Hey guys and welcome to today's video. Today we have a sovereign citizen in court who brought a personal attorney with him who turned out to be as useful as a screen door on the outside of a submarine. Now today's video is a bit longer than normal. So get your popcorn ready and let's begin. All right, I'm going to call Charles Schmidt 25M4346. And Mr. Schmidt, if you could take a seat at this table. All right, we are set for a motions hearing today. And I know that the prosecution has objected to the court addressing these
motions, but based on the record, I will allow for argument and if necessary, testimony regarding those motions. So, I think we'll just take them one at a time. I think it makes sense to give each party three minutes for the non-estimonial motions to make any argument that you feel you'd like to make on that issue. And then, so I'll hear from the defense because these are your motions. I'll give you three minutes and then I'll give the prosecution three minutes and then I'll rule on those motions and then uh we can go from there. Do
you have any questions, Mr. Schmidt, about the process we're going to follow today? No, ma'am. Okay. All right. So, let's see. So, there was a motion for an I'm going [clears throat] to make sure that I'm keeping a real good record of this. So, I just want to make sure. There was a motion for an interlocatory appeal that you wanted to appeal that to a higher court. Some of which I think was discussing that you were unhappy with the Judge Burbach's rulings on whether you would get that addressed. Do you still want to make an
argument regarding the motion for an interlocatory appeal? Yes, ma'am. Okay. All right. I'll give you three minutes. Go ahead. What was the charge that I was pulled over for? So, I mean, this isn't going to be a back and forth. Um, so you can make an argument and then um I'll hear from the prosecution and then I'll rule. I have no idea why I was pulled over. Okay. Do you want to make any other argument on this motion for an interlocatory appeal? You have about full three minutes. the fact that I was not being represented
by constitution. I do have co-consel with me at present who is a bar attorney and my tribal elder. He has a federal bar. A federal bar means nothing in state court. Now, his co-consel will literally be whispering in his ear throughout this Entire hearing, giving him some really bad advice, but he's a dumbass sovereign citizen as well, and we'll get to hear from him at the end of the video. I'm I'm not going to interrupt you. I'm just going to let you make any other arguments that you'd like. So, um you have about two more
minutes to make any other argument. I'm going to take each of your emotions one at a time. and the fact that uh the officer lacked probable cause on the stop to start with. Okay. Any other I I'm taking your motions one at a time. So I know you filed a motion for lack of probable cause. We'll address that. But if there is this just this motion of that you are arguing you'd be entitled to have uh what's called an interlocatory appeal which means we pause this hearing and then we you'd appeal it up to a
higher court. That was the first motion that I saw that we needed to address. So if you don't have any other argument on that then I'll hear from the prosecution although you do have an additional one minute. I yield to the prosecution. Okay. Um Mr. Do you want to make any argument? I just object to an interlocatory appeal in this case. Um I don't really think that there's any grounds. Generally interlocatory appeals are um reserved for when there's been some kind of order of the court. Oftent times like prosecutorial motion based on like suppression of
evidence or something of that nature. Um that's not really what we have here. I don't see that there is Any real basis on which um a interlocatory appeal would be warranted or necessary in this particular case. Um, [clears throat] and I I I simply don't think there's any grounds for for this request. Okay. Based on my review of the authority, I don't find that anything has been presented that would allow for an interlocatory appeal. Um, based on the rules that are related to the interlocatory appeal, let me just pull that up real fast. May I
say that uh my constitutional rights were violated which state that in the interloatory appeal. Okay. Yeah. I'll let you make a record on um because I think there's some more specific ones that you've raised that I'll let you make that argument. Right now I'm just looking at the rules of criminal procedure and I'm just going to pull up that rule so we're all on the same page about it. So there uh there was a repealed interlocatory appeal from county court that was that was appealed in November of 1992. So I don't think that's good law
anymore. It used to be able to have sort of an interlocatory. We're in county court right now. U and that that rule has been repealed to the legislature says we don't have an interlocatory appeal on for county court cases. But then what I'm looking at, so There is an um an interlocatory appeal that you can raise in 41.3 the rules of criminal procedure. Um and there is an appellet rule. See, but that really relies on there's a statute for prosecution to file an interlocatory appeal under limited circumstances. And that is a statute that's 16-12-102. It
provides that the prosecution may file an interlocatory appeal in the Supreme Court from a ruling of the trial court, but that's different here because it's the defense. Caller appellet rules 4.1 implements the statutory framework for interlocatory appeals in criminal cases. Under the rule appellet rule 4.1a, the state may file an interlocator appeal from a district court order granting defendants pre-trial motion. So, at this point, I just don't find that that Mr. Schmidt is entitled to an interlocatory appeal based on the record before me. So, I'll deny that motion. For those of you who are not
so familiar with legal processes, an interlocatory appeal is just an appeal that pauses the proceedings, whereas a normal appeal occurs after a final disposition has been reached. And as the judge just stated, his interlocatory appeal was denied. All right. So, it sounds like that Mr. Schmidt, you may want to discuss your Let's see. I'd like to do this in order though so that we are um so that we're all addressing it. So, I don't want to miss a one. So, the next one that was filed and I promise we will get to your your motion
