Law&Crime Sidebar - Sovereign Citizens v. Judges: Most Bizarre Faceoffs in Court

Episode Date: May 10, 2024

So-called “sovereign citizens” – people who believe US laws don’t apply to them – have seen their movement growing over the last several years. And that means police and the courts are dealing with them more and more. Law&Crime’ Jesse Weber takes a look at cases where defendants tried to use their “sovereignty” as a defense and were put in their place.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Download Lotsa Slots NOW: https://bit.ly/3Vvol4e Use code LawAndCrime to claim 77,000,000 FREE coins to hit your first GRAND JACKPOT today!Connect with Lotsa Slots on FB: @LOTSASLOTSNETMARBLE!!HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wonderly Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wonderly Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. I'm going to have to argue about everything from who she is to what the charges. It'd be easier to just put on the preempt. I'm representing myself in what? I mean, Oh. I'm confused about what's actually going on. Still a crime. Still a friend. But I'm not a physical corporation. I'm a living person. Yep. And that's why you're standing in front of me. If you were dead, the case would be dispensed.

So-called sovereign citizens, people who don't really believe the U.S. law applies to them, have seen their movement growing over the last several years. And that means police and courts are dealing with them more and more. We're going to take a look at some times when defendants tried to use their sovereign citizen defense. it backfired, and they were put in their place. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Ah, sovereign citizens.

Are they our favorites? Do we miss them? Do we miss talking about them? They certainly come up a lot in trials and courtrooms across the country. Now, to be clear, what are we talking about? What are we saying when we say sovereign citizen? Well, the sovereign citizen movement is a loose group of people who seem to believe, the United States Constitution was changed from its original form, so laws based on it are null and void.

Basic idea here is that there is some conspiracy afoot, that the government is illegitimate, that the government does not have the authority over them, and we see this take the form of various justifications and legal arguments. Some sovereign citizens may drive without a license, others may avoid paying their taxes, and many times they choose to go pro se, representing them themselves in court. But no matter the crime, judges across the country have learned to recognize when a defendant might be planning to cause some trouble with the sovereign citizen defense. I mean, do we forget our most notable one? I don't want to dedicate too much time to him because we've already talked about him so much. But Durel Brooks Jr., Wisconsin, the guy who was convicted

of killing six people and injuring dozens of others when he drove a car through the 2021 Waukesha a holiday parade. He was sentenced to six life sentences plus 700 additional years in prison. And what really characterized his trial, unfortunately, was his odd behavior, his outbursts, fighting with the judge, Judge Jennifer Darrow. And his repeated sovereign citizen claims since he decided to represent himself. Do you wish to represent yourself in this case? Yes, I do. Before, I'm sorry, go ahead. I would like to. represent myself pro-perty. What does that mean to you, sir?

Explain to me that request. Again, because I've already said it on record, to represent myself as a sovereign citizen. I'm not going to make a determination, sir, whether you're a sovereign citizen or not. It's not relevant to my determination, how you characterize who you are. Sir, did you hear me tell you about the penalties for these offenses just now? I don't understand the nature and causes the charges. I'm not asking you that, sir.

Did you hear me advise you of the penalties for hit and run resulting in death? I don't understand. Mr. Brooks, any questions for this witness? Yes, I do. For the record, I don't consent to that night. Are we going to address subject matter jurisdiction? The written decision that I previously entered is what I will stand on. I'm not going to address it any further.

Is that verified proof? Ah, what a delight he was. Do we miss him? No, we don't. He was an awful human being. But a lot of the themes that he talked about are going to be heard once again with what we're about to get into these other apparent sovereign citizen moments in court. Hey, guys, you know we've done over 800 episodes of Sidebar?

That is pretty insane to think about. And obviously, a testament to all of our supporters and viewers and listeners, thank you so much. And obviously, look, with those 800 episodes, we cover some very. dark and disturbing stuff that can stay with you. I know it stays with me. And when I go home, I have to unwind. I have to. I have to separate myself from all of this.

And one way I can do that is with the sponsor of this episode, lots of slots. Now, this is a free-to-play mobile slots game that you can play anywhere, any time. Again, it's just a relaxing, fun way for me to decompress, kill some time. And I got to say, it's actually pretty addicting. I wanted to win those huge payouts. really bad. So this game offers an endless array of slots that keeps you entertained for hours. And get this, you can unlock over 77 million free coins when you download lots of slots using our exclusive promo code, Law and Crime, or by scanning the QR code right

on there on the screen. You simply pop in the code after signing up and you'll immediately boost up your chances of hitting that first grand jackpot today. And I've been playing this game called Piggy Gray's a lot. I know you're laughing at me right now. I hear it, but I'm telling you, the colors, the animation. I felt like I was in a real casino. And I got into it fast. I started seeing like piglets every time I was writing up a sidebar script.

