Ammon Bundy Runs For Governor

[wserra]

Slowly but surely, the Bundys are being backed into a corner, and the bobbing and weaving is approaching the limit of its shelf life. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.

St. Luke's has responded to Lisa Bundy's late motion to quash their subpoenas, and cross-moved to compel. St. Luke's is all but sure to prevail on both. In the process, St. Luke's has supplied further details which to this point were unknown (at least to me). For example:

• bank records indicate that Lisa Bundy signed off on a $487,167.36 fraudulent conveyance of “certain funds belonging to Ammon E. and Lisa M. Bundy” to Abishhusbondi Inc, an entity Debtor Ammon Bundy used to hold his personal assets.
• Lisa Bundy used accounts set up in her name to further schemes to move money out of Debtor Ammon Bundy’s bank accounts
• Lisa Bundy, together with her husband, has already attempted to fraudulently transfer at least two large assets—an orchard property in Emmett, Idaho, and approximately $475,000 in cash.
• Lisa Bundy has already directly participated in at least two fraudulent transfers of assets in the aggregate value of approximately $1.7 million

It seems likely that the Bundys will continue non-obedience to orders in the proceeding they started.

To this non-bankruptcy-practitioner's mind, St. Luke's will then have two options: seek dismissal of the bankruptcy or contempt. The latter seems far more likely. St. Luke's is well down the path to clawing back fraudulently-transferred assets in the current proceeding, not to mention establishing a convincing record for charges of bankruptcy fraud. Why start over? As we've discussed above, I think that St. Luke's (and likely the Trustee as well) would oppose a voluntary dismissal motion from Bundy.

Bundy may be able to drag this out for a few more months, but the handwriting is on the wall.

[wserra]

Hearing scheduled for 12/4/2024 at 02:00 PM at ZoomGov.com/join - WTT: Meeting ID: 160 7523 8590, Passcode: 9626637, Phone 1-669-254-5252.

Needless to say, the court can "see" who's on the Zoom, and may ask who "Wesley Serra" is and if he has any connection to the case. "No, Your Honor, just an observer" is a perfectly fine response. Especially for a certain Q regular.

I fully intended to join this afternoon, but something came up that I need to attend to. A reminder for anyone who is interested/available.

[The Observer]

I plan to attend, Wes. But I think that Lisa Bundy may be a no-show based on the assumption that Ammon may convince her to not attend. After all, he failed to attend his own trial and probably still believes that was a winning strategy. If she does attend, I wouldn't be surprised to see her either plead the 5th in response to the questions put to her or start arguing with the attorneys and judge with pseudolaw challenges.

[The Observer]

I attended the Zoom hearing this afternoon. Surprisingly, three Bundys showed up - Ammon, wife Lisa, and Ryan Bundy. Ryan was there due to his business (Bundy Motors) being involved in the motions to compel testimony. The Trustee's office was represented and St Luke's attorneys were there as well. There were a couple of other non-party observers in addition to myself.

The short version: No decision was rendered today with the judge taking under advisement the motions to compel testimony and Lisa's motion to quash the subpoena. Both sides got to make arguments, or what passed for arguments. Judge Thurman questioned both sides, the Bundys more than the attorneys for St. Luke. The judge was patient with Ammon, but had a couple of points being made about Ammon's lack of knowledge about the law and the Constitution. A decision will be made about the middle of next week regarding all of the motions.

The long version: When the judge asked Ammon to confirm if he was the debtor, Ammon started the "poor me" attitude by saying that the judge could call him the victim. The judge kind of chuckled but asked again if he was the debtor. Ammon responded, "If that is what you want to call me."

St Luke's started off by explaining why they wanted the motions to compel. They stated that they had identified and confirmed transactions that were fraudulent; that it appeared that approximately $500,000 had been transferred from Ammon or his corporation (Abishhusbondi Inc.); that Lisa Bundy had participated in that and other fraudulent transfers and that the money had ended up in Ryan Bundy's business, Bundy Motors. The granting of the motion will allow St Luke's to recover the monies. At this point they related that Ryan, in response, had requested that they pay him $10,000 for his appearance fee and requested documents.