for um regarding probable cause or reasonable suspicion for a stop. But the next one is mandatory judicial notice of parameters of judicial immunity. This doesn't look like it's necessarily a motion, just that it's kind of stating the facts of that case. But Mr. Schmidt, did you want to supplement the record at all on that particular filing? And and I'll give you three minutes. I apologize. I'm trying to locate it. Sure. What was the title? The title was mandatory judicial notice. Mandatory judicial notice of parameters of judicial immunity. That's basically stating that uh though issued in
excess of his jurisdiction, it was not issued in clear absence of jurisdiction. This is based on the actions of the guy who recused himself. Okay. This is based on Judge Burbach. On Judge Burbach's Do you think that it's something we still need to address today? Yes, ma'am. Okay. I most certainly do because he's denied everything that I have presented, including the eight motions he said on the record that he denied when he did not. The record will show the only thing that he denied was a notice back in December and that's it. Okay. You have
about a minute and a half left if you'd want to make any other argument on this one. He uh denied all of my motions without uh the plaintiff entering any information whatsoever. He also entered a plea on my behalf without my consent against my objection written objection which he denied as he should have because you not entering a plea means nothing since Colorado rules of procedure allows for the court to enter a plea on your behalf when you refuse to do so. It's not entirely clear to me what is being requested in this particular um
motion. I understand this is more of a notice than a motion. Um I think at this point it seems based on the expanded record here that um much of this kind of did hinge on um the the refusal to previously um hear and um allow for argument regarding these particular motions that were filed. I think that this is any kind of Action requested may be moot now given that we are here today hearing these motions um I don't really have anything further if the court is um looking for any kind of particular argument regarding any
particular points I'm happy to provide some further argument but I'm not seeing any particular um [clears throat] requested like resolution or um anything of that nature in this okay just to be clear you have like two more minutes if you'd like to make another argument. Sounds like that you you do not. So, what I guess I will say is I read that motion and what I would just note is that I think any error is remedied by today that we're addressing all the motions that have been filed. So, I'm taking them one by one. So,
even if there was error where I'm ruling on them today, I'm giving you that opportunity to be heard. I'm giving you that due process. As far as the the entry and not guilty plea on your behalf, the law does allow a judge to do that. There's a statute and that's under Colorado law and that's 16-7-208. Okay. So, I know you object. I'm just going to So, I've given you a chance to speak. I'll speak and then um and you can make any other further record. But that statute says that if a defendant refuses to plead,
uh then the court shall enter a plea of not guilty. So the Court has the power, the judge has the power to move a case along even if someone doesn't want to enter into their not guilty plea. That is a process that under Colorado law we have. So uh it sounds like that has raised something for you, Mr. Schmidt. So I'll give you two minutes to make any argument on that. M I did not refuse. He did not supply a bill of particulars where I could make my argument and pleading to the court. I do
not know what I was pulled over for. I was denied counsel when I requested counsel. I was denied Miranda rights when I was stopped. This is another misconception that soft tards have during traffic stops. You can both refuse to answer questions and request a lawyer to be present during the stop, but it doesn't prevent the police officers from doing their job. It just means that any questioning that goes on during the traffic stop after you've requested a lawyer will probably not be able to be used against you at trial. Okay. We will I believe your
officers are here to testify regarding those issues. Is that correct, Mr. Eids? Yes, your honor. Okay. because I saw someone I don't just so you know I didn't talk to him I just saw two officers go in there and so I would assume that they were for this case because it's the only case that's set for hearing. We will address whether your Miranda rights were violated because you have raised that whether there was probable cause for an arrest um or under the fourth amendment a detainer and we'll talk about whether there is reasonable suspicion. Um
so we we will have a hearing on that today. Um, so just letting you know that as far as the um, again I think I made my record on that that the court can interrupt plea and then um, so we'll take up the next issue and that is motion to dismiss with prejudice lack of jurisdiction for fruit of the poisonous tree. So this motion talks about jurisdiction and then it also talks about under the fourth amendment there is this idea that if there's an illegal search or seizure evidence that's collected after that fact is what
they call the fruit of the poisonous tree. So I think we need to put those into two sections. First one is your uh argument for lack of jurisdiction and then the second one I think we can address with that hearing. But again, I'll let you have three minutes to to make any argument on that, understanding that we're going to need to have testimony. Um, I guess let me back up before I have you make your argument. Under the law, uh, a defense has an initial burden of on a motion to suppress evidence based on constitutional
grounds. That initial burden is pretty low. I read that to that you're asserting facts that occurred that violated your right, your constitutional rights and that evidence should be suppressed. So by filing those motions, I do find that you have met your initial burden to have a hearing. So then then the burden shifts to the prosecution to show that your constitutional rights were not violated. So, I know we're kind of handling some other cases that don't Take testimony, but I have I'll find that you have met your initial burden to have that hearing. That's what we're
going to have today. So, I can't really rule on the fruit of the poisonous tree because that's going to require the prosecution to call witnesses. But, I would like you to make any argument regarding the lack of jurisdiction if you'd like to make that argument. And I will give you three minutes. As I had stated, uh, the doctrine established under Silverthorn Lumber Company versus United States suggests that initial traffic stop was and is illegal in that evidence or citations resulting from that stop are painted and should be suppressed. He pulled me over for obstructed windshield.
