I think argument priority is generally based on type of appeal and appeal filing date, rather than the date that briefing is completed.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28423
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#1412

Post by bob »

Jcolvin2 wrote:
Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:02 am
scirreeve wrote:
Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:53 am
Thanks for that! I had been wondering about where that was at. Couldn't find anything last time I looked a month or so ago.
The Ninth Circuit can take some time. I think argument priority is generally based on type of appeal and appeal filing date, rather than the date that briefing is completed.
Yeah: cases are prioritized by their type, with criminal appeals at the top. And the 9th measures from date of filing, not date of briefing completion.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28423
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#1413

Post by bob »

KIRO-FM [AP]: Lawyer says prosecutors intentionally scuttled Bundy case:
Prosecutors deliberately scuttled the 2017 trial of a Nevada rancher and several others involving an armed standoff against U.S. officials, so the government shouldn’t be allowed to revive the case, an attorney told an appeals court set to hear arguments in coming weeks.

Attorney Alyssa Bell, representing co-defendant Ryan Bundy, said Wednesday that prosecutors’ misdeeds forced defendants’ attorneys to ask the judge to dismiss the case midway through proceedings.

A retrial would violate the Fifth Amendment ban against being tried twice for the same offense, she said.

“Retrying the case would only advantage the government by allowing them to strengthen their witnesses’ testimony based on the knowledge gained from information … revealed thus far,” Bell said in an Aug. 21 court filing to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

U.S. Attorney Nicholas Trutanich in Las Vegas declined to comment outside court. A March 23 hearing was set in Las Vegas.

Larry Klayman, an attorney for co-defendant Cliven Bundy, said Tuesday he expects appellate judges will uphold Navarro’s dismissal of the case that the lawyer called “an unjust and political prosecution fatally infected with extreme prosecutorial misconduct.”

In his court filing, Klayman branded the government appeal as a “Hail-Mary” effort to shield the U.S. attorneys who handled the Bundy case from “career-ending sanctions, if not … criminal prosecutions.”
The 9th's March 2020 Vegas calendar. 20 minutes argument per side. I don't expect it to be submitted without argument.

Panel members not yet named.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2


User avatar
bob
Posts: 28423
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#1415

Post by bob »

Jcolvin2 wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:30 pm
Argument postponed:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/c ... itting.pdf
Klayman "reported" that the oral argument will be conducted telephonically on May 29.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
scirreeve
Posts: 4237
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:51 am

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

#1416

Post by scirreeve »

Yeah - it is on May 29. Poots have been posting about that. Calendar doesn't say by phone but wouldn't surprise me.
Capture.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28423
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#1417

Post by bob »

scirreeve wrote:
Wed Apr 22, 2020 9:03 pm
Calendar doesn't say by phone but wouldn't surprise me.
Panel still not specified.

IIRC, the 9th issued a standing order that all arguments are telephonic for the time being. Klayman embellished and implied it was expressly ordered.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 9157
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

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

#1418

Post by Northland10 »

bob wrote:
Wed Apr 22, 2020 9:12 pm
scirreeve wrote:
Wed Apr 22, 2020 9:03 pm
Calendar doesn't say by phone but wouldn't surprise me.
Panel still not specified.

IIRC, the 9th issued a standing order that all arguments are telephonic for the time being. Klayman embellished and implied it was expressly ordered.
I took a peek at the Engel appeal and noticed the government requested and was granted separate arguments for Bundy (20 minutes a side) and Engel (15 minutes a side) since the issues are different. I pulled a few interesting paragraphs from their motion.
6. The government does not believe consolidatation is appropriate, or even workable, for several reasons. First, the government is appellant in United States v. Bundy and appellee in United States v. Engel; undersigned counsel has never seen consolidation of oral argument under those circumstances and is at a loss to understand how that would work. Second, two of the issues in Engel are entirely unrelated to the issue on appeal in Bundy; whatever time Engel’s attorney would use to discuss those issues would be of no use to the Bundy appellees. Third, the Bundy appellees already face the difficult decision of how to divide 20 minutes of argument time among as many as four attorneys; adding a fifth attorney, with two entirely unrelated appellate issues, seems untenable.

