On August 20, 2018, Cliven Bundy[i] went to court with his absurd and fundamentally flawed notion that Nevada’s 56 million acres of public land belong to the state. He lost again. (Case # A-18-779718-C)
Nevada’s Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) had entered the fray, arguing that “Bundy’s claims are barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion in light of previous adverse federal court decisions to which Bundy was a party.”
Three federal courts had previously rejected Bundy’s position, and on April 1, 2019, Eighth Judicial Court Judge Jim Crocket did the same.
Judge Crocket, in his ruling, said:Â “It is painfully obvious that the claims asserted by Bundy in the instant matter rest upon a fundamentally flawed notion advanced by Bundy since 1998 regarding ownership of federal public lands in Nevada.”
To add insult to injury, on April 21, 2020, Judge Crocket, openly congratulated the CBD attorneys [ii] and awarded them $92,586.02 in attorney fees and costs.
While Bundy made a fool out of himself in Clark County’s Judicial Court his son Ryan, in October 2018, attempted to sue several federal officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
He went after former FBI Director James Comey, former BLM Director Neil Kornze, former Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, and Jefferson Sessions.
His claims stem from an April 2014 standoff at the Bundy ranch, where federal officials attempted to take Bundy cattle to compensate for unpaid grazing fees. [iii] In his mind, these federal officials engaged in unlawful search and seizure and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, retaliation for the raid, arrest, and prosecution. As might be expected, he claimed all the defendants violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act since he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).
On July 2, The district court dismissed the complaint, arguing that the case was factually implausible, and his claims of the conspiracy were unspecified.
Endnotes:
[i] In 2016, a federal grand jury indicted Bundy for offenses arising from the protest and armed standoff. The prosecution ended in a mistrial and dismissal with prejudice when the judge identified several instances in which prosecutors failed to disclose material exculpatory information in a timely manner. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The United States appealed that decision, and the case is still pending. See United States v. Bundy, No. 18-10287 (9th Cir. argued May 29, 2020).
[ii] Christopher W. Maxson from Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP and Justin Augustine, Esq for CBD.
[iii]In 2016, a federal grand jury indicted Cliven Bundy, and his sons Ryan and Ammon for offenses arising from the protest and armed standoff. The prosecution ended in a mistrial and dismissal with prejudice when the judge identified several instances in which prosecutors failed to disclose material exculpatory information in a timely manner. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The United States appealed that decision, and the case is still pending. See United States v. Bundy, No. 18-10287 (9th Cir. argued May 29, 2020).
Leave a Reply