Hey guys, and welcome to today's video. Today we have two videos to cover, both with upcoming court dates next week. First, we have a self-proclaimed active duty marine who threatens a judge with high treason and marks her for death.
A tell us you're crazy without telling us you're crazy moment. And then we have a sovereign citizen whose defense attorney voluntarily steps off his case because she can't ethically defend her client while he makes outrageous claims for his defense. So, let's begin.
All right. 23M492, People versus Aaron Santana, Cold Word, Miracle Baby of Boston. Judge, just for the record, I I would like to note he does need an out of custody application.
Um, but attorney Alex Brocks Brock, excuse me, represented Mr Santana upstairs and wanted to let the court know if there's anything they need him to say on the record, you will happily come down and let the court know. I'll hereby represent myself. All right, Mr Santana, you don't want to apply for the public defender?
No, ma'am. I'll be representing myself. All right, Mr Santana, are you sure you don't want a lawyer to represent you here?
You've had a lawyer in all your other cases, and they can give you legal advice and help you with things. Would you like, you had the public defender in the past, you've qualified for courtappointed counsel. Do you want to go and apply?
No, ma'am. Okay. Um, what do you want to do with your case then?
I motion to dismiss under double jeopardy. This case was dismissed under the competency law previously. I may, your honor, I don't believe the case was dismissed.
I think um there were just no further proceedings happening up here and the complaint was held in advance and the DA could dismiss it if it wanted to, but it did not. Objection. They waited to file um an appointment for a hearing which is a violation of the fair and speedy trial.
The complaint is still pending. Um we have some other matter set. So I think I'm going to set this over for a competency advisement.
Mr Santana, you're absolutely positive you don't want to get an attorney under the competency law. I've been cleared for competency competency twice. I'm not allowed to be deemed incompetent again.
I hereby demand a court marshal. This is an active enlist. I am an active enlisted marine.
This is a military operation to investigate conspiracy to operate a city state within the territory of the United States. All right. I'm going to we're going to have to set a competency advisement hearing.
Um I hereby demand a court marshal. If you do not comply, this is high treason. You are marked for death.
All right, Mr Santana, we're going to give you another court date. I'm going to advise you regarding competency. Yes, ma'am.
However, I have as an active enlisted member of the US armed forces under the UCMJ. I am demanding a court marshal. If you do not comply, you are a traitor under the UCMJ and you are potentially marked for death.
Go ahead. February 9th at 11:30. February 9th at 11:30.
You need to be back here in court. Yes, ma'am. February 9th at 11:30.
Yeah, if you want to write that down, you can. And if you have a change of heart and want to get an attorney, you need to go to the public defender's office and fill out the application. I have a constitutional right to represent myself.
If you're competent to do so, yes, I've been deemed competent on two occasions. Yeah, I don't think it's wise for you to charge the judge with high treason, and it's especially stupid to mark her for death. And I'd like to point out that the UCMJ does not apply to judges and civilians except for very specific situations that don't apply in this situation.
I'm definitely going to be following up with this one. But now we head to our next hearing. 25T435.
Mr Smith appears in person with Miss Hamilton. We do have Mr Clark here for the people. Good afternoon.
And how are we proceeding? Your honor, this has been an ongoing discussion of um my conflict in representing uh the defense that Mr Smith wants to present. Um I know we've had this discussion a few times.
I think at this point, if he's not hiring a private attorney, I would ask that he consider representing himself going forward. um if he's going to present the right to travel to Pence. Mr Smith, how would you like to proceed in this case?
You certainly have a right to have an attorney. As we've discussed before, attorneys are bound by their ethical obligations to the court and to the bar association and can't do certain things um including file motions that are uh frivolous, vexacious, etc. Um, what I'm hearing is that Miss Hamilton is in somewhat of that position in relation to your case.