Like I said, there are a lot of other great games, too, with different themes like Space Battle, which is a lot of fun too. By the way, it's also lots of slots. Seventh Anniversary, you can dive into daily missions, cool mini games, nonstop raffles for a chance to score up to $3,000 in coins. Again, you can unlock over 77 million free coins when you download lots of slots using our exclusive promo code, law and crime, where again, by scanning the QR code on the screen, simply pop in the code after signing up, you'll immediately boost your chances of hitting

that first grand jackpot today. Hope you check it out. So let's start this off. We begin in St. Joseph County, Michigan in the courtroom of the Honorable Judge Jeffrey Middleton, a no-nonsense judge who just doesn't have time for anything that might be outside the law. So in court today is Rosalind Ray Keenan. She's representing herself after being charged seemingly several times for resisting arrest. And it's immediately clear that Keenan plans to challenge just about everything.

Judge Middleton has to say. The title of the case is People v. Rosalind Ray Keenan. Allegation is that on her about May 16th in a village of White Pigeon, she did resist and obstruct a police officer. and drive with a suspended driver's license. Resisting obstructing is a felony now. It's punishable by up to two years of imprisonment. And driving suspended as a traffic matter,

punishable by up to 93 days in jail and a fine of up to $500. It carries two points on your driving record and it requires that your license be suspended. Someone who has identified as Rosalind Keenan is present. And she wanted to explain more about that. We'll give her a chance to do that. But prosecuting attorney, David Marvin is here. And he's representing the state.

So let me ask you again. Are you Rosalind Ray Keenan? I'm here on as a city juris impropriate persona. Rosalind hyphen Ray Colan family of Keenan comma beneficiary. Is this on record? Yes, everything has to be on the record. So I was all being recorded. Okay, I'm here on the special appearance, and I'm a free woman on the land.

I'm here under fraud, menace, and duress. I'm the private woman, Rosalind, hyphen, Ray, colon. All right. Canaan. The all capital mention name is the only appellation given to me. Anytime I autograph is to be done in a certain manner that I have here, courts forgery. All right. I'll accept this.

Thank you. All right. So I think we can have the right person here. And when she signed her bond, she signed it as Rosalind Ray Keenan beneficiary with quick bail bonds. The prosecuting attorney tells the judge that he's been working closely with Keenan trying to work out something that everyone can agree on without any courtroom shenanigans. it's not meant to be i have spent a lot of time with her and her son who's here has always been here and they're very honest and they're good intended um and i think that we've come to a resolution that i believe is fair uh i've offered i'm going to state state it for the record and only time will tell if she's going to accept it in hopefully two seconds but what i would do is

offer an attempt resisting and obstructing and dismiss count two. And I would ask that the court set this for sentencing at a later date and I'd ask for six months. And if by that time there's no other incidents with law enforcement or any other reason to continue, I would dismiss this or at any time before that if I felt that it was necessary.

And again, after working with her, I don't think this is the kind of thing It should be, I would hate to see this upstairs as a first felony. I think that she's interested in a way of life that she's honestly trying to understand. But I think that partly to assist her, I've kind of hatched this plan. He's offering to reduce the driving suspended charge. And he is offering to disarm. dismiss the felony charge and reduce it to a charge called attempted resisting, obstructing the

police officer. That's a misdemeanor. It's punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. Do you understand that charge? No, I don't understand the nature and the cause of the charge. Mr. Marvin, let's just do a prelim. I'm not going to tap dance with her. You may be more sympathetic about this flat earth nonsense than I am. But if I'm gonna have to argue about everything from who she is to what the charges, it'd be easier just put on the preland from the affidavit of probable cause or conduct was outrageous

with a capital O. And so I'll give you one more opportunity, Ms. Keenan. Mr. Marvin is agreeing to dismiss the driving suspended charge. the record shows your license is suspended from Indiana and you don't have a valid Michigan license. That's a benefit. It won't affect your driving privileges.

Excuse me, what do you say about the? It's a benefit. No, before that about the license. He's dismissing it. And it won't affect your driving privileges here or Michigan or Indiana if he dismisses that. So he's offering to dismiss it. And that's a benefit.