I was not cited for that. Okay. So anything beyond that would be null and void inabio. Okay. Are you what we call personal jurisdiction over you outside of the the charges? Yes ma'am I am. Okay. Um Mr. Eids, do you have any response to that? I am a tribal member. Okay. Is there anything specific that you'd like me to respond to as far like giving everyone an opportunity to to speak? So, if you don't have any response, you don't have to make one, But I'm just giving everyone three minutes on each issue. So, thank you,
honor. Um, I guess regarding personal jurisdiction, I'll simply note that um Mr. Schmidt was uh driving on Colorado roadways at the time that he was stopped. Um, he wasn't in Jefferson County, Colorado. Is alleged to have been in Jefferson County, Colorado at the time. um this is a proper venue and proper jurisdiction for uh this particular proceeding to occur within. Okay. Um did you want to make any other argument? I was not driving. I was not operating. I was traveling. Okay. In my mode of conveyance that I'm entitled to have. You can travel anywhere you
want, but you better use your Nikes if you don't have a driver's license. All right. Okay. So, I'm going to make a ruling regarding this jurisdiction issue. So, jurisdiction is used in this order, this finding relates to the power of a court to hear and decide cases involving violations of substantive criminal law and oppose punishment upon conviction. And that's people versus verb drug vu gge. It's 998 Pacific 2 43 called appeals court case from 1999. In order to prosecute a defendant, a trial court must have one, subject matter matter jurisdiction, that is jurisdiction over the
offense, and two, jurisdiction over The person. And uh I would just point to any appellet court to Chatfield versus Colorado Court of Appeals 775 Pacific 2 1168 C appeals court case from 1989 and people versus W t 985 Pacific 2779 called appeals court case from 1990 as relevant here subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by substantive law and refers to whether a court has authority to try the particular offense that's Horton versus Southernthers 43 Pacific 3611 One, it's called Pills Court case from two 2002. Generally speaking, subject matter matter jurisdiction exists if the offense is committed
wholly or partially within the geographical boundaries of Colorado or the act wherever committed causes a criminal result in Colorado. That is a statute of Colorado vice statute 18-1-201. And that provides that a person is subject to prosecution for offense which he commits by his own conduct. uh if a person is subject to prosecution in the state for an offense oops um if the conduct constitutes an offense and is committed either wholly or partly within the state. So what is alleged is this offense was committed in Jefferson County, Colorado. And so I do find that there
is subject matter jurisdiction. So let's talk about jurisdiction over you, sir. Mr. Schmidt, I'll I'll give you a chance to respond. Okay? I'm not going to argue back and forth though specifically because if you decide to appeal my orders then we do need to make sure that there's a record that's clear. So if we talk over each other and it and if you tend to appeal me uh we want to make sure that the record's clear. So I promise I'll give you a response. Okay. Uh jurisdiction of the person refers to whether a court has
authority to try a particular person. Physical present of defendant court confers personal jurisdiction. That's Bell versus Bower and that's 606 Pacific 274 from 1980. County Court versus Richards and that's 812 Pacific 26 650 and it's note 3 in CO 19 1991 that is necessary to acquire jurisdiction of the person or to sustain a judgment of conviction. The manner by which the accused is brought before the court does not impair the state's power to prosecute and the defendant or the court's jurisdiction and try to defend impose punishment. That's Yellen versus Nelson 680 Pacific 2234 codels court
case from 1984. I I also have some other cases. Uh, I think I already cited to Bell versus Bower and Hab Habard. H A BB O R D versus people 488 Pacific 2nd 554 1971 Debbaca versus Trillo 447 Pacific 2nd 533 1968 seph versus B c A L E W 805 Pacific 2nd 11106 appeals court case from or Colorado Supreme Court case from 1991 once jurisdiction of the person is obtained it continues until final disposition of the case um so again It's been alleged that this occurred in Colorado. Therefore, the court has subject matter jurisdiction.
Um, Mr. Schmidt is here in front of the court. The court believes it has jurisdiction over him. Um, to any point that there might be that he didn't contract or any sort of UCCC, I I didn't see that in there, so I don't think I need to make a record um on that issue, the the uniform commercial code. Now, this is funny to me because he didn't even bring up the UCC, but the judges in Colorado have seen enough sovereign citizen nonsense that they already know what's coming. Uh, and so I I do find that
we do have jurisdiction over Mr. Schmidt, but Mr. Schmidt, I will give you two minutes to respond to the argument. Authority do you have over Indians? I did not hear anything about Indians under Yakama Indian Nation versus Flores 955 F sub 1229 ED Washington 12th of February 97. Former Governor Stevens guaranteed that all Yakimas shall have the same liberties outside the reservation to pasture animals on land not occupied and on land not occupied by whites to kill game to go get berries and to go on the road to market. I am free to travel ma'am.
Period. by treaty and that would be the treaty of uh 1855 and I don't know that I have that number in front of me or tribe was re So where did uh y'all wind up with jurisdiction over us when our treaty was there before this was even a state. We were in the Northwest and recognized by the United States as treaty indigenous Indians. I am a member of the Pillchuk tribe. I'm being represented by council of the Kikias Indian Nation. Okay. Any response, Mr. Eats? No, your honor. Okay. So, let me just pull up another
case. Um, I'm going to rely on a there's a a Colorado case, um, People versus Drew 650 or 250 Pacific 3761. It's called appeals court case from 2010. Um, and that talks about that these ideas that someone's a sovereign citizen and I have a a quote from a case that is actual a federal case that I find helpful in that guidance. Utah Department of Workforce Services versus GEDDES. And that's a 2013 West Law 1367025. That court said, "This sovereign citizen argument has been rejected repeatedly by courts simply by labeling oneself as a sovereign citizen. An
individual does not immunize himself from the jurisdiction of the state or federal courts. Jurisdiction is a matter of law, state and constitution um wherein one's power is um and not a child's game wherein one's power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic klesmen or use by use of special seals or whether a recital special words, phrases or arcane incantations. Um even though a defendant may have a sincere belief that he is an alien beyond the jurisdictional reach of the courts this in that case they found he is simply wrong. Courts have routinely
found that s sovereign citizen arguments are completely without merit and pentatively frivolous. Thus an individual's belief that status as a sovereign citizen puts him beyond the jurisdiction of the courts has no conceivable validity in American law. That's Charlotte versus Hansen 433FAPX660 10th Circuit 2011. There's a number of other federal rulings um and state rulings. I'll just uh see Shock versus United States 92 uh Federal 31877 Circuit 1996 is one. Um anyway, and and to the extent that um the defendant is arguing that he's a member of a a reservation. So there there is a case
people versus Luna 683 Pacific 2 362. It's crowd appeals court case from 1984. It is true that the state court does not have power over conduct of Native Americans within the Native American country whether or not conduct is special concern to the federal government. But in this case, uh, the court finds that it was in, uh, Jefferson County. There's not any sort of federal land within this that the court's aware of or that's been presented that this is on reservation land or this committed on reservation land. So, I do find that the court has jurisdiction.