So, uh, knowing that you have a right to have an attorney, the right is not absolute in terms of, uh, requiring an attorney to be, uh, a mouthpiece, if you will. Um, so, how are you wanting to proceed? Well, um, your honor, um, due to my financial hardship status, um, I'm unable to afford, um, really many any attorneys at all.
I've tried to look into it and the most I can get is legal advice and it's um it's hard to gather a um a mutual understanding as far as rights and the constitution goes. Um and it's not I'm not trying to to blame anyone for that or anything. It's just uh the way things are.
Um when when I don't have the the legal counsel to properly educate and advocate me in the rights and the um logistics of the legal structure, um I'm I'm kind of a deer in headlights. I mean, I don't know the proper procedures or my options or um any of that kind of thing. So, um, with that said, I guess I mean I I've I'm unable to afford an attorney and I can't really find anyone that would step up and and represent me for free.
So, um, I'm not sure if how how to proceed, honestly. Well, then that should be the first indicator that you should just stick with your attorney and let her represent you. And if she tells you that your right to travel defense is a bunch of [ __ ] then maybe you should also just believe her and drop the whole laws don't apply to me defense.
So you have an attorney who is willing to represent you for free. However, what I'm hearing is that what you are asking her to do, she believes would be unethical on her part. So, if you persist in requesting that of her, asking her to do something that she thinks would be in violation of the oath that she took, that puts her in a position where she's going to have to move to withdraw from your case.
I understand. If that happens, you're not guaranteed to have another attorney be appointed to represent you. You certainly maintain the right to have an attorney, but not to have unlimited attorneys at no cost.
One of the factors that the court needs to consider, if we were to get to that point, I'm not necessarily at that point at this moment. If we were to get to that point, one of the factors that a court needs to consider in determining whether appointing alternative defense council is appropriate is the degree to which the defendants's uh actions or inactions caused the conflict. What I'm hearing is that that might be at play.
I'm not moving into a full burger hearing, which is the type of hearing where we clear the courtroom and attorney client privilege information may be divulged. We're not having that hearing. But I want to remind you that the ethical obligations that Miss Hamilton has are the same ethical obligations that all attorneys have.
So, if Miss Hamilton is experiencing an ethical situation with what you're asking her to do, it is likely, can't guarantee it, but it is likely that other attorneys will have that same conflict. I understand. So, knowing that, what do you want to do in your case?
You don't have to have an attorney, although you have a right to. If not, then you're going to be advocating for yourself and you're going to be held to the same legal standards as a licensed attorney. So depending upon what happens with motions practice or motions hearings, you may or may not be able to do the things that you are asking your attorney to do.
Okay. Um, honestly, your honor, I'm I'm not trying to to pressure her into any unethical type of situation at all. Um, I understand that the situation and I respect her her standings on it.
Um, so I'm not trying to to push that as an issue. Um, I'm trying to simply just exercise my rights. Um, and as far as my understanding, it's it's there's a there's a conflict there or some type of misunderstanding that that um I'm not I'm not sure how else to to clear up if I don't have the, you know, the legal counsel to properly adise advise me and advocate me.
Well, she is properly advising you and advocating for you. You just didn't like what she had to say because you're convinced the jackass on the internet who told you that you have a right to travel is more knowledgeable than the attorney who went to law school. Maybe you should consult with the win-loss record of sovereign citizens in court before making the decision to aband well.
It sounds like Miss Hamilton has advised you within the context in the confines of her ethical obligations. I'm not trying to get into attorney client protected information, but what I'm hearing is that she has informed you of what she can and cannot do. You don't have to like it.
Uh if you don't want Miss Hamilton to be your attorney any longer, you can make the request to relieve her of her services. You don't have to do that. But if you and her can't resolve the conflict that you may have, then that's a problem obviously because this is probably the second or third time that we've had this similar conversation and the case is being unduly delayed.
So again, I'm asking you, what do you want to do in this case? Um, I'm I'm to my understanding, it's it's pretty much down to representing myself is what I'm what I'm getting. So, I'm I'm I I think that's my only option.
