Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1101

Filed 08/24/16

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

3:16-cr-00051-BR-5
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS
TO DEFENDANT RYAN BUNDY

v.
RYAN BUNDY,
Defendant.

BROWN, Judge.
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte regarding the
litigation practices of pro se Defendant Ryan Bundy.

At his

Faretta hearing on March 18, 2016, the Court advised Ryan Bundy
that he was required to abide by all Court rulings and that he
would be permitted to appeal any Court ruling with which he
disagreed, but he would not be permitted to re-litigate any such
issues.

Ryan Bundy stated he was prepared to follow that

requirement.
Nonetheless, Ryan Bundy has persisted in a course of conduct
by which he has repeatedly raised both by written motion and in
open court various frivolous issues and matters that the Court
has previously resolved.

On several occasions Ryan Bundy has

raised issues related to this Courts jurisdiction under Article

1 - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO DEFENDANT RYAN BUNDY

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1101

Filed 08/24/16

Page 2 of 5

III of the United States Constitution, the Courts asserted

failure to provide him with a bill of particulars, and the false
contention that he has not been provided any discovery in this
case.
This Court has addressed its jurisdiction over this matter
on multiple occasions.

For example, as noted in the Order

(#1071) to Show Cause as to Defendant Medenbach, the Court has

repeatedly denied challenges to this Courts jurisdiction based
on this judicial officers oath of office.

In addition, by Order

(#649) the Court denied Defendant Ammon Bundys Motion (#527) to

Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the basis that the federal
government could not constitutionally exercise authority over the
land that constituted the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
(MNWR), and the Court also denied a similar Motion (#505) filed
by Defendant Kenneth Medenbach.

By Order (#956) issued July 29,

2016, the Court also denied Ryan Bundys Motion (#927) to Dismiss
on the basis that the Court lacked jurisdiction over this
criminal proceeding.
Moreover, matters regarding this Courts jurisdiction are
the type of purely legal motions that were due no later than
April 27, 2016.

In the Courts Order (#994) Granting in Part and

Denying in Part Motions of Defendants Ammon Bundy and Shawna Cox,

the Court advised all of the parties that it will not consider
untimely motions in the future absent a strong showing of good

2 - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO DEFENDANT RYAN BUNDY

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

cause.

Document 1101

Filed 08/24/16

Page 3 of 5

Despite the Courts repeated admonishments both to Ryan

Bundy and to the parties in general, Ryan Bundy has continued to

raise during hearings (including at the Pretrial Conference on
the morning of Tuesday, August 23, 2016) matters related to this
judicial officers authority to preside over this case and the
Courts federal jurisdiction.
Moreover, at multiple hearings Ryan Bundy has repeatedly
objected to the government and the Courts alleged failure to
provide him with a Bill of Particulars.

By Order (#614) issued

May 26, 2016, however, the Court considered and denied a Motion
(#469) for Bill of Particulars filed by Defendant Joseph
OShaughnessy on behalf of all Defendants, including Ryan Bundy.
Ryan Bundy, however, continued to raise that issue (including at
the Pretrial Conference on the morning of Tuesday August 23,
2016, and that afternoon when he filed a Notice (#1099) of Demand
for Bill of Particulars) despite the fact the Court advised Ryan
Bundy only hours before that the Court would not revisit the
issue and that continuing to raise it would jeopardize his
ability to represent himself.
Finally, Ryan Bundy has repeatedly filed frivolous Motions
and other Notices on the docket.

On July 28, 2016, he filed

eight Documents that did not raise any legally cognizable issue
for the Court to address, but that generally challenged the
Courts authority and jurisdiction.

At that time the Court again

3 - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO DEFENDANT RYAN BUNDY

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1101

Filed 08/24/16

Page 4 of 5

advised Ryan Bundy that the Court had previously addressed the
issue of the Courts jurisdiction and would not revisit that
issue in light of the need to prepare for trial.

Nevertheless,

on August 23, 2016, Ryan Bundy filed a Written Notice and

Response to Anna Jaeger Browns Order, ECF (#955) in which he,
among other things, demands proof that this judicial officer is
licensed to practice law in the State of Oregon and that the
court manager . . . bring forth the courts insurance
information in case the public is harmed.
A court may terminate self-representation by a defendant
who deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist
misconduct.
(1975).

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 n.46

The right of self-representation is not a license to

abuse the dignity of the courtroom.

Neither is it a license not

to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.

Id.

See also United States v. Mack, 362 F.3d 597, 601 (9th Cir.

2004).
By Order (#955) the Court warn[ed] Ryan Bundy that any
further indication that he will not follow the Courts Orders
will result in Ryan Bundy forfeiting the right to selfrepresentation.

It is now clear from his continued filing of

frivolous and duplicative documents in spite of multiple

directions to refrain from doing so that Ryan Bundy will not
follow this Courts directives.

In fact, through his most recent

4 - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO DEFENDANT RYAN BUNDY

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1101

Filed 08/24/16

Page 5 of 5

filings Ryan Bundy has demonstrated not only an unwillingness to

comply with the Courts orders, but also an open defiance of the
Courts authority in this case.

Ryan Bundy, therefore, has

engage[d] in serious and obstructionist misconduct, abuse[d]

the dignity of the courtroom, and used his status as a pro se
litigant as a license not to comply with relevant rules of
procedural and substantive law.
n.46.

See Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834

Permitting Ryan Bundy to continue to represent himself

would create an unacceptable risk that he would continue to flout

this Courts orders; further impede the efficient administration
of justice in these proceedings; and conduct himself in a manner
at the trial beginning September 7, 2016, that would prejudice
the fair administration of justice, the government, and the coDefendants who each have their own right to a fair trial.
Accordingly, on this record the Court orders Ryan Bundy to
show cause in writing no later than Noon, August 29, 2016, why
the Court should not terminate his pro se status and reinstate
Lisa J. Ludwig as Ryan Bundys counsel for all purposes in these
proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 24th day of August, 2016.
/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge

5 - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO DEFENDANT RYAN BUNDY