Following this, the judge asked if the trustee had an objection regarding Section 727 (regarding rules covering discharge) and agreeing to no extension of deadlines, the trustee replied that he had no objection. Not sure what was that about.

Ryan Bundy at this point spoke up in regards to what St. Luke's had said. Ryan said he was the sole owner of Bundy Motors and that he had provided all of the information to St. Luke's and told them that Ammon had no interest in Bundy Motors. His rationale was that St. Luke's attorneys were getting paid for all of their work and he couldn't afford to work for free. Since he provided what he believes satisfied their request, it would be involuntary servitude to have provide anything additional they wanted.

Ammon spoke up next and stated that the attorneys were wrong in their assertions that there was a fraudulent transfer. He said whatever transfers happened were corporate in nature and that there were no personal assets involved.

St Luke's told the judge that the transfers were private assets, that Abishhusbondi may be a shell corporation and the money eventually ended up with Ryan. And the Bundy(s) have given conflicting responses resulting in the attornies being told that the money was Ammon's and then it was not Ammon's. No specifics were described here so not sure who said what and when.

Then a conversation ensued between the judge and the parties regarding Ryan appearing at a future date in St. George, UT for testimony since it would be closer to his home in Mesquite, NV. Judge decided to take this under advisement.

The preliminaries being out of the way, the judge turned to Lisa's motion to quash. Ammon interrupted at this point to address a motion he filed to seal documents being submitted to the court. The judge asked Lisa why and she requested that Ammon be allowed to speak for her. The judge was hesitant to grant this request, but he did and advised her in the future she would have to respond for herself. Ammon then jumped in, stating that Lisa had multiple reasons for not appearing when the original subpoena was served on her. The distance to Salt Lake City was too far and too expensive, the allowable fees were not large enough to cover the associated costs, federal law limits travel in such cases to 100 miles (Lisa would have to travel 500 miles round trip). In addition, Ammon complained that the attorneys were harassing and tormenting Lisa and were causing her emotional stress. At this point Lisa was visibly crying and Ammon moved the camera off of her. I did not see Lisa appear or respond after this point. Ammon went on and accused the attorneys of forcing them out of their home. He finally stated that Lisa has no personal knowledge of the involved businesses or corporate matters.

St Luke's responded that there was confusion over whether there was one or two subpoenas. They admitted that the first subpoena was a mistake in regards to requiring Lisa to appear in SLC and that a second subpoena was served that required appearance in St. George (only 50 or so miles one way). They asserted that Lisa was personally involved in the fraudulent transfer and had interacted with the "Bransons" as part of the transfer. The Bransons seem to be a new party that either has been forgotten by me or else have just appeared on the radar of St. Luke's. They went on to state that Lisa had received monies and had distributed them. They also told the judge that Ammon had appeared on Youtube and stated he was taking steps to hide his assets. As such, they have no reason to believe anything that Ammon has to say.

The judge at this point gave Ammon a directive to mail the medical documents to him so he could make an in camera inspection of the documents to determine whether or not they could be delivered to the attorneys. Ammon at first objected, stating that he did not want the attorneys to have access to her medical records. It was not clear to me why the medical records were requested by St. Luke's and what was the core issue behind them. Nevertheless, the judge repeated his directive to Ammon providing the records and advised Ammon that when he makes his decision about access, he might not like it.

Ammon went on to say that Lisa was only served one subpoena, the one for a SLC appearance, and that they never received subpoenas for a St. George appearance. He started a mini-rant here about him not understanding how he could be accused of a fraudulent conveyance; he knows nothing about a bank account that would be involved in the claimed money transfers. Then he started accusing the attorneys for having a personal desire to punish him and his wife and torment them. The judge at this point advised Ammon that he was not going to rule on personal motivations since that was not in the purview of the court and not an issue before the court.

St Luke's then advised the judge that they had a statement from the Bransons that stated that the money in question was not theirs, that Lisa Bundy took active steps to avoid service of the subpoena and that in the end e-mailed the subpoenas to Ammon and Lisa.