All right. I do know that there are some people waiting. I was trying to do this in order of the um, that has been filed. Okay. Give me one second. Um, I think what might make sense and then we will continue on with these arguments is to take the testimony regarding your motion challenging reasonable suspicion, probable cause and your fourth amendment arguments as well as your Miranda arguments. Is there any other constitutional issues that you want to make a record for? crossexamine my expert on tribal law and I do hold an adoption document in my
right hand that shows my adoption to the tribe so earlier stated the Phil truck tribe and as for uh sovereign citizen that's an oxymoron you can either be sovereign or you can be a citizen. But you cannot be both. I answer to God and God only. You sure about that? Because if you follow the Bible and answer only to God, then you will have some explaining to do when you pass since Romans 13:1 states that governments only exist by the will of God. So, whoever is resisting the government is in effect resisting God's will. So,
now the officer takes the stand to give his testimony. But I'm going to skip that part and go directly to the cross-examination by the sovereign citizen. Basically, he testifies that the initial stop was due to a disability placard hanging from the window, which is illegal in Colorado when you're driving, and that he had fictitious plates on the back of his car as well. And when he asked for his driver's license, he threw a packet of papers at him and stated that the officer had now been served. Classic [ __ ] behavior. Mr. Mr. Schmidt, do
you have any questions for this officer? You're going to need to make sure that you're speaking into the microphone. Um, for trial, you'll need to [sighs and gasps] stand so that the jury could see you, but today I'll allow you to sit if you're more comfortable, but I just need to make sure that you're getting picked up on that microphone. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. You can even move that closer. It kind of slides closer. Yeah, there you go. I cannot remain standing. That's okay. You can remain seated. I just want to let you know um
today uh sometimes the jury can't see someone and so if you needed an accommodation if you were we had a jury here we could talk about it. Okay, go ahead. Officer, uh would you please state your name again for the record? Chris Steiner. Officer Steiner, uh are you allowed to violate the law in order to enforce it at sometimes? Yes. if I had to drive faster than the speed limit or something like that. Yes. So, you're allowed to use an unmarked car for the sole purpose of pulling people over for uh placard where nowhere on
it does it say remove while driving. Yes, I'm able to use an unmarked car to do traffic enforcement against federal law. Where was I stopped? I'm sorry. Was it a highway? A roadway? Pulled off onto off of um Lamar on to I believe it's 56th. So that is not a highway. It's a roadway, right? Uh I believe uh I have something that says all Indians have secured Treaty right to travel upon all state public highways without being required to have a stateisssued driver's license license plate or registration. Are you familiar sir with um object at
this time to relevance as well as I believe a misstatement of the law. So I'm going to let Mr. might finish his question and then I'll roll in your objection. So, what is your question? Are you familiar, sir, with the Vehicle Anti- theft Act? So, I'm going to find that that's not relevant to the issues of constitutional motions of whether there was reasonable suspicion to stop the car, probable cause, or the Miranda issue that's been raised. Uh, and so I will sustain that objection. Mr. Today, all we're deciding are these constitutional issues of whether evidence
can come into your trial. And so, all we're focusing on is whether the officers complied with the constitution. And so, if Mr. Eid is objecting, I'll rule on those objections, but I want I want you to narrow in on those issues that you filed on that regarding those constitutional issues. Go ahead, Officer Steiner. Correct. Yes, sir. It is Steiner. Okay. I just want to make sure I'm correct. Uh, you say I did not offer you anything as evidence. Do you remember a blue folder that I handed you Three times out the window? My dossier that
had all that in it. It was It was twice. You threw a large packet of paperwork at me saying I times. Okay, Mr. Schmidt, you can't interrupt him because we do need to make sure the record's clear. Okay. So, go ahead, officer. And then and then I'll let Mr. Shiner finish his sentence. Do you know what was in that dossier? No, sir. You open it and look. It wasn't the driver's license registration insurance I asked you. Mr. Schmidt, again, you can't interrupt. Okay. And so we we won't get the record to be clear. So, um,
Officer Steiner, if you could just finish your sentence, please. It wasn't the driver's license, registration, and insurance card that I asked for. And how do you know this? because you told me I was being served, which to me appears to be legal documents serving me with some type of like a court document or something like that that's not a driver's license. So, you're saying that the seat belt was the probable cause in order to pull me over? No, sir. Is that an arrestable offense? I did not say the seat belt was the probable cause to
pull you over. Okay. So, it's a secondary correct. Okay. What was the probable cause in order to pull me over? The obstructed vision that could have occurred from the object swinging from the mirror, that being the handicap placard, and the fictitious license plate on your vehicle. Do you have measurement or photograph of this alleged swinging a flag hanging from the rearview mirror? believe it was captured on the body camera. And I bet it hangs lower than the sun visor that comes standard equipment with the vehicle. Yes, sir. No, cuz it hangs on the rearview mirror
which is hangs down below the visor. Sir, objection, your honor. What exactly are you objecting to? You asked the officer a question and he answered it. Now, you might not like the answer he gave, but that in itself is not objectionable. I'd like you to focus on any other questions that have to do with that stop, probable cause, or the Miranda issue that you've raised regarding your statements. I had requested council to be present. Do you remember me making that statement? and that I did not allow for any search or seizures of that car. I
made that statement to both you and Officer Brown. I remember Jack. This sounds like testimony. Um he's not currently on the stand. Okay. I I guess I will rephrase that and just to kind of streamline something. Officer, did did at any point he request an attorney? Not that I recall. Okay, Mr. Schmidt, any other questions? Did you sight me for the other violation that I was alleged stopped for? No, I didn't cite you for the handicap placard. I cited you for several other violations which would be poisonous of the the fruits of the poisonous tree.
