EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM EXCESSIVE BAIL, CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT AND TO QUASH BENCH WARRANT
It would be unconscionable for a judicial officer to consider an act of a person, who has never been convicted of any crime, who resides in the State boundaries of Idaho, who entered the Idaho Capitol Building to peacefully talk to elected representatives, during open hours during a legislative session, as a crime. For any person, including an officer of the court, to consider these peaceful constitutionally protected acts as perceived evil is not only unconscionable, but arguably illegal and certainly unlawful.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE
STATE OF IDAHO, AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA
STATE OF IDAHO
Case No.: CR01-20-34189 & CR01-20-34187
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM EXCESSIVE BAIL, CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT AND TO QUASH BENCH WARRANT
Comes now Ammon Bundy demands relief from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishment and to quash bench warrant.
On August 25, 2020, I, Ammon Bundy was falsely arrested for peacefully sitting in the Idaho Capitol building, during open hours, in a public and open room, where no hearing or official activity was taking place. (38)(51)(43)(42) A “Motion to Dismiss” this case is filed with the court and is pending. https://pplsrghts.org/162dedbc-1e01-44bf-9048-2f6558bd838c
On August 26, 2020, (the next day) I was falsely arrested again for peacefully sitting in the Senate Gallery at the Idaho State Capitol Building during open hours, during a Special Legislative Session. Never has any official presented any evidence showing that I was disruptive, disorderly or acting beyond the normal expectation of an individual in the capitol building, and never did I violate the laws of Idaho in anyway. (90)
On March 11, 2021, this court made an “ORDER TO DISMISS” Case No. CR01-20-33897, the second charges. In a hearing the day before the dismissal, State Prosecutor, Whitney Welsh, refused to give the court explanation to why the State wanted the case dismissed.(107) However, Mrs. Welsh understood clearly that on August 26, 2020, I, Ammon Bundy, was illegally trespassed and violently arrested then jailed by State officials, without proper authority. On March 5, 2021, she stated that, based on the information she had obtained, “it was likely that she would be unable to proceed with this case.” Director Reynolds, “agreed”.(84)
On March 15, 2021, after a long 202 days from my first arrest,(131) Aaron Schmidt and myself promptly attempted to enter the Ada County Courthouse at 200 W. Front St. Boise, Idaho to begin our Jury trial and we were not permitted.(121a) Several armed guards in uniform working for Ada County blocked the doors and would not allow us to enter the courthouse. After persisting at the courthouse doors for over two hours, peacefully demanding the guards to let us in, approximately ten Ada County Sheriff Deputies arrested both Aaron and I for “Failure to Appear” to our trial.(121)(122) They forcefully drug us past the armed guards at the doors and into Ada County Courthouse, at which point they transported us to the Ada County Jail and held us each with a $10,000 bond. Note: When speaking with a seasoned bail bondsman, she affirmatively said, “I have never seen a $10,000 bond for a misdemeanor trespassing charge”. (122a)
In the Ada County Jail, Aaron and I were placed into concrete jail cells at an unusual low temperature with no option to bail out. We spent that day, the night and part of the next day in extremely miserable conditions.