Ammon questioned the legality of serving subpoenas by mail or e-mail. He believed it to be improper notice. He also said that a picture in the files that was supposedly taken of their front porch showing a package left there was not even their house. Judge Thurman intervened at this point and tried to explain about legality of the service and that court rules allow for this. Ammon interrupted and questioned how a subpoena could be legal if it didn't have his or Lisa's signature. Then the judge addressed the apparent problem of Ammon being pro se. He hinted that Ammon might benefit from having a lawyer on this case, even if it was only to review what was occurring. Continuing his "poor me" stance, Ammon asked the judge what kind of lawyer could he get for no pay? The judge just ignored that and moved on. It seemed the judge had concluded he wasn't going to waste time trying to persuade Ammon from his course of self-destruction.

St Luke's followed up on this by telling the judge that Ammon had repeatedly refused to appear at his previous civil and criminal hearings and trials despite receiving legal notice. It eventually came out that Ammon had left Idaho to avoid the arrest warrants.

They also reported that Ammon had pled the Fifth Amendment in response to questions about whether he had filed his income taxes and if he had tax records. Ammon responded that he had already had testified under oath at the FMOC and does not understand why that does not suffice. He didn't want to provide any information to the attorneys because he believes that the attorneys will use it to get a criminal investigation against him. The judge questioned Ammon about what particular crime under the law does he fear that he could be prosecuted under. Bundy kind of deflected from answering that question and ended up claiming that the 5th amendment goes beyond just protecting a person for criminal matters. The judge ignored the obvious error, but told Ammon that by signing the filing documents for his bankruptcy meant that his rights had been modified. That seemed to take the wind out of Ammon's sails; the discovery that he might have made a mistake in filing this bankruptcy resulted in a soft voiced comment "oh it does?" from Ammon.

Ryan popped back in again and started his own rant about the Rodriguez infant and how Ammon was unjustly persecuted and prosecuted over his simple attempt to prevent the baby from being kidnapped from its parents. Ryan went to proclaim that Ammon was innocent and all the resulting civil and criminal trials are the result of the system trying to punish Ammon. None of this was relevant to the matters at hand; after all it was Ammon's decision to file the bankruptcy - an involuntary BK was not forced on him. But the judge patiently listened to Ryan's rant; when he finished the judge said it was very interesting listening to Ryan's spin on the case. He later apologised and said he should have used the word "interpretation" instead of "spin. Personally, I think the judge was right the first time.

Apparently sensing that Lisa would not prevail on the quash, Ammon asked if Lisa could appear by Zoom instead of going to St. George if the judge ruled against her. It was a reasonable request, but by this point I'm sure the judge was tired of nursemaiding Ammon. He told Ammon that he needs to abide by the court system and file such requests in writing. The court operates on physical statements so that nothing is forgotten or omitted. We'll see if Ammon got the hint.

Now the judge turned to a future calendar event, something regarding the Schedule C filing. He asked both parties if they, given the fact that the lack of property being reported, agree that there is no need to have the hearing. Ammon confirmed he had listed no property on that schedule. St. Lukes agreed that there was no need for a hearing. Not sure if Ammon made another mistake here but it seems so.

Judge announced a short recess so he could confer with his staff. After returning, he advised the parties that he was taking all of the matters discussed today under advisement; he expected to rule on them by the middle of next week. He again reminded Ammon that those medical records needed to be located; Ammon earlier claimed he had already forwarded them to the judge at his office in SLC. The judge advised Ammon that due to construction his office had been unable to receive mail and that it was being forwarded to US District Court instead. So it would be up to Ammon to either contact the district court to see if they can find the records or re-mail them; either way he has seven days to deliver. If that does not happen, the judge might make a decision that Ammon would not like. Ammon acknowledged and the judge put the court into recess.

[wserra]

Thank you, Obs, for sitting through this. Other than the rants, it seems quite boring. And pointless - very little info that was not in the papers. Which leads to . . .

I get tired of reading about how the courts discriminate against pro se parties. If anything, the courts coddle pro se parties. It seems entirely likely that no in-person hearing - let alone one of this apparent length - would have been held were Bundy and the subpoena recipients not pro se. And it is certain that the "arguments" you relate from the Bundys would have been cut off at the knees had they been made by lawyers, despite the fact that Judge Thurman seems like a very patient man.

I am curious about the Lisa Bundy medical records. I don't see the context in a bankruptcy in which medical records - especially of a non-party - become sufficiently relevant to trump HIPAA. I don't recall reading anything about this in the papers (other than Ammon's motion to seal, which he lacks standing to make).