I you no further questions your honor. Any redirect? No, your honor. Okay. Thank you. May step down. Any other witnesses for the prosecution? Your I do have Sergeant Brown here. Um I guess at this point I'll just inquire is does the court feel that they have Sufficient information upon which um to um make a ruling on these motions or is there is there anything further? I do have Sergeant Brown here but for this point there is sufficient objection [clears throat] your honor. And what is your objection Mr. Schmidt? Well it's your burden Mr. I don't
have any specific questions. he gave up his uh probable cause when he failed to uh cite me for the stop in the first place. So I I'll take argument regarding that. Um are you are you intended to call any other witnesses? Yeah, at this point I think um we'll we'll rest. We do have Sergeant Brown here, but I think they're most efficient. Okay, hold on a second, Mr. Schmidt. So, the prosecution rests on the motions hearing. Mr. Schmidt, do you intend to call any witnesses that are relevant to the probable cause, the stop, and the
Miranda issue? Was that person present here on on that day? Okay. So, how would he by tribal counsel? Okay. Expert witness for what? Tribe matters. Tribal matters. So, legal issues. Yes, in particular. So, I I'm making a factual finding today regarding whether there was reasonable suspicion, probable cause in that Miranda issue. How calling an expert, a legal expert, um I'm going to base my decision on the law. You can cite the law, but you do not have an attorney that has entered their appearance formally, and uh they need to do that before they can represent
you. if he's an expert and you can Oh, counsel man do not have to according to the sixth amendment. Well, that's incorrect as any attorney representing a client has to file their representation with the court before being able to litigate on their behalf. Yeah. Uh well, under the rules of the Colorado rules of procedure, you do have to have an attorney enter their appearance to represent you because you can't practice law without asserting and filing the proper paperwork. So neither can me ma'am. Okay. I'm not going to argue back and forth. You've asked me to
rule on your your these issues. So I am not going to argue back and forth. What we do is I allow you to make argument response and then I'll rule. I am declining to hear from your person that's here today. I don't think it's relevant to the motions Issues that have been raised. So objection. Okay. I'll note your objection. Now what I'm going to do is do you have can either overrule or sustain Okay. I note your objection. You don't note it. I will note it. And I've already I've already said that I'm I'm denying
you an opportunity to have the your witness testify. So, you can make a record regarding your objection, but I've already said that I'm not allowing him to testify. All right. So, I just want to make it sure it's clear, Mr. Schmidt, do you have any other witnesses that you wish to call? Not that you're willing to allow. Okay. Thank you. All right. For the prosecution, um any record regarding the motions to suppress that have been filed by the defense? Your honor, I guess I'll I'll keep it brief. I think the um the record as it
exists from Agent Steiner is uh sufficient to find um that there was um reasonable suspicion for the stop in this particular case. Um that there was in this case a primary offense um that was observed. Um noting that that primary offense wasn't ultimately charged in this case. Uh there was a primary offense that was observed, specifically the obstructed windshield that was the basis for the stop um or for even the initial um approach and sort of investigation following the vehicle. Um at which time he also observed another primary offense which is that fictitious plates based
on his own experience, 30 years of traffic history um and 30 years Working for the um police department. um observed that there were some irregularities with respect to the specific um uh license plate that was seen on Mr. Schmidt's vehicle. Um so that is the that was the basis for this particular stop. Um and ultimately, um [clears throat] based upon the remaining contact that Agent Steiner had with Mr. Schmidt, um this was a sort of combative situation. However, at no point in time, um was Mr. Schmidt in custody. He remained in his car. He remained
in there with the windows cracked. Um, Agent Steiner was trying to obtain information from him, but Mr. Schmidt was not very cooperative in providing the requisite information that um, he needed to um, further his investigation in this traffic stop. Um, ultimately a a packet of materials was sort of tossed out the window to Agent Steiner. Um, it's unknown exactly what was in there, but the the context behind it was that he had said, "You've been served." And so, um, at no point in time did he ever respond to a specific request for, uh, the registration
nor for any proof of insurance, um, on his vehicle and, um, continuously denied, um, any efforts to verify the registration or insurance status on that Vehicle. Eventually, he did provide proof of a Colorado driver's license. Um, however, that is all he ended up providing during that traffic stop. a sovereign citizen with a driver's license. Someone needs to check if hell is frozen over. And are there any other questions or legal issues the court might want to hear argument on? I think the record has been laid out pretty thoroughly based on the testimony from Agent Steiner
at this point. I don't have any specific questions for you. Okay. And the people will rest there. All right. And Mr. I'm going to give you three minutes to make your argument. You have three minutes starting now. Thanks. Yes, ma'am. I was not under a uh consensual investigation. I was under custodial. I was not allowed to leave. I was under arrest. At that point, I was not given my Miranda rights, nor was I allowed to have my counsel present at any questioning, which I refused at that point. I was not going to answer any further
questions. Based on that, I would have to say that uh Officer Steiner gave up his right to charge anything other than the seat belt or the uh yeah, the Obstructed windshield because that is the primary reason he pulled me over. In fact, I asked him what his probable cause was and he needed to articulate it and he could not. He couldn't even give me a chapter and verse that it's sitting in. So to say that he had authority over me, he does not. You still have about two minutes left. I'm happy to hear any other
argument. You I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. I yield. Yield. Okay. Thank you. All right. The court's going to make the following findings in fact and conclusions a lot of role in this matter. I guess initially there's been some argument. So I just want to make sure that the record's clear on the jurisdiction of the court. I'm looking at 422126.5 and that is uh regarding some traffic laws and it talks about that uh it uses the term Indians um means a person who's a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe. So Mr. Schmidt is asserting
that he's a member of this federally recognized Indian tribe. What that talks about is is that uh the traffic code. So the tribal code including traffic provisions governs the conduct of Indians within the reservation. Uh when Indians drive and this is a quote and that's subsection 23. When Indians drive outside of the reservation, state and municipal traffic laws apply to their state driving privileges. So I'll just find that the court does have jurisdiction over Mr. Schmidt on this traffic case. Uh, so I'm going to read some some case law into the record so it's clear.