7. For these reasons, the government believes “de-consolidation” of the two oral arguments is warranted. Because some overlap exists between one of the issues on appeal in Engel and the issue in Bundy, we believe it makes sense to have the same panel hear both cases. For the sake of efficiency and to avoid redundancy, we believe it would be most efficient for that panel to hear the Case: 18-10293, 01/24/2020, ID: 11573234, DktEntry: 47, Page 3 of 5 3 Bundy argument before the Engel argument. The government respectfully suggests that the Court allot 20 minutes per side for argument in Bundy, and as much time as the Court deems appropriate for argument in Engel.

8. On January 21, 2020, undersigned counsel contacted defendants’ counsel via email to obtain their views. Amy Cleary, Esq., counsel for Ryan Payne, has no objection to the government’s motion, and asked that we note Payne is requesting 20 minutes per side for argument in Bundy, and agrees that the Bundy case should be argued before Engel. Dan Hill, Esq. and Alyssa Bell, Esq., counsel for Ammon Bundy and Ryan Bundy, respectively, noted their agreement with Ryan Payne’s position and said they have no objection to the government’s motion. Warren Markowitz, Esq., counsel for Engel, has no objection to the government’s motion and stated his preference that 1) the Engel argument be heard after Bundy; 2) the Engel argument retain 10–15 minutes per side, and preferably 15; and 3) that the date for the Engel argument remain the same. Larry Klayman, Esq., counsel for Cliven Bundy, did not respond.
So, Larry is sharing the appeal with multiple attorneys (it is more than just him) and doesn't bother to respond on behalf of his client. It is shocking that he would appear to only be involved with this case in order to make fundraising PR pitches.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 28370
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

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

#1419

Post by Volkonski »

Leah Sottile
@Leah_Sottile

The government is appealing the dismissal of the Bundy criminal trial in Nevada in just a few minutes. I will tweet out highlights in this thread.

Elizabeth White for the United States argues the district court "abused its authority" when dismissing the case. "Falling short does not warrant the extreme sanction of dismissing a criminal indictment." Judge: You fell short on not just one, not just two, but a series of things.

White argues the prosecution was overwhelmed with "hundreds of thousands" of documents, but that among the ones it withheld - particularly one about Desert Tortoise habitat - it did not think had bearing on the charges.

This govt appeal seems to be all about whether or not there were FBI snipers at Bundy Ranch. White says no, there weren't. In addition, she points to a motion filed by Ryan Payne to keep the govt from referring to the militia men on the bridge as "snipers."

Bundy attorney Larry Klayman says any provocation was on the part of the govt. He says if this court were to send this back to District Court, the testimony of Larry Wooten about BLM "kill lists" would be "the nail in the coffin of this prosecution."

Klayman also says threat assessments said the Bundys were not dangerous. Here's a story about it I wrote a few years ago: washingtonpost.com/national/fbi-s…

The judge is confused by Klayman going off on a Wooten tangent, but he says it is "the insurance policy of my client," should the case be sent back to District Court.

BTW: here's a bio of Cliven's attorney.

Larry Klayman
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... ry-klayman

Payne's attorney argues that "in order for the defense to get the court to understand the govt was not being truthful, the defense had to reveal a lot of its defense strategies" that would be used at a new trial...

Judge, to Payne's attorney: "isn't that true in almost any case [that gets argued in the court of appeals]... why is that a problem, because this happens all the time?"

Judge says he seems to think the govt's attorneys were not hiding any evidence. Payne's attorney disagrees: says the threat assessments, which govt DID have, are the most importance piece of evidence to the case.
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28423
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#1420

Post by bob »

The 9th's livefeed:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
scirreeve
Posts: 4237
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:51 am

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

#1421

Post by scirreeve »

Oregonian article about oral arguments today.
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/0 ... payne.html

My favorite part of article (referencing Klayman bloviating about Wooten memo).
Judge Paul J. Watford cut Klayman off, asking: “Why are you telling us all of this?’’

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28423
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#1422

Post by bob »

scirreeve wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 8:34 pm
My favorite part of article (referencing Klayman bloviating about Wooten memo).
Judge Paul J. Watford cut Klayman off, asking: “Why are you telling us all of this?’’
Yeah, I was going to report that 9th shrouded Klayman, until Watford asked that. (The panel most was mostly silent when Klayman argued rambled, but otherwise was engaged when it wasn't his turn.)
Oregonian wrote:Watford said the Wooten allegations are “deeply disturbing. I grant you that,’’ but he pointed out the trial judge didn’t address it and it’s irrelevant in this appeal.
Grossly Irrelevant Larry.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2


Post Reply

Return to “Bundy Ranch/Malheur NWR”