I I'm like I said, I'm kind of uneducated in this legal process. So, um I'm kind of going off of assumption really. So, what I'm hearing is that you want to relieve Miss Hamilton of her services and you want to represent yourself.
Is that accurate? Um to to a degree, yes. Um, I mean, if if her situation causes her to to not be able to um ethically provide the legal representation, then I I'm I'm I don't think there there would be any other option but for me to for one of us to relieve ourselves of u of being here.
Um, so I I I'll need um I would like to ask the courts for for a little more time just to educate myself and try to get a little better understanding of of what my actual rights are and how I can be protected by those. So before we talk about a continuence, I want to clarify that you are seeking to relieve Miss Hamilton of her services. Is that accurate?
I I feel like I have no other option because she can't provide the uh legal representation. I mean, respectfully, I'm not trying to pressure her, like I said. And you understand that in this case, you have four different counts.
The uh most serious of those in terms of potential penalties is the failure to display proof of insurance. If you were to be convicted of that, you could receive up to a year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000 or both. Do you understand that?
I do. Do you also understand that criminal law is a complicated area and attorneys trained in this field are and can be of assistance in assisting individuals to navigate that? You currently have an attorney.
Um, but there is what I'm hearing is a conflict. You understand that? To an extent.
Yes. Yes, your honor. What do you mean to an extent?
Um, I just [clears throat] I haven't been provided the the reasoning why. I mean, I understand um the technical and ethical standpoints on it, but to to explain it to me to where I understand it um I haven't I haven't been provided that. So, I'm kind of I'm not sure what you mean.
What do you not understand? Um as far as like why why the exercising the freedom to travel would be such a issue, I guess. I mean, it's as far as I understand, it's part of the Constitution that that we're all equally um protected under it.
Oh, yeah. We are all equally protected. All right.
We are equally protected on the right to travel, but not the means. We are protected on the right to legal counsel and the right to self-representation. And most of all, we're equally protected on the right to be held accountable despite our delusional beliefs.
It's called the [ __ ] around and find out doctrine. and you're currently in the [ __ ] around section. Finding out comes at trial.
So right now there's not a motion pending before the court. So I can't give you an advisory opinion. What I can say generally speaking is that the right to travel is not absolute.
The manner and mechanism in which individuals travel is regulated by the state and individuals using the public highways for example public roadways etc are bound by the state in relation to that. Now when we're talking about freedom to travel generally um there is freedom of movement. However, again, the manner in which that occurs, the mechanism by which that occurs, a motor vehicle, for example, public highways, those are all um constitutionally able to be regulated.
And so, individuals using the public highways and public roadways must comply with those rules and regulations, the statutes. So, if an attorney is telling you that they can't file a motion that relates to something along those grounds, um I don't know if that answers your question without giving you an advisory opinion. I'm not I cannot give you an advanced opinion.
Um do you have any other questions? Uh no, your honor, I don't not this time. All right.
So, do you understand the charge, the top charge against you, that maximum potential penalty of up to a year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, you have three other counts with lesser potential penalties. Do you understand that? Yes, sir.
And again, do you understand that you currently have an attorney who is authorized to give you legal advice? I cannot give you legal advice. And this is a complicated area.
If you are representing yourself, then you'll be held to the same standard as a licensed attorney. Do you understand that? Um, not completely.
What don't you understand about being held to that standard of the logistics behind that as far as that's not the same thing. I cannot be your legal instructor. I cannot be a law professor.
Do you understand that if you represent yourself, the standard is the same. Whether or not you know how to do it is a different issue. Yes, I understand.
Do you understand that having an attorney trained in this field which you currently have is of great benefit to someone in this uh situation? Yes. Do you also understand that attorneys cannot behave in a in a manner in which uh it is unethical to file frivolous motions, motions that they know to be contrary to law?