Prediction: Lisa's motion to quash denied, Ammon fails to get Lisa's medical records to the court within a week (so his motion denied), all other motions granted.

[The Observer]

ther than the rants, it seems quite boring. And pointless - very little info that was not in the papers.

It was. Even the rants were boring. Ammon and Ryan never raised their voices above acceptable conversational tones. Given the fact that nothing had been completed by the Bundys in terms of the subpoenas, there was nothing really to discuss.

It seems entirely likely that no in-person hearing - let alone one of this apparent length - would have been held...

Right. This could have all been tied up within 15 minutes if professionals were involved in the discussions. As it were, the hearing lasted approximately one hour and 15 minutes.

...Judge Thurman seems like a very patient man.

He was. If I had been on the bench, the rants would have been interrupted immediately. But I guess Thurman wanted to ensure that he could not be accused of not giving the Bundys their day in court. But we know that Ammon and company will do exactly that when the decisions come rolling in.

...Ammon's motion to seal, which he lacks standing to make).

I am not sure if Ammon's request was really supposed to be assumed as being requested by Lisa Bundy. As I reported above, Thurman gave Ammon carte blanche to speak for Lisa and this when the issue of the sealed medical records came up. I don't know/remember if a filed motion was submitted by Lisa and was in the docket. Perhaps Thurman is again bending over backwards to make things easier for the Bundys. But he was very explicit to Ammon when he told him that future requests need to be in writing.

Prediction: Lisa's motion to quash denied, Ammon fails to get Lisa's medical records to the court within a week (so his motion denied), all other motions granted.

I agree with the quash being denied. I think, however, that Ammon is going to pony up the records, but that is based on his claim he had already sent them by mail to the court. It should be a simple matter of getting hold of the clerks at the Distric Court by phone to track down the package. If we can believe Ammon - and I admit that is a big "if", then I think we will see movement on this case.

One further prediction. Once the quash is squashed, I think we will see Lisa Bundy fail to appear for the deposition, whether by Zoom or appearance in St. George. She is not going to be able to endure the questioning and having her answers impugned. St. Luke's wouldn't be deposing her unless they have enough evidence proving her involvement. And Ammon knows that she is a weak link in his chain of defense. I think it is more likely that they will fail to appear and go on the lam again.

The great thing about these virtual courtrooms is that you don't have to remember to put your pants on. I went in my bathrobe.

[The Observer]

Ammon Bundy has been hitting the YouTube stream to continue ranting and blaming lawyers, corporations and the courts for his current predicament: Deny, Defend, Depose. The Idaho Statesman has a story covering this.

For those not disposed to listening to 18 minutes of Ammon, the short summary is that he is now trying to link the recent murder of the United Health CEO to his own plight. Ammon states that he understands how this tragedy could have happened since he is going through it himself. His theory is that CEOs and corporations target individuals who take a stand against the corporation's policies. They hire expensive lawyers to do their dirty work for them in the courts and the courts go along with it rather than stand up for the little guy. They bury him in paperwork and court time until he can no longer resist. Ammon is careful enough to make clear that he doesn't condone what happened and recognized that the CEO's life taken from him in an act of vengeance. But he keeps returning to the theme that St. Luke's is doing to same thing to him.

This video was taken by Ammon as he was walking in his neighborhood. He related that he and his family are living in a one bedroom attic apartment that belongs to "a buddy of his." He also stopped outside a private ranch gate to finish his streaming which allowed me to confirm that Ammon is indeed living in New Harmony.

He also left a video on the recent BK hearing. I am going to have to take some time to go through it since it is over 30 minutes. I doubt it will have anything that will be revealing or relevant about the hearing. However Ammon puts this statement in the description header:

The court (Judge Thurman) determined that they are not going to allow me to keep anything in the bankruptcy, not even our clothing. Also, St. Lukes filed a motion asking the court to stop me from going bankrupt. A hearing is set on January 13.

