Bundys Fight for Freedom

     LAS VEGAS (CN) — Cliven Bundy won an extra 30 days to appeal his detention order to the Ninth Circuit, but his son, Ammon, lost his bid to reopen his detention hearing.
     U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro on Tuesday found Cliven Bundy’s notice of appeal timely, within an additional 30-day timeline of an initial 14-day limit to appeal the court’s denial of release at a May 25 detention hearing.
     The Ninth Circuit denied Bundy’s original notice of appeal as not timely, but remanded to give Cliven Bundy the opportunity to ask for a filing extension “upon a finding of excusable neglect of good cause.”
     Cliven Bundy filed his notice of appeal on June 16, which Navarro affirmed as timely. He is represented by Las Vegas attorney Joel Hansen, with Hansen & Rasmussen law firm.
     Hansen was not immediately available by telephone Tuesday evening and did not immediately respond to an email request for comment.
     While Cliven Bundy won a second shot at release from detention, his oldest son, Ammon, did not.
     In his May 4 objection to Magistrate Judge George W. Foley’s order denying him an extension of time for a detention hearing, Ammon Bundy said the Bail Reform Act entitled him to a five-day extension without showing good cause.
     Ammon Bundy also claimed the magistrate judge erroneously denied him an additional five days to prepare for the detention hearing after he showed good cause.
     Because the court denied the extension, Ammon Bundy said he could not “adequately prepare by gathering and confirming information and material to fully rebut the government’s proffer — which could have been accomplished in the modest extension sought.”
     He asked the court to vacate the detention order and order a new detention hearing, but Navarro on Monday denied his objections.
     “A five-day continuance is not an entitlement, but rather, a discretionary maximum amount of time the court may continue the detention hearing upon a defendant’s motion,” which means Foley did not err in his ruling, Navarro wrote.
     Navarro said a district judge can overturn a magistrate judge’s ruling only if the magistrate judge abused process and rendered a “‘clearly erroneous'” decision, and that a district judge cannot simply substitute his or her judgment in place of the magistrate judge’s.
     But Navarro said Ammon Bundy may file a motion to reopen the detention hearing with Foley presiding if any new or material information arises.
     Navarro did grant Ammon Bundy’s motion for leave to file a supplement to his objection.
     Las Vegas attorney Daniel J. Hill, with Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, filed the appeal on Ammon Bundy’s behalf.
     He was not immediately available by telephone on Tuesday evening.
     The Bundys and their 17 supporters are charged with up to 16 felonies for each, from the April 2014 standoff with the Bureau of Land Management at the Bundy Ranch near Bunkerville, Nev.
     Charges include conspiring to commit an offense against the United States, conspiring to impede or injure a federal officer, assaulting a federal officer, obstructing justice, extortion, and firearms violations.
     If convicted, the government seeks criminal forfeiture of property totaling some $3 million, plus the cattle the Bundys stopped the federal government from rounding up two years ago.
     Ammon Bundy also faces federal charges in Oregon, from the February takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

%d bloggers like this: