August 8, 2017, was the date set for the government to file their response. They did so in the Government’s Reply to Respondent’s Opposition to Government’s Memorandum in Support of Civil Contempt. That will be the subject of this article, however the recent background, since the May 9, 2017, Jurisdiction Hearing.
As a result of that Hearing, the government first filed the Government’s Memorandum in Support of Civil Contempt (June 12, 2017). That was the subject “Freedom of the Press #16 – Jurisdiction Hearing“. It appears that since January, when the government sought to have me held in Contempt of Court, they have yet to come up with a case citation that supports their position.
My response was filed as Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Government’s Memorandum in Support of Civil Contempt (July 21, 2017). This Memorandum increases the burden on the government, separating articles published before the “Supplemental Protective Order” and the one article published after that Order. The government has yet to meet any standard of proof with regard to their legal responsibility to do so.
“Discovery” in a court case refers to the evidence, exhibits and reports that one party intends to use to prove its case. In a typical criminal case, the government’s “discovery” contains the various police reports, photos and other exhibits that form the basis of a prosecution. Court rules generally require prosecutors to reveal their discovery to defendants within prescribed time limits.
But like other aspects of the Bunkerville, Nevada (‘Bundy Ranch’) case, the discovery is unusual in many ways. It is so vast that it cannot be delivered or stored in printed form. Defense attorneys say they are given passwords to government search engines which contain the discovery.
The Bundy case discovery is so massive that a west coast law firm has reportedly contracted to index and categorize the discovery. Although the discovery is reportedly machine-searchable, those who have access to it say it is difficult to navigate through.
America has come to a place many people never dreamed possible. More than a debate of differing philosophies, or two political parties, we are caught up in a clash of two opposing citizen factions.
One faction is rooted in the conservative values of liberty, accountability and self- determination. People of all walks of life, grounded in those ideals joined together to elect Donald J. Trump President in 2016.
In rebellious opposition to that segment of our population and their values is an angry and vocal conglomeration of disparate activist and victim groups led by a media set on destruction of our constitution, abandonment of the law and complete dominance over all who disagree with them.
Recently the 17 members of the Congressional Western Caucus — which includes Nevada’s Rep. Mark Amodei — took Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke up on his request for feedback on what to do about all the national monuments created in the past two decades, sending him a letter with specific recommendations about 27 of those monuments.
These recommendations called for vastly scaling back the size of two monuments created by President Obama in his last year in office at the urging of then-Sen. Harry Reid — the 300,000-acre Gold Butte in Clark County and the 700,000-acre Basin and Range in Nye and Lincoln counties.
In “Liberty or Laws? – Justice or Despotism?“, I discussed how the case law method provides the government, through judicial proceedings, to move, a decision at a time, away from the intent of the Constitution. In recent events in the second Tier 3 trial, only two-thirds of the trial was declared a “mistrial”, while the other third was not declared a mistrial. I say this because the first trial, by the government’s design, included six defendants, all of whom were accused of wielding firearms on April 12, 2014, when the Bureau of Land Management returned the surviving captured cattle to their rightful owner. Two defendants were found guilty of some of the charges. The remaining four were not found guilty of any of the charges, though they were also not found not guilty. So, there was no mistrial on the two, but there was a mistrial in the same singular trial of the other four.
The retrial of four defendants in the 2014 Bunkerville standoff at the Bundy ranch got underway this past week in Las Vegas, and this time the prosecution and the judge seem determined to avoid another mistrial due to a hung jury by eviscerating defense arguments.
Federal Judge Gloria Navarro granted a prosecution motion to bar presentation of evidence “supporting jury nullification.”
In April, the first of three scheduled trials for the 17 Bunkerville defendants — charged with obstruction of justice, conspiracy, extortion, assault and impeding federal officers — ended in a mistrial. The jury found only two of six people on trial guilty of some charges but deadlocked on the others.
When the colonies severed their allegiance to England, in 1776, through the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, they had to have some form of law upon which to deal with matters, both criminal and civil. To do so, they adopted the Common Law of England, as it existed on July 4, 1776. This, then, became the foundation of laws upon which both the federal government and state governments began the process of developing their judicial systems.
What is important to understand is that the laws that they adopted were concerned with Justice. For example, though Webster’s 1828 dictionary has no definition of “judicial”, an adjective, it does have one for that body that is responsible for that function of government, the Judiciary:
JUDI’CIARY, n. That branch of government which is concerned in the trial and determination of controversies between parties, and of criminal prosecutions; the system of courts of justice in a government. An independent judiciary is the firmest bulwark of freedom.
Through our history, there have been legal scholars who stand well above the current lot, in that their concern for justice was paramount in their considerations, and the subject of much of their scholarly writings.
It is that time of year again, when counties in Nevada and across the West squat on the street corner with their tin alms cups extended anxiously awaiting the tinkling sound of a few coins from the federal till — otherwise known as Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT).
Since 1977 Congress has parsimoniously paid out pennies on the acre to local governments to make up for the land the federal government controls but on which it pays no local property taxes. Since 85 percent of Nevada land is controlled by various federal agencies that is a lot of property tax to forgo.