So the first question for the court is whether there was reasonable suspicion to pull Mr. Schmidt over. There are three types of encounters with police. There's the consensual encounter, there is the investigatory stop, and then there's the arrest. And that's People versus Walter 249 Pacific 3rd, 805. It's called Supreme Court case from 2011. The test between a consensual encounter and one investigatory detention requiring reasonable suspicion is whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe he or she was free to leave and were to disregard the officials request for information. Uh and so I think
at this point I think everyone's in agreement that this was a an investigatory stop. This was not consensual. Mr. Schmidt pulled over after the police officer pulled him over. And so what I'm asked to decide then is whether there was reasonable suspicion. The reasonable suspicion standard requires considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by preponderance of the evidence and is less demanding even than the fair probability standard for probable cause. That's people versus Mcnite 452 Pacific 382. And that's a Colorado court of appeals case from 2017. It is satisfied if the police have specific and art
articulable facts greater than a mere hunch to support their belief that the person to be stopped is or may have been invoked involved in criminal activity. An officer must have reasonable suspicion that the driver a driver is violating the law in some way to conduct a traffic stop and the after that traffic stop the officer may obtain identification and registration information from the driver in connection with that stop. That is people versus HJ and that's 931 Pacific 31177 Colorado appeals court case from 1997. In this case in that people versus HJ case they actually talk
about that someone uh having a license plate light was out is sufficient for reasonable suspicion. So, traffic offenses um can be a grounds for a reasonable suspicion and that talks about that that's that people versus HJ case. So, the traffic stop was legal and the fictitious plates that someone told you was a good idea was a really bad idea. Uh so, the officer decided not to site Mr. Schmidt for the obstruction there. There's no law, and let me just pull that over to um let me just get this. There's no law that requires that someone
be physically charged with whatever uh initially had created the Stop. And what I'm relying on, I I'll just look at there. There is a case in which um there for example P people versus Bernett 432 Pacific 3617. It's a Colorado Supreme Court case from 2019 that talks about mistaken interpretation of traffic law. Um must be objectively reasonable support of finding reasonable suspicion. So even if an officer is of uh mistaken regarding the uh the reasons it must be objectively reasonable support of finding of reasonable suspicion. So, the officer said that he thought that the obstructed
window could be obstructing, although I think it's required under the law that it has to actually be obstructing, and I didn't hear that evidence. But then he also said that Mr. Schmidt was had a false plate. He made an argument or a statement um that Mr. Schmidt's license plate uh was there was no record of that license plate at the Department of Vehicles and that it appeared to be altered. Uh, let me pull up that language. It was not a standard plate issued by the state of Colorado. And um, it had Colorado on top and
then some initials or letters on the side. The numbers weren't standard. The colors weren't standard for the Colorado license plate. And so he pulled Mr. Schmidt over for that false or fictitious plates. So I guess I'll just go into the facts that I heard. So um, Officer Steiner testified that he's a Detective for the art or VAT Police Department. Sir, I'll let you make an argument when it's my turn to make a ruling. Um that on August 1st, 2025, he pulled over Mr. Schmidt and he identified him as the person in the courtroom. He he
was pursuing a clicket or ticket offense. He did see that Mr. Schmidt was not wearing a seat belt. Um but that is what's called a secondary offense. So he didn't pull him over for not wearing a seat belt. He found that he had fictitious plates and that uh he said that he had could be obstructed view. uh he pulled Mr. Schmidt over and then he didn't have a driver's license. He said he refused to um give him his license, registration, and insurance. And he said that he wasn't his friend. So, he wasn't driving. He was
traveling. Um Mr. Schmidt wasn't being compliant. He said he'd like to speak to Mr. Officer Steiner's supervisor. So, Officer Steiner complied with the request of Mr. Schmidt and called uh Sergeant Brown. H and Sergeant Brown then reported to the scene uh and they talked for another three minutes and then it appears that Mr. Schmidt then did comply with providing his his license. He was issued a summon. Um he had failed to display a valid registration. He wasn't wearing a seat belt. He didn't have proof of insurance and he was charged with the obstructing and the
fictitious plates. He did not accept the summon, so they put that under a windshield wiper. And um so the court does find that there was reasonable suspicion to pull Mr. Schmidt over for that false plates. Um as far as the probable cause for an extended detention, I'll just read that into the record. So a to be valid, an arrest must be supported by probable cause. An arrest doesn't have to mean necessarily that someone's was put into handcuffs for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Um, but probable cause to arrest exists when the facts and circumstances
known to the arresting officer are sufficient to warrant the belief by a reasonable and prudent person in light of the person's training experience that an offense has been committed and the defendant committed it. Uh, and so probable cause determined based on the information possessed by the officer at the time of the arrest. Just as an arrest may be validated by subsequently acquired information, it is not invalidated by subsequent events. I in evaluating probable cause, the courts have found that it's the probability, not certainty, is the touchstone of reasonleness under the fourth amendment. And that probable
cause involves probability similar to factual and practical questions of everyday life upon which reasonable prudent persons act. That's people versus Thompson 793 Pacific 2173 Colorado appeals or Colorado Supreme Court case from 1990. I'll just note too that a summon issuing a summon does not amount to an arrest and that's Hart versus Herszig and that's 283 Pacific 2177 from 1995 1955 excuse me. So to the extent so I would find that Mr. Schmidt was pulled over then he requested a sergeant be on the scene which prolonged his detention and so I would find that in in
essence he was requesting it. However, I do find that there was probable cause in that he had fictitious plates. He was refusing to Give his information. Um, and then as they uh as they continued their conversation, he had failed to display proof of insurance. And while he received a summon, there was sufficient probable cause to place him under arrest. As far as Miranda, that that's a different analysis in that it there must be custody and interrogation. Custody is mere is more than not being free to leave. That looks like it's there's a case that says
