Ammon Bundy Runs For Governor

[The Observer]

Today's hearing started 5 minutes late but was finished within 25 minutes. It was business-like and to the point, all of which was most likely assisted by Bundy failing to appear for the hearing. Judge Thurman was there, the image of grandfatherly patience as well as Erik Stidham of Holland Hart and his associate, Engels Tejeda, representing St. Luke's. A Jeff Trousdale was there for the trustee's office, and as the judge noted, some members of the press. But no Ammon, no wife and no brother. No wonder the proceeding was so quick.

First item on the court's agenda was St. Luke's motion to lift the bankruptcy against the permanent injunction issued by the Idaho court. Stidham explained that Bundy, despite the injuction, was continuing to violate it. This meant that St. Luke's, its administration and employees were still being harrassed by Bundy. The judge noted the seriousness of the situation, but pointed out that he had received a statement of opposition from Bundy, but he needed Bundy to be at this moment so he could have Bundy explain what he was trying to do with this opposition statment. At this point I was thinking, "Ah well, Thurman is going to give Bundy another chance by continuing this hearing to another sessioon." But apparently Thurman has ran out of his legendary patience, and simply told the St. Luke's team that since Bundy failed to appear, he was going to grant the motion. This was good to hear since I suspect that St. Luke's will go back to Idaho to get warrants for Bundy's arrest. Judge Thurman did advise Stidham that the lifting of the stay was only in regards to the injuction and did not mean that assets in the bankruptcy estate were still proteced from any collection.

Then Judge Thurman moved to the next item on the calendar. Since I don't have access to the docket, I was a bit suprised to hear the judge say this was an adversarial hearing since St. Luke's had filed a motion for default of judgment. What is this supposed to be and what is it based on? To my utter joy, it turns out that Stidham finally decided to deal with that morbidly obese elephant that has been sitting in plain view, section 523(a)(6)! Stidham was given the chance to give a brief recap of his motion and the basis for it. He went to the heart of the matter - the $53 million judgment was based on willful and malicious conduct and that it was not eligble for discharge. I am sure the motion had a lot more detail, but Thurman heard enough. He said that because this was an adversarial hearing, Bundy was supposed to appear to contest it, but as today nothing has been filed by Bundy and his non-appearance meant it was failure to appear, this meant that the judge did not have any reason to deny the motion. So he granted it and asked Stidham to provide notices to Bundy and the trustee's office.

The hearing ended at that point, but the judge mention he still had two pending motions filed on behalf of St. Luke's and that these would be handled at a future date. I am guessing that they are on the docket but I have lost track of what these could possibly be.

[wserra]

Thank you, Obs. Finally an order that the defamation judgment is not dischargeable.

Despite not appearing, Bundy is sure to whine and moan about how unfair this all is. Just as he has been doing at every opportunity about the defamation trial itself - at which he, of course, also failed to appear.