Aaron Von Schmidt, who was arrested with Bundy at the courthouse on Mar. 15, describes the way he and Bundy were treated at the Ada County jail. He said their jackets, shoes, and socks were removed, and they were placed in concrete cells that have concrete slab beds with no mattress, no blanket, no pillow, no toilet paper, no soap, and no cup for drinking water from the sink. The temperature in the cells was turned down to what he described as “the 50’s” overnight, the lights were left on, and officers either banging on the door or opening and slamming the door every 15 minutes. No food was provided except a Ziplock bag of bread and cheese thrown into the cell in the early hours of the morning, meaning the prisoners had gone nearly 18 hours without food. Schmidt reported that his feet had turned blue and sleep was impossible due to no way to get warm and the constant harassment of the officers at the cell room door. https://trueidahonews.com/ktvb-in-boise-accused-of-biased-and-false-reporting/
Immediately after entering Ada County Jail, I was put into the “coldbox” (a term the jailers use to describe the jail cells that Aaron and I were placed into). Only minutes later, four or five Ada County Sheriff Deputies came into the jail cell, body slammed me on the concrete floor, forcefully stripped me of my clothing down to my undergarments and left me in the cell with only thin underwear covering my private parts. This included taking my socks. The floor was extremely cold for bare feet and the concrete was too cold to sit on. In time, someone tossed my jeans through the food-port and I put them on. The concrete cell was very cold and for the next thirty plus hours, Aaron and I suffered from the cold, hunger and sleep deprivation. The floor was too cold to stand with bare feet for very long and the concrete slab bed was too cold to lay on for more than a few minutes. Also, I was never given the option to bail out or communicate with anyone until after the arraignment the next day. Multiple times I asked for a phone to call an attorney and was ignored and denied. Very similar treatment was afforded me the two previous times I was arrested at the Idaho Capitol Building in August and taken to the Ada County Jail. Each time I was put into that exact same “coldbox” for many hours and treated with contempt. In total I have suffered approximately sixty-five (65) hours in Ada County Jail since August and have never been convicted of any crime.
On April 8, 2021, I went to the Idaho Capitol Building to discuss these matters of abuse and political targeting with my elected representatives, Judy Boyle, Dorothy Moon, and Senator Steven Thayne. I was already downtown meeting with an attorney and knowing that the legislature was in session, I took the opportunity to see if I could talk to each of these legislators about my situation. Needing to use the bathroom, I entered the second-floor east side and walked past two Idaho State Police Troopers. When I came out, several Idaho State Police Troopers surrounded me and forced handcuffs on me. Multiple times I asked the Troopers to tell me by what authority they are arresting me. They ignored my inquiry and would not state their authority.
Due to the second trespass case being dismissed (because the Director of Administration, Keith Reynolds and Blake Higley did not have proper authority) I knew that the ISP Troopers authority to arrest could not derive from those charges. Also, knowing that the first trespass case was pending in this court and that I have a right to the presumption of innocence; Also, knowing that I acted peacefully within my rights at the capitol building in August and understanding that Speaker Bedke does not have authority to order a Senate room to be cleared or to authorize an arrest for no good cause; I was confident that the ISP Troopers had no proper authority to arrest me for being at the Idaho Capitol Building during open hours, during a legislative session, to talk to my elected representatives. However, unable to state their authority, the ISP Troopers arrested me anyway.
When I arrived at the Ada County Jail, I demanded again that the ISP Troopers quote the authority in which they arrested me for. Because of my insistence and confidence in challenging the authority, I sensed that the arresting officers became somewhat concerned with their lack of not knowing and therefore they started to communicate by radio about the issue. Nearly thirty minutes went by when (being in the back seat of the trooper’s car), I saw the August 26, 2020 trespass letter, signed by Director Keith Reynolds, pulled up on the Troopers computer screen. This is the letter that has been litigated in this court and references the false authority quoted and used by Director Reynolds and Blake Higley to arrest me on August 26, 2020. The usurped authority referenced in the trespass letter is what caused the second case to be dismissed.(89a) So, once again I demanded that the ISP Troopers quote the authority in which they arrested me on. Trooper M. Vallard said, “By authority of the Director of Administration, Keith Reynolds”. Knowing that the second case was dismissed (Keith Reynold admitted in his own words that he did not have authority to arrest me), I warned the Troopers that the authority they were quoting was not proper and based upon a case that has been dismissed. Both troopers personally chose not to release me but instead booked me into the Ada County Jail anyways.