it's tantamount to arrest. And so the court finds that Mr. Schmidt was given a summon. He was not under arrest for purposes of Miranda. Mr. Schmidt, I promise I will give you a chance. I need to make my record. A custodial detention entails a greater restriction on freedom than that associated with investigated detentions under the Fourth Amendment. Under the Fourth Amendment, a seizure results when a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave or otherwise terminate an encounter with law enforcement. By contrast, custody for Miranda purposes requires a subse subspecs liberty to be infringed
upon a degree associated with formal arrest. That's people versus plesov 298 Pacific 3 228 color appeals court case from 2013. Um so the court looks at those factors and finds that he was not under arrest or custodial interrogation for the purpose of needing Miranda to be read to him. I find that he was not in custody for the purposes of Miranda. Um, so he's not subject to custodial interrogation. I'll find that all of Mr. Schmidt's statements were voluntary. So I am denying Mr. Schmidt's emotions on those issues. Mr. Schmidt, I'll give you Another three minutes
to make any argument regarding that because it sounds like you have some disagreements for any of that. Yes, ma'am. United States versus Pratzer. If an officer does not sight based on what he pulled me over for, he loses his opportunity to come back at a later time and sight me for anything else. Uh, furthermore, where is the corpus delecti? I want to see the person that I harmed or injured. Also, I would like to see the contract in which I have signed my signature to obligating me to this. The law is not a contract, so
it doesn't need your signature. Under the 10th amendment, the state has police power to regulate conduct for public safety. So, while you didn't sign up for the law, you are subject to it because you're physically standing in the state of Colorado with or without your consent. And again, I will bring up the unmarked car. Where in statute or federal law does it allow an unmarked car to pull over another car? I you Okay. any response to that? Okay, I made my ruling um regarding under state law. Um and I there is one more thing that
I probably need to put on the record regarding travel and that is see I just found that case. So while the right to travel interstate is without question a fundamental right under the constitution, the critical occurren in the case is whether someone's license burdens this fundamental right and the Colorado Supreme Court has found that that it does not. So requiring someone to be licensed or follow the traffic laws does not unconstitutionally burden someone's right to travel. So that's Hener versus Char H A R N S13 Pacific 2884 scholar Supreme Court case from 1980. All right.
So those are the constitutional issues I believe that we have handled. There's a a argument regarding your violation of your right to speedy trial. Did you want to supplement the record at all on that, Mr. Schmidt? No, your honor. Okay. Did you want to make any argument on that Mr. Eids? And I would just note um procedurally looks like not guilty had entered on December 11th, 2025. So that was the uh the start of the speedy trial. 6 months is what we calculate in the state of Colorado. So uh speedy trial I have calculated to
um run on June 11th, 2025, uh which would be before our currently set jury trial. So I don't think there's a violation of speedy trial. Okay. I'll note that the federal speedy trial is actually longer than the state speedy trial. And so the state speedy trial is that we're sending this within 6 months of your not guilty plea that I understand has been entered on your behalf, but I still think we're within the statutory requirements for speedy Trial. Let me see if there's anything else that I believe we've already discussed the bill of particulars. Okay.
I believe that we have addressed everything. Am I missing anything, Mr. Schmidt? Uh the fact that Speedy has already been violated the moment that the officer issued the ticket began the clock. Not from the time that somebody enters a plea on my behalf against my consent or without my consent and with written objection. I guess I'm going to we're getting to 5:00 and I don't want staff to have to stay late. So, I'm going to just jump into that. It says under 18-1-405, if a defendant is not brought to trial on the issues raised by
the complaint within six months from the date of the entry of a plea of not guilty, he shall be discharged from custody or uh the charges shall be dismissed. So, it is the entry of a plea of not guilty that is for the record. Okay. I just want to confirm, Mr. Schmidt, do you still want to proceed to a jury trial on June 4th or did you want to trial Federal law states 90 days. Okay. Well, we're under the state law. So, I just want to confirm. Um, Mr. Your honor, you're telling me that you
supersede federal law. I'm not going to argue back and forth. I'm making my rulings based on the state law. All right. So, Mr. Schmidt, I just want to confirm you are set for jury Trial on June 4th at 8 a.m. Have you picked up your discovery? still object, your honor. Okay, I'll note your objection. I've already made my ruling. I'm not arguing back and forth. I don't need a note. I need either sustain. Okay. Overrule or sustain iter. I've already made a ruling on it, and I I'll you've made a record on your objection. No,
ma'am. No, we're not arguing back and forth. So, Mr. Schmidt, um, are you going to be ready for trial on June 4th? I guess we'll see you back here on May 26th at 10:30. Your case is currently set for jury trial. I want to make sure that you understand that you have a right to be represented and so I'm going to make this record here today regarding what's called an arguyo adisement. It's under the state law. But do you understand, Mr. Schmidt, that you have a right to be represented by council throughout these proceedings? No,
ma'am. I do not understand anything, but I do comprehend everything that you have said. Okay. Do you have any questions about your right to be represented? I believe I've already answered that. Okay. So, I'm gonna these are required questions by law that I'm I have to ask you. Okay. Do you understand that if you cannot afford an attorney, one can be provided to you free of charge. Practically, can I I'll give you a chance to answer, but practically what that means is you have To make an application with the public defender's office. So, if you
wanted to be represented by the public defender's office, you would have to file that application with them. They would make a determination of whether you qualified. If you made below a certain amount, the public defender could represent you free of charge to you. Are you okay going forward today with uh are you okay going forward then without an attorney? Okay. Do you understand that if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you free of charge if you take those steps? Did I choose to do that? Yes, I understand that. All right. And
these are questions again that I'm required to answer by or ask you by law. Do you have any legal training? Sure. Okay. The fifth on your legal training. How far have you gone in school? Okay. So, I need to just understand. Do you feel like you have I I need you to answer some questions or else I'm just going to find that you are making a choice not to answer these, but I do need to make sure that it's clear that you fully understand it. And I know that you have these legal arguments that you