[The Observer]

I found some time to listen to Ammon's reporting ranting on the December 4th bankruptcy hearing. For the most part, Ammon kept focusing on the Baby Cyrus matter and regurgitating his explanation on why he was defending the Rodriguez family. He also applauded Ryan Bundy's rant in the hearing as though this was a relevant issue that the court should be taking into account for any decision. He took issue with the judge's "spin" remark and implied that the judge was not going to be fair in his future rulings.

When Ammon finally got down to what happened in court, his presentation seemed to be ignoring what really happened. I first thought that he was deliberately lying about what happened. His header description had stated that the judge had already ruled against him, but that clearly had not been the case. I kept listening and it became apparent that Bundy does not understand how courts operate. It was his expectation that the judge would listen his and Ryan's rants, his wife's emotional state and the claims about how the legal team of St. Luke's were tormenting and persecuting him and his family, then issue a ruling that would grant him a full discharge on the spot. This didn't happen so Bundy is presuming that the judge will rule against him.

It is clear that Bundy either does not know about 523(a)(6) or does not understand how it impacts his BK filing. He must think that any judge has carte blanche to overturn any other court's ruling or otherwise cancel it. As Ammon sees it, a judge's main responsibility is to protect the little guy, no matter what the little guy did to get himself in a legal mess. It is a very black-and-white world that Ammon lives in, and it centers on him.

He did clarify that there will be a hearing on Jan 13th, 2025 where the judge will rule on St. Luke's motion to throw out Bundy's BK filing. Even here, Bundy presented it as another cruel dishonest move by the attorneys.

[wserra]

He did clarify that there will be a hearing on Jan 13th, 2025 where the judge will rule on St. Luke's motion to throw out Bundy's BK filing. Even here, Bundy presented it as another cruel dishonest move by the attorneys.

I don't think there's a hearing scheduled for Jan 13, and St. Luke's definitely has not moved to "throw out" the bankruptcy. As I read the docket, Jan 13 is the deadline for St. Luke's to object to the discharge. I'm shocked that Ammon - Ammon! - is wrong about something.

Bundy is presuming that the judge will rule against him.

He's very likely right about that one.

[JamesVincent]

Bundy is presuming that the judge will rule against him.

He's very likely right about that one.

Broken clocks and all that. Probably his first prediction with a chance of success.

[The Observer]

I'm shocked that Ammon - Ammon! - is wrong about something.

Ah! That is what I get for presuming that Bundy would at least be able to read a motion or the docket and understand what it is saying. This speaks volumes about his inability to understand what he has gotten himself into.

As I read the docket, Jan 13 is the deadline for St. Luke's to object to the discharge.

I have lost track of what the attorneys are doing. I think that the 523(a)(6) issue will be raised once the depositions of Lisa Bundy and Ryan Bundy happen (or don't). I don't know if the deadline is the absolute drop-date to raise it or if it can be raised afterwards.

[wserra]

Yesterday St. Luke's moved to lift the automatic stay Bundy's bankruptcy filing imposed so that they could enforce the permanent injunction of the Idaho courts which accompanied the defamation judgment against him. That injunction required Bundy to cease his defamation of St. Luke's, and remove the things found defamatory from sites he controls. Bundy, of course, has done the opposite. Not only has he removed nothing, he has published further defamation, most recently comparing St. Luke's executives and lawyers to the UHC executive recently assassinated in Midtown Manhattan (time point: 19:40-21:10). He doesn't "condone" it - of course not - but he goes on and on about how he supposedly understands why it happened and how his situation is the same. Hint hint.

St. Luke's continues by relating how Bundy was already found in contempt in Idaho for violating the injunction, and how there is an outstanding warrant for his arrest there as a result. Similarly, enforcement proceedings in Utah - which St. Luke's had already begun when Bundy filed for bankruptcy - were stayed as well. January 8 for a hearing - ZoomGov.com/join Meeting ID: 160 7523 8590 Passcode: 9626637, Phone No. 1-669-254-5252 - although the Court might certainly change that.

St. Luke's will win this one too.

[The Observer]

Yesterday St. Luke's moved to lift the automatic stay Bundy's bankruptcy filing...

In reading the motion, I note that it references Bundy seeking relief through "...this Chapter 11 proceeding..." (#21). Attorney error? I presume so since everything else refers to the Chapter 7 filing.