He is offering to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor. And that's attempted to resisting, instructing a police officer. If you wish to do that, we can pursue it now. If you don't, we can take testimony. The officers have been waiting here for three hours. What would you like to do? Are you asking me to take a plea? I'm asking you if you're willing to accept the prosecutor's plea offer.

I don't understand that. Mr. Marvin, let's just put on a pre-list. You are playing games. First of all, you don't. I'm trying to advance to what I'm. Stop. You don't interrupt the judge, whether you're a flat earther or not. I'm not flat earth.

All right, well, this crazy stuff you're saying, I've got very little patience for it. You don't have an attorney, which concerns me, because these charges could result in your incarceration. I will appoint an attorney for you. All you got to do is tell me. But you also have the absolute right to represent yourself. So do you wish to represent yourself or would you like me to get an attorney to assist you with this?

It's my right to appear for myself. It is. I don't think it would be a violation of your oath of office. To do what? To, um, if you did your duty under the Constitution, because I'm seeking legal intent, not advice. Well, do you want me to appoint an attorney for you? Would you like to represent yourself? So may I ask what jurisdiction?

Is this civil or criminal? This is a criminal case, which points out the fact that you could use a lawyer if you can't tell the difference between civil and a criminal case. Okay. I think we could all. agree. Keenan is out of her death and representing herself and reads some of the information she's found online about the court's jurisdiction or lack thereof. But the judge corrects her and reminds her she's being offered a pretty good deal. Things, though, go downhill from there. And my next question is, I know that the Constitution grants the court two types of criminal

jurisdictions. One is criminal jurisdiction under common law and the other is criminal jurisdiction under admiralty or military tribunal venue under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, under which of these two jurisdictions is the court intending to try me? This is statutory jurisdiction of the law of the state of Michigan. It's not any of those things, including the wacky admiralty clause people try to invoke. This is criminal jurisdiction authorized by the state legislature here in the state of Michigan. Thank you. Well, please let the record of the court show that the court intends to conduct a criminal action against me under a statutory jurisdiction.

But that makes me wonder, I have never heard of criminal action under statutory jurisdiction, and there is no such jurisdiction established in the Constitution. And I will be able to proceed if you can show me where I can find the published rules of civil procedures under a statutory jurisdiction and where this nature cause and jurisdiction exists, it is crucial that I have the published rules of procedures so that I can conduct a fair defense and fair trial. Otherwise, this needs to be dismissed. And I would like it in writing, please. Thank you. It's not civil procedure. It's criminal procedure. and the defendant doesn't come up and show court tell me why I get to do this you've been charged under the criminal statutes of the state of Michigan and have just advised you of that on the record I'm just trying to establish at this point whether you want to represent yourself or not as I mentioned the conduct in here and the affidavit or the bond information report is outrageous for the capital old and you could very well go to jail for a substantial period of time Mr.

Marvin was trying to extend to you an opportunity to avoid that option, but you're wasting all of our time with this stuff that doesn't have any legal merit. I'm offering to give you an attorney who can actually argue any legal merit or advise you or assist you in this regard, but we've had some white pigeon police officers here on overtime for several hours. They're still waiting. for you to decide what you wish to do. I haven't even gone over the first. Well, first of all, we had to establish who you were. That took much more time than it deserved. Secondly, I'm trying

to determine whether you wish to have an attorney or not. Again, you do have the right to represent yourself. You wish to, but you've exhibited to me that you don't understand the law and you're at risk of being incarcerated for this conduct. I'm competent and I am confident, okay? All right. So the next question is, are you willing to accept Mr. Marvin's plea offer to plead to the misdemeanor charge?

I wasn't completed with what I wanted to say to you, please. Okay. May I? Thank you. So I wanted to say that I don't believe it's a violation of your oath of office if you did your duty under the Constitution because I'm seeking legal intent. Okay, so I have the right to peer for myself

in order to intelligently defend myself. I have to know the jurisdiction. This court is operating under because the rules of civil procedure under common law jurisdiction are very different from the rules of civil procedure or a multi or military tribunal venue. Stop, stop, stop.

You went through this before. This is not civil procedure. It's the Sixth Amendment grants me the right to know the jurisdiction being applied. And I told you what it was. And it gives you the dude. All right, stop. If you interrupt me one more time, I'm going to find you in contempt and you're going to go to jail. All right, please.

We're going to talk about this tomorrow at 3 o'clock. I find that you're in contempt. We're going to jail right now, and we will, well, you have been. I'm simply trying to exercise my six amendment rights, please. So you can think about it, we can go forward with this right now, please. No, you're going to jail for 24 hours. I know you don't wish to go to jail, but you certainly have earned it. I will continue with you, if you please let me finish.