Just a few weeks ago the Trump administration budget for this year proposed limiting PILT funding to an average of the most recent 10 years or about $397 million, but this past week in Pahrump Interior Department Secretary Ryan Zinke announced at a meeting with various Nevada officials that the PILT largesse this year will be $464.6 million, a 6 percent increase over the previous year. The about-face was roundly ignored.
$10,000 Reward Offered For Info In The Bundy Trial Just The Beginning Of Effort To Obtain Justice
This plan was conceived in order to see that Justice is afforded to the Bundy family, others who came to the Bundy Ranch in 2014 to support them, and journalist Pete Santilli. Pete and the Bundys have been held without bail in maximum security federal custody since the day the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge came to an end with the violent killing of LaVoy Finicum and the arrest of the members of the Bundy family and their supporters.
But is a novel video tutorial the best way? The jury is still out.
There’s something of a formula to the first morning of jury duty. It might involve a refresher on differences between civil and criminal cases, a little bit of shuffling between rooms, and a lot of waiting around in a generously named “Jury Lounge.” But in one federal district, the customary civics lessons for jurors have been given a twist to alert them to the hidden biases they might bring into the courtroom.The source is an 11-minute video — believed to be the first of its kind — that since March has been shown to every prospective juror in the two federal courthouses, in Seattle and Tacoma, that serve the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
protest last year. The organizers of the Rainbow Family gathering have obtained no permit for their event and, according to Capitol Press, are already have an impact on the environment of the Preserve.
The Rainbow Family Gathering in Oregon should make federal government hypocrisy undeniably evident. Many who are angry at this double standard are saying that there is no difference between this event and the rancher protest that occurred last year. However, there is one big difference, and it’s this difference that is the reason for the federal government’s double standard.
I don’t think that you can find a better example of how It Matters How You Stand than newly elected City Council Woman Michele Fiore. Her conservative values, respect, and support for the United States Constitution as it defines the structure and government roles of our Constitutional Republic, are hard to find in City, County, State or Federal Politics anywhere today.
Tuesday 6-14-2017, Michelle, secured her position as City Council Women for Ward 6, Las Vegas, Nevada. Her victory was not easy, as the last minute smear campaign, reduced her early voting 8 points lead to an only 1 point victory. The win on election night was estimated to as close as 150-200 actual votes.
When was the last time that the common Cause uttered Cliven Bundy, Dwight Hammond, Steven Hammond, Pubic Land policy? What happened to the other defendants in Nevada and those convicted in Oregon? What happened to the focus that brought thousands together in their respective support to the Cause? Have these all been abandoned?
Some of those who have been staunch supporters of the elements of the Cause objected to what happened on Memorial Day weekend. They are accused of creating division. There are near relentless attacks on those who have steadfastly supported the original Cause, many from as early as April 2014. Though until that weekend, had uttered no objection to those who chose to add the prisoner abuse issue to the agenda.
In a previous article, “Freedom of the Press #13 – Sojourn to Sacramento“, I explained that Federal Magistrate Brennan (Sacramento) intended for me to receive diesel therapy, and that I would provide insight into just why he chose that route. It was an expected response based upon the information that he had been provided, regarding the Sealed Order Granting Government’s Request for Arrest Warrant as to Gary Hunt and Order Sealing Arrest Warrant (ECF #2017).
This Sealed Order was obviously prepared by the US Shyster’s Office. Their intention was to punish me, as they have most of the others in the Oregon and Nevada indictments, based upon contrived accusations.
Justice must not only be done, but it must be seen to be done.
The wheels of justice continue to grind in the federal criminal case against Cliven Bundy, four of his sons and a dozen co-defendants over the April 2014 armed standoff with federal agents trying to confiscate Bundy’s cattle at his Bunkerville ranch. All of the defendants have been jailed for more than a year.
The standoff occurred after armed Bureau of Land Management agents attempted to roundup Bundy’s cattle after he had refused for 20 years to pay grazing fees in the Gold Butte area. The BLM said he owed $1 million in fees and penalties.
The Democratic majority in the Nevada Legislature is doing everything they can erase everything accomplished by the 2015 Republican-controlled session. First, labor reform and a minor prevailing wage reform are rolled back. Now, they want to keep Nevada a territory instead of barging ahead into some semblance of statehood.
In 2015 the Legislature passed Senate Joint Resolution 1, which urged Congress to release about 7.2 million acres of federal public land to the state, which would have reduced the federal land control in the state from about 85 percent to about 75 percent.
To put proper perspective on recent ongoing events leading up to my jurisdiction hearing in Portland, Oregon, on May 9, 2017, we must go back to the Order (ECF #1901) to show cause why I should not be held in contempt of Court. That Order demanded my appearance to answer the allegations made by the government. It was specific to the show cause and had nothing to do with jurisdiction. Had I appeared, it could easily be argued by the Court that my appearance was a submission to jurisdiction. Now, as strange as it might seem, unless jurisdictional questions are raised at the outset, the Court can properly assume jurisdiction. My research indicates that this was firmly established as early as 1856 (Dredd Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393 (1856)). Matters of jurisdiction were not the object of the hearing, and may not necessarily be heard.