U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown appears poised to terminate Ryan Bundy’s status as his own attorney in his trial, which starts next month.
In an order filed Wednesday, Brown wrote that Bundy has repeatedly raised “frivolous issues” in open court and through written motions.
Brown said Bundy must provide a written explanation by Aug. 29 for why he should be allowed to continue to represent himself rather than reinstate Lisa Ludwig, his standby counsel, as his defense attorney.
“On several occasions Ryan Bundy has raised issues related to this Court’s jurisdiction under Article III of the United States Constitution, the Court’s 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,” Brown wrote in her order. “This Court has addressed its jurisdiction over this matter on multiple occasions.”
Bundy has been acting as his own attorney since mid-March, with the assistance Ludwig, who was appointed by the court.
At the time, Bundy told Brown he wanted to represent himself.
“I need to be heard; my voice needs to be heard,” Bundy said. “I need to be able to speak when the time is right.”
Brown also said Bundy has filed "frivolous Motions" on the court docket. In July, Bundy filed a motion that declared himself an "idiot of the 'Legal Society'" who isn't subject to federal law.
Brown also specifically cited filings by Bundy that implied she isn't fit as a judge to preside over the Sept. 7 trial.
“Despite the Court’s repeated admonishment, Ryan Bundy has continued to raise during hearings matters related to this judicial officer’s authority to preside over this case and the Court’s federal jurisdiction.”
Brown noted if Bundy doesn't provide a good reason by next week, the court can terminate self-representation because Bundy has engaged in obstructions misconduct.
“'The right of self-representation is not a license to abuse the dignity of the courtroom,’” Brown quoted from a 2004, Ninth Circuit case. “’Neither is it a license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.’”