We'll talk about it tomorrow at three o'clock, and you will be more respectful to the court. I can provide the, you will not interrupt the court. your citations are meaningless. I'm sorry. So you can go with the officer. I don't want to argue about it. Take her out of here. We will address this tomorrow at 3 o'clock.

No. I can't get her for aspects she has there. They'll get them for you. You can give all the paperwork to him. Thank you. Mr. Marvin, I don't know what you've got tomorrow. I don't know what I have, but we'll take another shot at this tomorrow.

justice takes time you just misunderstood yeah I don't know what's going on and I don't think this was a fair trial they haven't had a trial yet a fair preliminary they didn't even get there yet Keenan has to spend the night

in jail on a contempt charge while her son was also in the courtroom and seems to want to help his mother through her legal troubles yeah we're done I'd say something Yes.

I don't think that she was trying to be in contempt of course. She was trying to exercise a right. I think it was a misunderstanding of how to, for her to be able to pronounce that. Well, I told her to stop and she didn't stop, and she doesn't know what she's doing. She needs a lawyer, and she's going to contempt herself into 90 days

if she doesn't be careful. So we'll address this tomorrow. three o'clock. And to whatever extent, you're advising her on this stuff, you're not doing her any favors. Mr. Marvin gave her the sweetest deal where she could not have a charge on a record. And all she wants to do is argue about admins. You guys have that record still or that chart, that option still if I talk to Mr. Marvin. I guess so. You can't represent her a lawyer. I know. I know. But he could. Yeah. Mr. Marvin wants us to be over with. I do too. All right. Thank you. The next day, Keenan is back in front of Judge Middleton, and things go very differently this time. Ms. Keenan had previously indicated she did not wish to have an attorney,

and there was no attorney on her behalf at that time. Prosecutor David Marvin was here yesterday, and there was one or more police officers that were here yesterday, prepared to testify. We didn't get to. very far. We started to go through the particulars, but Mr. Marvin made a plea offer. I want to repeat that, Ms. Keenan. The prosecuting attorney wasn't able to be in the courtroom, but the offer he made the day before still stands. He stopped in this morning and confirmed to me that his plea

offer was still open to dismiss the felony charge and the driving suspended charge for the plea to attempting to resist or obstruct a police officer. We were talking with Ms. Keenan yesterday. I found that she was in contempt and ordered that she go to jail. And she did. And we're here today. We were trying to establish whether she wanted any legal assistance in this matter. So, Ms. Keenan, you're the same person that you were yesterday with the same reservations and concerns. Is that correct? Thank you. I have. some things like proof that the license shouldn't have been suspended and they did reinstate them in Indiana. All right. Well, he's willing to dismiss that charge.

I think that's why because I showed it tonight. All right, well, maybe so. He said you and he had several discussions. So let's see if we can get to square one here. Do you want an attorney to assist you in this, matter, I can appoint one and we can set it for further hearing. I don't want to force one on you, but I do think you could benefit from having counsel. It was clear you didn't understand the difference between a criminal case and a civil case and you contempted yourself

into a day in jail. I won't be offended if you tell me that you want to have an attorney, in which case I would set this matter for further proceeding out two weeks. So if I choose to get an attorney, I have two weeks, and then nothing else will be brought up today. Correct. Now, you could enter the plea to the misdemeanor offer that Mr. Marvin made today. But I do think you could benefit from having an attorney to assist you with this. In which case, I would continue it to the 5th of July. That's two weeks from today in the afternoon.

Usually it'd be on a Tuesday, but that's a holiday. It would be 1 o'clock on July 5th. Am I going to be still having to stay at the county jail? Well, let's talk about that. No, you posted a $10,000 cash assurity bond. However, you've not agreed to be fingerprinted. So as soon as you agree to be fingerprinted, you can be released from jail. Otherwise, you're going to sit there for two weeks.

All right. Would you like me to appoint an attorney for you? Yes. If you appoint an attorney, their defense attorneys. Yes. Okay. Here's your son. All right.

I'm going to appoint an attorney. which I think you could benefit from. I guess you can always say later, I don't want one, but it looks like you have an opportunity to consult with one. Thank you. But you're not to be released until you complied with the booking process, including photo and fingerprints. Excuse me.

