AMMON BUNDY 

800 E LOCUST ST. 

EMMETT, ID. 83617

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE

STATE OF IDAHO, AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA

Ammon Bundy, hereby respectfully gives notice to the court of foreseen speedy trial rights violation and informs the court that he has NOT joined any motion or request to leave the court. He demands that his right to fair and speedy trial be afforded according to State and U.S Constitutions and outlined by Idaho State Statue. 

On October 26^th 2020 a DEMAND FOR SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL BY JURY was filed with the court. It appears that my accusers (plaintiff) filed a response to this objection on the 3^rd day of November (one day late from the court’s deadline). On November 24, 2020 the court heard arguments on the motion and on December 21, 2020 the court ordered “an in-person jury trial be held for the Defendant (the accused) case.” On December 23, 2020 a Status Conference was held, wherein the court set a trial date of March 15, 2021. After I made the argument that a March 15^thtrial would be a violation of my speedy trial right, Magistrate Judge David D. 

Manweiler said, “Well first of all you have a statutory right to speedy trial and a Constitutional right to speedy trial. In Idaho, you are correct, statutory speedy trial is 180 days from the date of entry of your not guilty plea. Which in your case was on October 8^th, which in the court’s calculation would make your speedy trial, the 180 day, to be, April five 2021. You're also correct that the Idaho Supreme Court has suspended the speedy trial, a provision, statutory provision by, by its order, uh and have also suspended jury trials at least through February. So, I can’t set anything until March.” When asked, “How do you suspend someone’s rights? Judge Manweiler, then, shook his head and shrugged his shoulders as if it did not matter to him or as if he did not have a choice to not violate my right to a  speedy trial. Later Judge Manweiler said, “Speedy trial calculation does not start until the date of your entry of not guilty plea. If you will recall at your arraignment, I asked what your plea was, you refused to uh, to uh, enter a plea, I entered not guilty pleas for you, on that, on your behalf for you at that time.” Judge Manweiler a few moments later says, “Secondly, if you do feel your rights have been violated, uh, you can (shrugging and shaking his head again) take that up with the higher court.”  

As an accused person being in jeopardy by the state for over 127 days now, it is seeming disingenuous for Judge Manweiler, in his own way to say, sorry, take it up with someone else, not my problem. However, disingenuous or not, during the status conference on November 23, 2020, Judge Manweiler made at least one statutory error and multiple Constitutional errors as it applies to Idahoan’s speedy trial rights. I will address the statutory error first.

As noted by Judge Manweiler, Idaho Statute 19-3501(3) reads, 

The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, must order the prosecution or indictment to be dismissed, in the following cases: (3) If a defendant, whose trial has not been postponed upon his application, is not brought to trial within six (6) months from the date that the defendant was arraigned before the court in which the indictment is found.

180 days from my arraignment date is April 6^th 2021 and Judge Manweiler uses Idaho State Statute 19-3501(3) as the reason the court calculated my speedy trial to April 5^th 2021. This calculation would be correct if 19-3501(3) was the only Idaho statute defining what Idaho speedy trial is. However, 19-3501(3) is not the only Idaho statute defining speedy trial. Idaho Statute 19-3501(2) starts the speedy trial clock “from the date that the information is filed with the court.” During the status conference on December 23, 2020 Judge Manweiler references the “Affidavit of Probable Cause” filed with the court on August 28, 2020. This would require my speedy trial to be held on or before February 24^th 2021. As I have asserted in every preceding and motion in this case, I demand my right to a fair and speedy trial. Idaho law affords me the right to trial on or before February 24^th2021, the people of Idaho expect the court to respect Idaho law and all rights belonging to them should rightfully be afforded by the court.

Secondly, the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a speedy trial by an "impartial jury." This means that a criminal defendant must be brought to trial for his or her alleged crimes within a reasonably short time after arrest, and that before being convicted of most crimes, the defendant has a constitutional right to be tried by a jury, which must find the defendant guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." A "speedy" trial basically means that the defendant is tried for the alleged crimes within a reasonable time after being arrested. Although Idaho has laws that set forth the time in which a trial must take place after charges are filed (as referenced above), often the issue of whether or not a trial is, in fact, "speedy" enough under the Sixth Amendment comes down to the circumstances of the case itself, and the reasons for any delays. In the most extreme situations, when a court determines that the delay between arrest and trial was unreasonable and prejudicial to the defendant, the court dismisses the case altogether.