would like to make, but you have a right to an attorney and that's a really important right. So, please let me finish and then I'll let you finish. But I need to make sure that I am getting the questions asked under the law and that you need to answer them. And so Saying pleading the fifth, I can't tell if you don't understand the process. And so that's what I'm going to keep asking you. But if you were just trying to use it as a game, not to answer the questions, then I can make that based
on the demeanor. I do feel like it's kind of this game you're playing with your friend that's here. So do you have any legal training? Yes or no? Okay. How far have you gone in school? Are you under the influence of any drugs, medication, or alcohol that would affect your understanding of today's proceedings? Do not understand anything. Well, maybe you shouldn't huff so much of that tasty sovereign ether right before court. Then and only then will you understand just how wrong you are. Okay. So, I'm just going to make a record for the any appellet
record that Mr. Smith's standing sitting here with his arms crossed. He's um clearly not wanting to answer my questions. I do not think based on my observations that he's not understanding. He has a I've allowed someone here to sit next to him um who keeps whispering in his ear. Um it is clear to me that this is a strategy. So I just want to make sure that that's clear on the record, but I do think that Mr. Schmidt appears to be understanding everything here today. He doesn't appear to be under the influence of anything. He's
been able to coherently answer the court's questions, but I do just want to make that finding. Mr. Mr. Schmidt, do you understand that criminal law is a complicated area and an attorney trained in this field could be of great help in preparing and representing your defense? Do you understand that criminal law is complicated? And do you understand that someone that's trained in the law could be help could help you in preparing and representing your defense? Okay. Do you understand that you have a right to remain silent and that anything you say can be used to
you in court? Okay. And again, I'll just make a note that I'm trying to advise Mr. Schmidt. I hope that he understands this. I think he does understand my questions, but he's making a point of not answering. You should understand that you have a right to represent yourself, but by doing you so, you take a great risk of not properly presenting your case. You have a right to confront the witnesses against you and cross-examine them. So again, what you saw today was cross-examination, what you participated in, but at trial, you can also do that at
trial. Do you understand that, Mr. Schmidt? That's a yes or no. Great. And I'll just note again, I do think that Mr. Schmidt is comprehending what I'm saying, but choosing not to answer. And do you understand that you have a right to have witnesses you choose compelled to appear and testify on your behalf? What that means practically is if you are representing yourself, what happens is you can go to the clerk's office, get a motion, if you have someone that you would like to be court ordered to be here uh to testify, then you need
to fill out a motion and then I will look at it and see if they're relevant to the case at hand. And if I do find that, then I will approve it. Then you'll need to have third parties not related to the case serve a subpoena. If you have witnesses That you would like to be here to testify, you'll need to endorse them uh at least seven days prior to trial and then you'll have to go through that process. Do you understand that, Mr. Schmidt? Yes or no. All right. I'll just know Mr. Schmidt's making
a choice not to answer, but I do want to just make sure that this is clear. Um, he's facing fictitious plates and I believe that that's a traffic uh traffic misdemeanor that's comes with a maximum fine of $300. Uh, 90 days in jail. Registration is a traffic infraction. That's a maximum sentence of a $100 fine. Seatelt not used is a $100 fine. Failure to display proof of insurance is a maximum sentence of a $1,000 fine. one year in jail. If you have proof of current insurance and that it's a mandatory minimum $500 fine. If you
have proof of current insurance, it's $250 fine. If it's a second or more, you're facing a mandatory minimum of $1,000 fine. I need clarification. Oh, hold on a second. I need to make my record, okay? Because I need to make sure you understand the penalties that you're facing. So, you're facing a maximum sentence of a year in jail, $1,000 fine for that no proof of insurance. And then you will u have a mandatory minimum if this is a first offense. Um within five years, it's a $500 fine. Um if mandatory minimum, $1,000 fine if it's
a second or more. Obstructing a government operations, you're facing up to 120 days in jail, a $750 fine. Do you understand, Mr. Schmidt, the penalties that you're facing? Stand anytime. Okay. All right, clarification. This goes for Indian tribal members as well. What is your question? This goes for Indian tribal members as well. I've already ruled on that. I'm not going to go back in back to my ruling on that. All right. What was that ruling? You can you can order a transcript of the ruling. I fa found under the statutory requirements that someone that is
a tribal member can be charged in the traffic laws. All right. Um so we'll see you back here. It is now uh we'll see you back here on May 26 at 10:30. Any other motions can be filed in writing. Um okay. Thank you, sir. I need my objection. I've noted your objections. I've ruled on all of your motions. That's not a ruling that's an ignor I You're asking me to argue back and forth with you, Mr. Schmidt. I You're asking me to argue back and forth with you? That's not how the court works. I've I've
heard your legal arguments. I've heard responses and then I've ruled. You want to continue this dialogue, and it's not a dialogue. I'm just ruling on it. I wish you the best, Mr. Schmidt. I'll see you back here for your pre-trial readiness conference. If you need any information on how to get discovery, you should talk to Mr. Eids. There is a process to get what we call discovery which is the evidence in the case. I am finding though based on the record that's a knowing waiver of counsel although that does not prevent you from getting an
attorney and hiring an attorney or applying the public defender. If you want information on how to apply the public defender I'm happy to give you that information and we will see you back here for that next court date. Thank you sir. All right. So, all of his motions were denied. But we're not done with the video yet because as promised, we now get to hear from his sovereign co-consel. As his next friend, council, I object to the fact that you refuse to rule on any of his objections. I find in the statute where you can
where you can sustain the objections, which I suggest you do, and I find where you can where you can overrule those objections, which I know you will. Nowhere do I find you can over where you can ignore or note an objection. It doesn't exist. She abandoned. Get away with it a lot. She abandoned. But in federal court, it doesn't lie. Someone really needs to shut that idiot up before he harms his friend's situation any more than he already has. All right, guys. That's the end of today's video. I'll be following up with this one as
it progresses, and I'm sure this isn't the end of his shenanigans. So, if you like the video, hit the like button. If you disliked it, hit the dislike. But don't forget to leave a comment below and subscribe with Notifications on so you don't miss any of my content. I'm Team Skeptic and I'm out. [music] Here we