Yes, sir. Today I think it was today or maybe because I slept a lot. So anyway, they booked to me and took my. picture. All right. Well, the picture's done. That's good enough, but you have to agree to the fingerprints. Oh, I still have to do the fingerprints. And you can decide whether you want to do it. If you don't, that's up to you. Well, I'm going to do it. All right. Because I appreciate your offer. Thank you. Seems Keenan learned her lesson, at least this time around. But what about our next defendant? So now we're talking about a man named James Garner appearing virtually in a Detroit

courtroom in front of Judge Sean Perkins. And there is. a lot of confusion right off the bat. Good morning to you, sir. Good morning. What is your middle name? Can you remove your hat, please? And your scarf. What is your middle name, Mr. Garner?

Errol. Earl? No. He's on the 130 docket, Aaron, I believe. James Garner. Earl, Garner. James E. E-R-R-R-O-L, Garner, right?

Yes. You are on the 130 docket. If you want to, Your Honor, I can give House Counsel an offer right now. She can report it to him. On James Garner, do you see all the cases he has? I see just the four that are on the docket or five. He's got more? He's got plenty more.

Okay. You want to come down, review, and do a global offer? If you could, please. Okay, I'm on my way down. Mr. Garner, do you want to offer on these or do you want to go to trial? I would like to know what the charges are. Okay. This is the city of Detroit versus James, Earl Garner.

Case number, SP 101,004, 35, counts one, two, and three, SP11, 695. Those are driving all license. expired misdemeanor, no insurance misdemeanor. Thank you. And an improper plate misdemeanor, all of them punishable by maximum possible penalty of 93 days in jail and over $500 and fines. SB 1169507, counts one and counts two, an expired

license and no insurance misdemeanor, both punishable by 93 days in jail and or $500 and fines. SP.116. nine five one two one same improper plates same punishment five hundred dollars in nine three days in jail and or five hundred dollars in fines and actually possible family okay that is a lot of charges and citations the judge slogging his way through all of them but he doesn't seem to get much further after that appearance for the record please cherica harris on behalf of mr garner mr garner please state your name for the record First off, I do have a couple.

You got to state your name first. You got to state your name first. Wait a minute, Ms. Harris. Wait a minute, Ms. Harris. I think Mr. Garland has got to represent himself. Am I correct, Mr. Garner? I'm representing myself in what? I mean, I'm confused about what's actually going on.

First off, who alleging his charges? That's what I'm curious about. State of Michigan, city of Detroit. Okay, well, if that's the case, there's a common law principle which states, therefore, there'll be a crime, but it must be a victim. Corpus Delecti. The state cannot be the injured party, and in absence of a victim, there can be no crime. We're trying my name from the record on that one. Thank you.

I know. How do you want to proceed, Mr. Gurr? He sets a matter. Other than are not guilty on his behalf, give him a zero-dollar bond. either set the matter for trial or I'll wait for the city to give you an offer. What do you want to do? Well, the court has been even established jurisdiction. I mean, in order for jurisdiction, the jurisdiction has to be established first,

and there's no jurisdiction established. And once jurisdiction is challenged, once jurisdiction is challenged, that must be settled before charges can be brought. All right. Do you want to put that in a motion, sir? As far as I'm concerned, any and all charges must be dismissed because there is no complaining witness. And the state cannot be.

I'm not going to, listen, I'm not going to, if you want to, if that's your motion, I'm going to deny the motion. Okay. So all we're going to do now, we're not going to keep going back and forth, either you take an offer or you set the matter for trial. Which one do you want? Respectfully, in order for this to continue, there must be a complaining witness.

And the state cannot be a complaining witness. Now, if I'm entitled, if I'm entitled to a fair trial, the law states there must be a victim. I'm just requesting who is the victim? Who did I? The citizens? The citizens,

So the city of Detroit and the state of Michigan are the victims. The state and cannot be a victim. And if that's the case, I said the citizens of the city of Detroit and the state of Michigan are the victims. Mr. Garner, Mr. Garner, can we just go into a breakout room and then maybe I can give you a little bit of advice to assist you with moving forward? Would you be agreeable to that? Sure.

Okay. Awesome. Garner comes back to the public Zoom meeting, but he's still uncooperative. And the judge has had enough. I believe he's ready, Your Honor. He's representing himself. Let's go back on the record with Garner. What do you want to do, Mr. Garner?

