LAS VEGAS (AP) — A Nevada judge has refused to let a nationally known conservative lawyer join Cliven Bundy's defense team because of ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him in Washington, D.C.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports (http://bit.ly/1Vk90wP ) that U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro wrote in a three-page order that she didn't think Larry Klayman has been candid about the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.

Klayman disclosed in court documents that no disciplinary action had been taken and the proceedings would likely soon be resolved in his favor, which Navarro said was "misleading and incomplete."

Navarro ruled that Klayman can reapply to represent Bundy if he submits documents related to those proceedings and others against him in Florida.

On Friday, Klayman said there has been no final resolution in his disciplinary proceedings, as he said in his court filings.

"We're going to obey the judge's order," he said. "Whatever information she'd like is not a problem."

Klayman is the founder of Washington-based public interest groups Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch and is known for his aggressive pursuit of litigation. His work is mostly in support of a wide range of conservative and libertarian issues.

Bundy is facing criminal charges stemming from the April 2014 armed standoff with law enforcement near his ranch in Bunkerville. He is currently represented by Las Vegas attorney Joel Hansen, who is active in the ultraconservative Independent American Party of Nevada.

Hansen filed court documents asking Navarro to let Klayman help with Bundy's defense, saying Bundy "wants and needs" Klaymen to avoid harming his constitutional rights.

Klayman's current disciplinary proceedings stem from three separate alleged conflicts of interest in litigation involving Judicial Watch. Klayman agreed to a public censure in the disciplinary case in June 2014.

___

Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com

 Ouze wrote:
I'm not clear what bearing the disciplinary hearings and their outcomes have on his ability to represent the Bundys - unless he's being disbarred, or suspended?

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, but so what? I mean, he should be censured or whatever is appropriate in that unrelated matter, but if he's currently legally qualified to practice law - if it's not been disbarred or suspended - why are the Bundy's being deprived of the right to the attorney of their choice? I'm not getting it - the grounds to disqualify him.

Ammon Bundy plans to challenge the constitutionality of the criminal charges against him — an argument that legal experts found laughably deficient.

The 40-year-old truck mechanic is among 27 militants indicted on federal charges in connection with the armed takeover of Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge in January.

His attorneys filed court documents Friday challenging federal jurisdiction because, they argued, the U.S. government cannot prove it owns the land and therefore cannot pay its employees to work there, reported Patch.com.

Bundy and the other militants are charged with, among other crimes, interfering with the work of government scientists and others who manage the Oregon nature preserve.

Attorney Mike Arnold told the website that Bundy and the other armed men who took over the wildlife refuge were simply “patriots” exercising their First Amendment rights.

Bundy and his attorneys are asking for a hearing so they can argue that the the Enclave Clause of the Constitution prohibits the U.S. government from owning or managing public lands.

That’s the same claim made by Koch brothers-backed Republican lawmakers to argue that states or individuals, rather than the federal government, should take over control of public lands.

However, experts say case law contradicts that claim.

“The unmistakable legal reality is that a series of solid, indisputable U.S. Supreme Court cases establishes that the federal government is constitutionally empowered to own land, control that land through federal statutes and regulations as it sees fit, and dispose of that land if it chooses to ‘without limitation,'” said Susan Smith, a law professor at Willamette University.

She was asked in January, after the occupation began, by the Association of Oregon Counties to research and write about the militants’ constitutional interpretations.

Other legal experts agree that Bundy and his attorneys will have a difficult time proving their arguments.

“We look forward to Ammon Bundy’s attempt to re-litigate 200 years of jurisprudence regarding the property clause, and United States v. Oregon, the 1935 Supreme Court case that specifically established the American people’s ownership of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge,” said Jennifer Rokala, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Western Priorities.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Apparently WW2 was illegal because the USA doesn't own Europe, North Africa and the Pacific Ocean and thus couldn't legally pay the armed forces to work there.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Apparently WW2 was illegal because the USA doesn't own Europe, North Africa and the Pacific Ocean and thus couldn't legally pay the armed forces to work there.

gak... I hope this doesn't mean I owe the government back pay for my 6 years overseas...

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Apparently WW2 was illegal because the USA doesn't own Europe, North Africa and the Pacific Ocean and thus couldn't legally pay the armed forces to work there.

gak... I hope this doesn't mean I owe the government back pay for my 6 years overseas...

The tyrannical US Government will just re-enlist you to pay back that money you stole!