The U.S. Constitution does not define exactly what is "speedy" when deciding whether the trial occurred soon enough. Not surprising there has been a lot of litigation and legislation passed to help determine time limits for a speedy trial. The U.S. Supreme Court provided some guidance in laying out the factors to be considered when trying to determine whether the time to trial was speedy enough. 

 These factors are:

Length of delay; Reason for the delay; Defendant's assertion of his right; and Prejudice to the defendant.

While the Supreme Court provides some guidance, the Congress and many states have passed laws to provide specific time limits for the trial to occur. The U.S. Congress passed the Speedy Trial Act, which set a time limit of 70 days from the filing date of the indictment unless waived. In California, for instance, the law dictates that a person charged with a felony shall be brought to trial within 60 days and within 30 days for a misdemeanor. (Cal. Penal Code § 1382.) Idaho Statute sets speedy trial within 180 days, even for a misdemeanor. 

After comparing the Idaho statute for speedy trial to other states and also the federal rules, it is not hard to see that Idaho is already pushing the Constitutional limits by putting an accused person in jeopardy for a prolonged period of time before affording them a speedy trial. The US Congress published the following words, “The history of the right to a speedy trial and its reception in this country clearly establish that it is one of the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution. So finding, the Supreme Court held in the 1967 case of Klopfer v. North Carolina that the right to a speedy trial is one of those fundamental liberties that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes applicable to the states.”

 I need not remind the court that Idaho State Constitution Article 1, Section 2 declares that “The state of Idaho is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.” For any Judge to set a jury trial 202 days from the time of arrest is a major Constitutional violation and one that the people of Idaho must not allow. This court has done just that! https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-628-speedy-trial-act-1974 http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep386/usrep386213/usrep386213.pdf   

Finally, on December14th the Idaho Supreme Court suspended Jury Trials and Grand Jury proceedings INDEFINITELY, using COVID-19 as the excuse. 

Here are the official words from the Idaho Supreme Court: "This Court now orders that no jury trial, whether criminal or civil, nor grand jury impanelment proceeding shall commence in Idaho state courts until further order of this Court."

The last time jury trials were suspended in the State of Idaho was...well...never! The last time jury trials were suspended in America was before the United States was established.  On July 4, 1776 the people of the American colonies declared independence from the British government including the British courts. This necessary separation was not unwarranted as the authors of the Declaration of Independence outlined in detail. Some of the same abuses that justified the early Americans to provide new guards for their future security are being imposed upon the people today by the Idaho Courts. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world:  

-       The Idaho Courts have obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing their Assent to the Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. (ISC Article 1, USC 4 & 6 Amendment, IS 19-3501)

-       The Idaho Courts have judicially justified the hither swarms of Officers that harass the people and eat out our substance,

-       For protecting them by mock Trials, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of this State. (Jack Yantis, Jeanetta Riley, Jesse Quinton, Shane McVaye…)https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/northwest/idaho/article214213739.html

-       The Idaho Courts have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution(s)and acknowledged by our laws. (Idaho State Bar, USDOJ, ISP…)

-       The Idaho Courts are depriving [the people of Idaho] in many cases, of the benefits [Right] of trial by Jury:https://isc.idaho.gov/EO/FINAL-Order-Re-Commencement-of-Jury-Trials-and-Grand-Jury-Impanelment.pdf

Although, I must admit these accusations seem on their face to be dramatic, but the devil is in the details and as the COVID scare continues, the current and former abuses by the Idaho courts and government are becoming more obvious. As the people become less free and they are becoming more aware and willing to consider things that they have not considered before. Including the fallibility and rights infringements of the courts upon the people. 

Conclusion:

The court has made a statutory error in calculating the speedy trial rights of the accused in Idaho. The act of leaving the court to appeal will further put me in jeopardy and perpetuate the violation of my speedy trial right. Therefore, I do not wish to leave the court to appeal, but instead ask the court to remedy the foreseen violation by scheduling my jury trial on or before February 24^th 2021. The Idaho courts are violating the U.S. Constitution, Idaho Constitution, Idaho Statute and most importantly the God given liberty of the people of Idaho by indefinitely denying us the right to trial by jury. Therefore, I demand the court to correct this violation immediately.   

DATED this 31th Day of December, 2020 

Ammon Bundy                                             

The Accused, (Defendant)