Do you want a trial date or do you want an offer? Those are really the only two options. Okay, since we are on the record, all I'm asking for is the corpus. Okay, one last time. One last time. Now listen, here's how I'm going to go from this point on. If you don't answer the question that I ask specifically, then I'm going to hold you in contempt of court,

and we're going to move from that point on, right? Get up, Mr. Raymond. So you're telling me. Mr. Garner, we're not going to have a conversation. We're not going to have a conversation. Stop, sir. Stop, sir. Now, that's the last time I'm going to ask you to stand the law.

Is that what I'm hearing? All right. I'm asking. I'm going to hold Mr. Garner and contempt of court. He is directly violating the court's order. I've asked him repeatedly to not interfere or add any extra commentary to this case. I've given him ample time to answer the court's question, and he continues to review.

to do so. So now I'm going to hold you in contempt and I'm going to sentence you to 30 days Wayne County jail, no early release. So that means that the court is just going to violate my right because I'm defending myself? Is that what I'm hearing? Three days. Wayne County jail. No early release. Oh, boy. All right. Next up, we're in Michigan. This time in Linawee County. I apologize if I'm mispronoun. A man scheduled to appear before Judge Anna Marie Anzalone. The judge spots him in the back of the courtroom. What's your name? I'm here represented by Moscow.

You're Brian Musgrove? I have no idea what that means. So why don't you come up to the podium? I adopted. No, yeah, stand in front of the thing. So what is your name? Brian Joseph Muscoe. Okay. Are you an attorney? What's your P number? I'm not an attorney. So then you can't represent Brian Musgrove.

So you are a defendant, correct? I'm an executive on that estate. Okay, so none of that is valid or legal. So you have an attorney? He's not going nothing for me. Okay, that was my question. Do you have an attorney? Yes or no? I have, yeah, he was supposed to represent me, but.

So you have Michael Degger-Margozian. Okay, so he's your attorney. Okay, so go have a seat when Mr. Degger-Margozian gets here, I'll call your case, okay? When Brian Musgrove's case is called around half an hour later, a lawyer is there to help him out, but Musgrove just keeps digging himself a deeper hole. I'm going to take care of Mr. Daggar-Margozian's case. So give me just a minute, Ms. Hunigan, and we'll come back to you, okay? Thank you.

If you're ready to do the plea today. Yes, we are, Your Honor. All right. So, Mr. Musgrove, you want to come up to the podium, please. This is in the matter of the people of the state of Michigan versus Brian Joseph Musgrave. File number 23-21461FH. I have Isaac Sneed appearing on behalf of the people. And I have Michael Dagger-Margozian appearing

on behalf of Mr. Musgrove. Mr. Dagger-Margozian, Mike, oh, there he is. So Mr. Dagger-Margozian, this is a date and time set for preach around this matter. Mr. Musgrove said that he was appearing on his own behalf. I did verify he is not an attorney, and you are still the attorney of record. So Mr. Dagger Margozzi, and how do you wish you received? Well, Your Honor, I am aware that Mr. Musgrove wants to present information to the court.

I'm happy to be standby counsel if he wants to represent himself. Obviously, this court would have to go through the colloquy of that, but obviously it's Mr. Mr. Musgrove's legal right to at, at least ask the court to do that. So I'm, I'm here to observe at this point. All right. So Mr. Musgrove, when you were at the bench, or up at the podium before, you, you said that you were appearing on behalf of yourself. So Mr. Musgrove, um, are you asking to no longer have council represent you?

Um, well, I, what I'm understanding is that the, uh, the way, what I'm understanding is that the Courts is a private for private. Mr. Musgrove, I know where you're going with this. And none of that is valid. None of that is valid. I'm not the all caps name. Of course, none of that is valid.

None of that is law. You are standing in my courtroom. I have jurisdiction over you. So I try to file paperwork with the clerk's office ahead of time so that you would have time to review it and they deny me. I know what you're talking about. None of that is valid under the law. state of Michigan or the Constitution of the United States from America.

What do you mean? It is. No. The Supreme Court says it is. What does it say it is? The Supreme Court says that if you, we were at the age of 18, we were supposed to take, claim our minor status. Nope, not valid. Okay.

So here's what I would say to you. Mr. Dagger-Marcosian is like most of our public defenders, exceptional attorneys. and very well versed in the law and very experienced. He gives legal advice. You may not like the legal advice, but it's usually good advice. I've never had anyone from the public defender's office, not wholeheartedly try to represent their clients.

So what you are talking about is not valid, and it is not going to get you out of this case. You're not going to be able to say all those things, it's not valid. Everyone in this involved in this court case has a financial interest in the case. I don't have a financial interest in your case. I get paid by the state of Michigan whether you plead, whether it gets dismissed. I don't make any money off you.