Do you understand that? Yes, your honor. And do you understand that you cannot force an attorney to file a motion that they believe to be contrary to law?
Yes, your honor. They could lose their law license. That's not not my intention.
So, in seeking to relieve Miss Hamilton of her services, do you understand that you have a right to represent yourself? And uh but in so doing, you run the risk of not properly presenting a defense or having a defense that you wish to have um be presented, you run the risk of having that be denied as being unlawful. Do you understand that?
Uh yes, your honor. And do you have any legal training or how far have you gone in school for for legal aspects? I have nothing, your honor.
Oh, this is going to be good. No legal training combined with a belief system that is confidently flawed. That's the recipe for failure in the court system and life in general.
All right. Are you under the influence of any drugs, alcohol, and toxicants, or prescriptions that may affect your judgment? No, your honor.
Do you understand the rights that you have? Um to to an extent yes. Um to a to a personal understanding.
Um I feel like that doesn't really match with the other understandings of the same constitution. So I I wish to to educate myself in any any way I'm feasibly and financially able to. So, when we're talking about the waiver of the right to counsel, do you understand you currently have an attorney, but what I'm hearing is you wish to relieve her of her services because she cannot present ethically the defense that you wish to present.
Correct. All right. Uh, and is that what you want to do?
Yes, your honor. Is anybody forcing you to do that? No, your honor.
Is it your own voluntary choice to a degree? Yes. Well, it either is or is not.
Well, I I do feel slightly pressured into it as far as I I there's no option there. So, um that's really the only option is to relieve her of her public defense duties. I want to make sure that you understand that you maintain the right to have an attorney despite this conversation.
If you either can locate an attorney who can represent you at a cost that you can afford or you hire an attorney or you find a pro bono attorney who can ethically represent you. You keep that right um but just not with Miss Hamilton or the public defender's office. Do you understand that?
Yes, your honor. And so is doing this your own voluntary choice? Yes, your honor.
I find a knowing voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel. Again, noting that if you have an attorney who enters on the case, you're not prohibited from doing that. Um, but they have to obviously be willing to do that.
I will relieve Miss Hamilton of her representation. I want to make sure that you understand a couple of other things. First of all, should we proceed to a motion hearing or to trial, then you have a right to present any um defense or evidence that you wish, provided that it is lawful.
If you're seeking to file a motion, uh I'm hearing illusions to filing motions to dismiss for certain uh allegations of violations of constitutional rights, you need to file a written motion to put the people on notice of what they need to defend against or or uh have a motions hearing about. So, if you're intending to do that, you need to file that in writing and we will schedule a hearing. Any questions about that?
No, your honor. Ultimately, depending upon how things proceed, if we go to trial, for example, you have a right to subpoena witnesses. You would also have a right to cross-examine any witnesses who appear against you, you can present evidence.
You would have um the opportunity to cross-examine any witnesses and compel the appearance at a trial of any witnesses that you may wish to be here by way of a subpoena. If you want to have subpoenas issued, you need to bring the name and address of that person to the court clerk's office. They'll issue the subpoena to you.
you need to make arrangements for that person to be served. This we're talking about is for a trial or if you need their testimony and emotions hearing. Any questions about that?
No, your honor. All right. You also have a right to have discovery in your case.
Your attorney should have discovery already. So, you can make contact with Miss Hamilton to receive your discovery or in lie of doing that will go up to the second floor to the district attorney's office and make a request to the DA's office to receive your discovery. Do you have any questions about that?
No, your honor. All right. How would you like to proceed in your case?
Um I I think I'll I'll I'll go with the um the filing a written motion. No, you'll go with losing in court. All right, guys.
That's the end of today's video. I just wanted to prepare you for what's coming in the next week or so. Our next video is going to be of a dangerous sovereign citizen, Karen, who's going to be put away for a very long time.
Stay tuned for that one. 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.
