Ammon Bundy Files in Federal Court to Stop St. Luke's Abuses
Today at approximately 2pm Ammon Bundy filed a PETITION TO TRANSFER CASE FROM STATE COURT TO FEDERAL COURT. This would strip the power from the Ada County Court and give the federal court jurisdiction over the case.
Share (Alt) Idaho 1N, Idaho 2, Idaho 4NE, Idaho 4NW, Idaho 4SE, Idaho 4SW, Idaho 5, Idaho 6, Idaho 7, Idaho 8, Idaho 9, Idaho 10, Idaho 11, Idaho 12, Idaho 13, Idaho 14, Idaho 15
Ammon Bundy Files in Federal Court to Stop St. Luke's Abuses
In an unpredictable move, Ammon Bundy is turning to the Federal Court system for protection from the largest institution in Idaho and an Ada County Judge. He is claiming that his Constitutional protected rights have been grossly violated and that the U.S. Courts have a duty to protect him. In the Petition to a federal judge, Bundy argues that because of the Constitutional violation against him and Diego Rodriguez, federal courts have jurisdiction to take up the case and stop the violations.
"Petitioners [Ammon Bundy & Diego Rodriguez] have been put in jeopardy by Idaho’s largest private institution, represented by one of Idaho’s largest law firms and by an Idaho State Court, for exercising their right of free speech, their right to assemble, and their right to grieve government for redress, all protected acts listed in the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. Additionally, pursuant to the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” clause, Petitioners have been deprived of their right of procedural due process pursuant to the 5th and 6th Amendments, and finally the right of equal rights pursuant to the 14th Amendment...The heavy-handed tactics against pro se litigants are not just by the Respondent’s counsel but by the State Court as well, depriving Petitioners of meaningful and procedural due process under color of law. The State Case raises issues of Federal Constitutional magnitude that cannot be addressed in the State Court forum due to the current tactics by Respondents and the State Court itself.
Explaining the abusive action led by Erik Stidham of Holland & Hart, St Lukes attorneys, Bundy writes:
"Utilizing heavy-handed tactics from one of Idaho’s largest law firms, Respondents have served tens of thousands of pages upon Petitioner Ammon Bundy, a single pro se litigant. Before being able to respond to the initial complaint, Petitioner was swarmed with more documents. This has continued throughout the proceeding and the frustration of not being able to respond has had the State Court issuing a Contempt Warrant for the Arrest of Petitioner Ammon Bundy, criminalizing a once civil case."
Article 3, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution outlines the type of cases the federal courts have jurisdiction over. Bundy states more reasons the Federal Court has jurisdiction to take up the case:
"...as a defendant in the proceeding in State Court, Diego Rodriguez is not currently nor has been since on or about May of 2021 a citizen of Idaho, he is a citizen of Florida. There exists a controversy over Diversity of Citizenship (28 U.S.C. Section 1441(b) that this Court has authority to rule upon."
Bundy also states that this case involves a federal question, emphasizing the court's obligation to take it up, referencing Title 28 U.S.C. Section 31. and Title 28 U.S.C. Sections 1343(3) and (4).
Finally, Bundy states that while the abuse to Diego and him are of great concern, it also involves the taxpayers across the country, as St. Luke's draws heavily on State and Federal funding to function:
"Moreover, the Respondents have squandered valuable judicial resources and engaged in frivolous litigation to attack Petitioner at the unlawful expense of both Federal and State taxpayers whom bear the burden of the expenses at the end of the day. Diego Rodriguez as a single pro se litigant has suffered similarly at the hands of the respondents with tens of thousands of pages served upon him. Unable to respond or even practically read to understand the mountains of legal documents coming from the respondents, frustration has mounted with the petitioners and little hope that justice will be met in the State Court exists."
If the federal judge decides to take up the case, then all of the Ada County Judges action against Ammon Bundy and Diego Rodriguez will become null and the case will be reset for litigation.
Written by Joseph Brown
PR Editor - A dead man from Texas
See attachment for full PETITION TO TRANSFER CASE FROM STATE COURT TO FEDERAL COURT.
Will Jones be a "good sacrifice" now that he's crossed the Rubicon?
See 28 USC 1446 (Procedure for removal of civil actions)
When we have seen that procedure invoked in the past, one State Judge in California ruled that "he lost jurisdiction" after removal was declared and filed.
As such, properly executed removal raises a question of jurisdiction.
However, section 1441 conflates DCUS and USDC, but those 2 types of Federal district courts are NOT one and the same:
the DCUS is an Article III constitutional court dating all the way back to the Judiciary Act of 1789;
(One source claims 338,000,000 CUBIC FEET of Court records were generated by the DCUS from 1789 to mid-1950s);
the USDC is an Article I legislative tribunal dating from the two Acts of June 25,1948: see 28 USC 132
The DCUS was never expressly abolished by Congress: it was made to appear as if it "disappeared"
by reason of the Abrogation Clause in the Rules Enabling Act at 28 USC 2072(b): via "amendments" to Rules of Court.
Here's that Abrogation Clause:
"All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect."
The latter Abrogation Clause is obviously UNconstitutional (see Willy v. Coastal Corp. on this point).
The second Abrogation Clause at 18 USC 3771 on June 25, 1948, was repealed and replaced with the CVRA (Crime Victims' Rights Act).
As such, Defendants need to decide whether to proceed in the DCUS or in the USDC.