We have budgets. The court system is not a profit generating revenue. We are here to represent people so that people who are charged of crimes are protected. People who are victims of crimes are protected. And that's why we have. In order for there to be a crime, there has to be a victim. There is a victim in this case. The thing would be the company.

You are charged. Actually, just hold on. So your crime that you are charged with, which you are innocent as of this time, let me grab the right file, is value. Oh, this is an a, let me see. This is an embezzlement charge. So you are charged in count one with embezzlement. amount 50,000 or more, but less than 100,000, that being an agent, served or employee of

hardwoods of Michigan industries did convert to your own use without the consent of your employer or principal, industrial tools and equipment in the amount of $68,938.40 or money or equipment. And that's a 15-year felony. So if you were found guilty by a jury, you can go to prison for up to 15 years. They're charged in count two with using a computer to commit a crime, to facilitate the charge in count one, that carries a maximum penalty of up to 10 years in prison. And the way the statute is set up, I can actually stack those possibly. So you potentially could be looking at up to 25 years in prison. So the victim that's alleged in this would be that business. Right. And I can't face that accuser because that business can't get on the stand

from you to ask questions. And a third party. But their representative can. Yes, they can. Yes, they can. So I have $189,000 of student loan debt that was forgiven to be a lawyer. You do not. And Mr. Gagamargozzi and Mr. Isaac Sneed, all of the attorneys here went to law school to know the law and their job is to advise you of the law. Yes, they can. Yes, you can't be charged. Everything, all the walls and statutes that you guys go by are legal corporations. They're for fixed. Still a crime. Still a crime. But I'm not still a crime. I'm a living person. Yep. And that's why you're standing in front of me. you were dead the case would be dismissed yeah the the all got the name is that that means nothing that's not valid it's not legal so do you want to represent yourself or do you want to have an attorney

to represent you i need some kind of thing okay i'm going to set this for another pretrial on march 20th at 830 in the morning and miss adams could i get a notice of hearing for mr musgrove I got to give it to judges like Judge Anzalone explaining the basics to these people, explaining the basics of the law, the fundamental process we have, despite this nonsense. That's a good level of patience. And also it's her duty to explain the rights, even though it can get incredibly, incredibly frustrating. All right. So we're going to end this now in Prescott County, Michigan, where Judge Aaron Gawther is dealing

with a repeat defendant, Angela Christensen. Just like last time, I'm required each time to remind you that you do have the right to the assistance of a lawyer, if you wish, and that includes the right to a lawyer at public expense if you were indigent, and that you've previously waived that right and wish to represent yourself, and so I guess I want to ask you again, do you reaffirm that you'd like to represent yourself in this matter, or would you like to have a lawyer? No, I would like to self-govern and I stand on my paperwork. The prosecuting attorney points out that the paperwork Christensen has filed doesn't really make any sense.

The people have any argument in opposition to those four notices? Your Honor, I reviewed the paperwork, and I guess while she may not recognize or honor the state of the law, I don't believe that there's any relief that's recognized underlaw that would be. allow you to dismiss this case against her based on what she's alleged in the paper I feel to see it. Okay. Isn't it fun to just say, hey,

this is why the case should be dismissed, X, Y, and Z. Fortunately, it just doesn't work that way. The judge goes through the paperwork himself and explains why each of the reasons she cites for wanting the case dropped aren't valid. I've got a written order that I'll enter.

I'll read it at this point. Defendant who at this point in the case is representing herself has filed four handwritten notices. These notices appear to seek relief in one form or another. As to the first notice, defendant asserts that she is a woman and not a defendant. The court finds that Angela Christensen is both a woman and a defendant in this criminal action. To the extent her notice seeks relief, such relief is denied. As to the second notice, defendant demands that any man or woman with a claim against, her appear and present such claim in open court.

To the extent that this notice seeks to invoke defendants' right to confront her accusers, this court will enforce that right. However, the right of confrontation does not require the complaining witnesses to appear at all pretrial hearings, but only the trial or any necessary evidentiary hearings. So to the extent that this notice seeks to require the appearance of any complaining witnesses at all pre-trial hearings, at all pretrial hearings, such relief is denied. As to the third notice, defendant asserts that this court lacks authority over her

and that only her creator has that authority. Without gainsaying the authority of the creator, it can be noted that religious traditions commonly recognize that the creator has instituted human authority as well. In this matter, the people of the state of Michigan through ratifying the 1963 state constitution, as well as its predecessor constitutions,

