IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA

ST. LUKE’S HEALTH SYSTEM, LTD; ST. LUKE’S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LTD; CHRIS ROTH, an individual; NATASHA D. ERICKSON, MD, an individual; and TRACY W. JUNGMAN, NP, an individual, Plaintiffs,

vs.

AMMON BUNDY, an individual; AMMON BUNDY FOR GOVERNOR, a political organization; DIEGO RODRIGUEZ, an individual; FREEDOM MAN PRESS LLC, a limited liability company; FREEDOM MAN PAC, a registered political action committee; and PEOPLE’S RIGHTS NETWORK, a political organization, Defendants.

Case No. CV01-22-06789
NOTICE OF APPEAL

TO: THE ABOVE NAMED RESPONDENT(S), AND THE PARTY’S ATTORNEYS, AND THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

1. The above named appellant, Diego Rodriguez, appeal(s) against the above-named respondent(s) to the Idaho Supreme Court from the final judgment entered in the above-entitled action on the 29th day of August, 2023, Judge Nancy Baskins presiding. The judgment is attached to this Notice of Appeal.

2. That the party has a right to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, and the judgments or orders described in paragraph 1 above are appealable orders under and pursuant to Rule 4 and Rule 11 I.A.R..

3. A preliminary statement of the issues on appeal which the appellant intends to assert in the appeal are below; provided, such list of issues on appeal shall not prevent the appellant from asserting other issues on appeal.

A. Judge Lynn Norton actions in the case were violations of Constitutional Rights and various laws and statutes:
1) According to Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure #55, the entire case should have ended with a default judgment within 21 days. Since Judge Lynn Norton disobeyed the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure, this case was inappropriately extended when it should have ended nearly a year before the final judgment was issued.
2) Judge Lynn Norton issued an order striking all of Diego Rodriguez’s answers from the record, violating his due process rights.
3) Judge Lynn Norton, in the same order, prohibited Diego Rodriguez from presenting any evidence contrary to the allegations made against him by the plaintiffs. This is a complete violation of due process rights.
4) Judge Lynn Norton broke the law, the Constitution, various codes and statutes, or the Idaho Civil Rules of Procedure at least 12 different times during the course of this court case demonstrating and unprecedented, unconscionable, and egregious amount of judicial bias which inappropriately prejudiced all aspects of this case. These violations have been noted and filed with the Idaho Judicial Council and will be explained in detail in the forthcoming appeal.

B. The Premise of the Case Infringes on First Amendment Rights.
1) I have the right 1st amendment right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to publicly declare things that I know to be true or believe to be true—particularly when I have evidence. Since Judge Lynn Norton prohibited me from providing evidence, I was denied my due process rights and the opportunity to demonstrate that everything I have stated is empirically true and accurate.
2) There was no defamation in this case as every statement I made against the Plaintiffs was true and accurate, or something I believe to be true and accurate, and I have evidence demonstrating it to be true and accurate.
3) All 8 counts of the case are demonstrably false and have grounds for immediate dismissal if the case were to be reviewed by an unbiased judge who obeys the rule of law.

C. The proceedings violated Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure and prejudiced the jury against the defendants.
1) The jury selection process was inappropriate and selected biased jury members by allowing jury members who are employed by the plaintiff (or married to employees of the plaintiff), others with a well-established history of antagonism towards the defendants, and Judge Nancy Baskins even permitted a juror to stay on the jury after the juror vocally expressed and admitted she had bias against the defendant(s).
2) Judge Nancy Baskins lied to the jury and claimed that Diego Rodriguez “had a chance to participate but chose not to participate in the case proceedings.” This is a false statement and it prejudiced the jury.
3) The Plaintiffs presented empirically false evidence which further prejudiced the jury and which the defendants had no opportunity to refute.

4. There are parts of the record that have been sealed. Most specifically, there was an order sealing trial medical records admitted as evidence. This order was signed by Judge Nancy Baskins on August 29th, 2023, and states, “Due to the sensitive and personal nature of the information contained in the medical records evidence, the Court has determined the evidence must be sealed to protect the confidentiality of the information as to the infant C.A. As such, Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 5 shall be sealed.”

5. A reporter’s standard transcript is requested in electronic (i.e. PDF) format as defined in Rule 25(c), I.A.R. and specifically supplemented (if the standard transcript does not already include) with the following:
a) Voir dire examination of jury.
b) Opening and Closing arguments of counsel.
c) The testimony of each witness.
d) Instructions verbally given by the court.

5. The appellant requests the following documents to be included in the clerk's record in addition to those automatically included under Rule 28, I.A.R.:
a) All requested and given jury instructions.

6. (a) I certify that a copy of this notice of appeal has been served on each reporter of whom a transcript has been requested as named below at the address set out below:
Name and email address: Christie Valcich ([email protected])

(b) That the appellant is exempt from paying the estimated transcript fee because the amount requested for the transcripts is over $6,200, which is an amount I simply cannot pay and will constitute a financial hardship on me.

(c) That the appellant is exempt from paying the estimated fee for the preparation of the record because payment of these fees will constitute a financial hardship on me.

(d) That the appellate filing fee has been paid.

(e) That service has been made upon all parties required to be served pursuant to Rule 20 (and the attorney general of Idaho pursuant to § 67-1401(1), Idaho Code).