The motion also mentions that the lifting of the stay will permit St. Luke's to pursue enforcment of the injunction granted by the Utah court. The only enforcement that would seem to work is actually jailing Bundy. Would that be something the Utah court would consider as the only recourse? And could St. Luke's expect Utah to extradite Bundy back to Idaho?

Not only has he removed nothing, he has published further defamation, most recently comparing St. Luke's executives and lawyers to the UHC executive recently assassinated in Midtown Manhattan

I had seen that in the video but decided not to include it in my posting. Given the fact that a couple of politicians had made similar remarks I figured it might trigger political comments in subsequent posts. But it definitely proves that somehow Ammon thinks that everything happens is because it's all about him.

[wserra]

In reading the motion, I note that it references Bundy seeking relief through "...this Chapter 11 proceeding..." (#21). Attorney error? I presume so since everything else refers to the Chapter 7 filing.

I presume so as well. It's a Ch 7.

The motion also mentions that the lifting of the stay will permit St. Luke's to pursue enforcment of the injunction granted by the Utah court. The only enforcement that would seem to work is actually jailing Bundy. Would that be something the Utah court would consider as the only recourse?

If a Utah court concludes that incarceration is truly the only way to get Bundy to comply, I presume so. It could be a civil contempt - meaning that Bundy could purge it (and thus get himself out of jail) by simply complying - removing the stuff he has posted and knocking it off in the future. That would make most judges somewhat more willing to impose it.

And could St. Luke's expect Utah to extradite Bundy back to Idaho?

Typically that's up to the requesting state. Some states don't bother with extradition on civil contempts (or misdemeanors, for that matter).

[The Observer]

The Boise State Public Radio Organization is reporting that Ammon has amended his bankruptcy application to include state and federal incomes taxes that he has purposely not paid since 2018. Bundy is stating that he has not paid the taxes due to him being arrested and detained because of his taking over the Malheur Wildlife refuge.

The taxes are mostly federal income taxes, according to BSPRO, and that amount is $69,100. The total due is over $84,000 and includes taxes owed to Arizona and Nevada. So the obvious question is whether these taxes are dischargeable.

The BK code specifies that the taxes must be at least three years old, meaning the original tax return was due at least three years before filing for bankruptcy. That would mean that only the taxes for 2018, 2019, and 2020 would meet that criteria for discharge. But the returns for those returns would have to have been filed at least 2 years before the bankruptcy was filed. And this is where things start to get interesting. Did Ammon file those returns timely (timely meaning at this point during the two year period prior to the BK being filed, not actually the due date for those returns)? If he was late, such as filing all of them recently so that he could include them in the amended application, then he is going to be out of luck.

But the other question I have is whether he filed any of those returns. If he failed to file the returns and the IRS instead filed substitute returns for him, none of the SFRs would be eligible for discharge. The BK code specifies that the taxpayer has to file the returns themselves in order to be eligible for discharge. In short this could be another episode of wasted time on Bundy's part.

[JamesVincent]

Can he file after the fact and have it accepted?

[The Observer]

Can he file after the fact and have it accepted?

If you are referring to filing original returns, yes. I don't think it will help Bundy's situation any since he claims he hasn't paid taxes and an original filed return submitted at this date would mean that he wouldn't meet the condition of the returns being filed 2 years prior to the filing. I would see this as just another failed attempt by Ammon trying to escape his mounting debt.

We won't know the nature of those taxes unless Bundy provides details in the amended petition/schedules. Even then, we may not know. Perhaps the St Luke's legal team may have more details.

[The Observer]

January 8 for a hearing - ZoomGov.com/join Meeting ID: 160 7523 8590 Passcode: 9626637, Phone No. 1-669-254-5252 - although the Court might certainly change that.

St. Luke's will win this one too.

Is this Zoom still scheduled? And is there a time? Thanks!

[wserra]

I'd forgotten about that. But yes, it appears that it is still scheduled:

Hearing scheduled for 1/8/2025 at 02:00 PM at ZoomGov.com/join - WTT: Meeting ID: 160 7523 8590, Passcode: 9626637, Phone 1-669-254-5252

So that's 4 PM EST. I have something at 2:30 EST, so I'm not likely to be available. Thanks for remembering, Obs.

[The Observer]

Thanks, Wes. I think I should be able to attend.