have established this court and its authority. The people of the state of Michigan through their elected representatives have established laws that apply in this court. And the people of this county have elected this judge to serve in this office. And this court has subject matter over this felony prosecution

and has personal jurisdiction over this defendant. Any relief sought by this notice is denied. And as to the fourth notice, defendant claims that this court and the government exists only because she allows them to exist. To the extent that this assertion reiterates the proposition that our constitutional republic is founded on the consent of the government,

such proposition is axiomatic as a general matter. However, this proposition does not require that the government must obtain consent or permission from each individual person before exerting governmental authority over that person. Such an idea is not. Nonsense. This defendant's views would render all the criminal laws null and void, which is legally and practically absurd. Therefore, any relief sought by this notice is also denied. All right. So Ms. Christensen, all of the claims and papers that you have filed, I have found to be lacking in legal and factual merit, and I have denied any such relief.

And I'm entering a court. That's fine. Please stop referring to me as a defendant. And I guess the next step will be, I guess I got to do the actual file. of the claims if you're going to deny all of those no those I don't know what claims you're talking about you filed some claims or notices or requests no I did not even file my claims yet I did notices I did not file my claims yet I've been putting that off because I really don't want to have to file claims and ruin people's lives and ruin their jobs because they're not opposing my constitutional rights as a woman not a defendant I am a woman only I woman Angela. I woman Angela. I woman Angela. That's it. Not defendant. Trying to follow Christensen's

logic and understanding of the law is pretty difficult to say the least, but the judge pushes through. In your opinion and legally, yes, but I am a woman. So do we need to do trial by jury when we can do my claims and file my court with your court at the same time? Because that's going to be my next step to file claims against everybody involved in this case because there is no verified claim and complaints and claims are two different things i don't want to file claims i'm trying very hard and i've been trying hard to not do that but i guess if we got to keep going that's my next step and i will file proper claims with the proper people and the insurancing for the bonding so i don't know what you want to do at this point and i really don't want to have to do that so so here's the thing

I am not going to relinquish my authority in this case. I'm not, all right? The prosecutor's office can dismiss the case they're choosing not to. So that means we do have to go forward to a jury trial unless you want to plead guilty. All right. But what I'm also going to do is your ramblings here today and at previous hearings. And after I reviewed your written notices, it's clear to me that you have no concept of the legal and factual issues at stake.

I would never know anything about legalese because I never would like the school to do that legally. So I don't understand that part. All right. You're illustrating my next point. And you have no respect for the authority of the court. You continue to interrupt me and such and file these nonsense claims. So I am hereby withdrawing my consent for you to represent yourself. I'm referring this matter to the office of assigned counsel for appointment. So any papers you file in this case, I will reject because they have to be filed. I don't accept that. and I do not require you to give me any court appointed attorney and I will self-governed

because that is my right. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be rude or disrespectful. I'm trying to be very decent. I stand on my paperwork and I'll do the rest of my paperwork. I will keep doing it and now I'm going to file my claims. So that's fine. But no, I don't need no legal counsel. I refuse that offer. I do not accept that offer. I'm sorry. With all due respect to you, I don't accept that. The judge is done dealing with this case and tells Christensen that she's getting an attorney, whether she likes it or not. And I'll refer it to the Office of Assigned Counsel for you to have an attorney at that hearing. You are no longer allowed to represent yourself in this matter, and you will be in person in my courtroom

at that date and time. I'm sorry, but I cannot be there. I can do it via Zoom, and I don't accept that offer either unless you want to compensate me for my gas and my time. I want to have you here so you can, your attorney, Ms. Christensen, stop interrupting me. It's not an offer. You will be here or I will issue a warrant for your arrest if you refuse to attend in person. All right.

We'll see you February 14th or I'll issue a warrant for your arrest. This is all just a great reminder that no matter how many court shows or movies you watch or how many trials you live stream right here on law and crime, it is a good idea to have an attorney with you. Always be represented by an attorney. Look, I'm an attorney. I went to law school. We study this stuff for years. you're going to be in better hands with an attorney.

But hey, if they really believe that this whole prosecution, this whole case is invalid, that the state has no authority over them, that this whole thing is a sham, why would they get the lawyer? I don't know. Am I trying to make sense for them? I don't know. Trying to understand them a little bit. Anyway, got to give credit to the judges for explaining the law to them,

showing patience up until a certain point. My gosh, I'm sure this won't be the last we see of the sovereign citizen movement in court. That's all we have for you here on side. everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. As always, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. Bye.