After bailing out, I hitched a ride back to the Idaho Capitol Building to talk with the legislators in my district. With activity going on in the Senate Chambers, I sat quietly on the bench next to the Chamber entrance. Several minutes went by when Blake Higley with several other ISP Troopers came up to me and said, “So, round two huh”. He then said, “You are under arrest”. I asked him, “by what authority is he arresting me under?” He then picked up his phone, dialed someone and walked across the rotunda so I could not hear his conversation. He talked for several minutes, after hanging up, he walked back over to me and said, “I don’t have to have authority”. He then motioned the troopers to arrest me. After forcing handcuffs on me, they transported me to the Ada County Jail.(122a)
On April 2, 2021, during a status hearing, this court ordered the parties in this case to mediation, scheduled for April 26, 2021. (124) On April 9, 2021, Ada County Prosecutor, Whitney Welsh, filed a surprise “MOTION TO MOVE TRIAL DATE”. In the motion she writes, “The State can be ready to proceed [to trial] with 3 days’ notice”.(125) On the same day, April 9, 2021, this court held a secret hearing (with the prosecutors), revoked my bond and issued a bench warrant for my arrest.
On March 16, 2021, this court issued a PRE-TRIAL RELEASE ORDER, listing myself, AMMON EDWARD BUNDY as the defendant. The conditions of release are listed,
- Commit no new crimes;
- Attend all court appearances;
- Notify the court of any changes of address or phone number within 24 hours;
- Comply with all court orders previously issued in this case including but not limited to wearing of court approved mask covering the nose and mouth while entering into and remaining inside the courthouse as well as in person participation in a court proceeding or court business; and
- Comply with the booking process.
The Release Order further states, “Should the Defendant willfully fail to comply with any or all of the above-stated conditions, the court, upon good cause, may forfeit any previously posted bail and/or revoke the Defendant’s release and hold the Defendant without bond until completion of the case…”(127)
At no time did I, Ammon Bundy, agree to any of the Release Order conditions and to date several of the listed release conditions are moot and confidently should be ruled as violations of the Defendants rights. However, the facts stand as:
- No new or old crimes have been committed by “the Defendant”. If the August trespass charges are being considered by the State or this Court as old crimes committed by “the Defendant”, then I remind the court that I have not been convicted by a jury of any of the charges and therefore must be presumed innocent. If my going to the Idaho Capitol Building on April 8, 2021 is being considered a “new crimes”, then I again remind this Court and the State that I have not been convicted by a jury of any of the charges and therefore demand presumption of innocence.
- To date “the Defendant” has attended all court appearances.
- To date “the Defendant” has not changed address or phone number.
- Since the order, “the Defendant” has complied with all court orders previously issued in this case including but not limited to wearing of court approved mask covering the nose and mouth while entering into and remaining inside the courthouse as well as in person participation in a court proceeding or court business. I, Ammon Bundy, have no intention of complying with this section of the order because of my belief and conscience if the occasion arises, but since the order date, no in-person court preceding has been ordered.
- Since the order, “the Defendant” has complied with the booking process.
In order for a crime or public offense to be legally committed in Idaho a person must be convicted. Idaho Code defines crime in Title 18, Chapter 1(underline added):
18-109. DEFINITION OF CRIME. A crime or public offense is an act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it, and to which is annexed, upon conviction, either of the following punishments:
4. Removal from office; or
5. Disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit in this state.(129)
It would be unconscionable for a judicial officer to consider an act of a person who has never been convicted of any crime, who resides in the State boundaries of Idaho, who entered the Idaho Capitol Building to peacefully talk to elected representatives during open hours, during a the legislative session, as a crime. For any person, including an officer of the court, to consider these peaceful constitutionally protected acts as perceived evil is not only unconscionable, but arguably illegal and certainly unlawful.
No new crime has been committed because of my entering into the Idaho Capitol Building and no other release condition has been defied either. Therefore, the terms of release have not been violated and on those grounds the bench warrant should be quashed and the bond reinstated.
However, from the first time I was arrested at the Idaho Capitol Building in August, the zealous act of several Idaho State Officials improperly applying the Idaho trespass statute is discriminating and a suppression of free speech.(37a-i)(38a)(36)
In Broadrick, the Supreme Court observed that, “It remains a ‘matter of no little difficulty’ to determine when a law may properly be held void on its face and when ‘such summary action’ is inappropriate. Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615, 93 S. Ct. 2908, 2917, 37 L. Ed. 2d 830 (1973) Further the Supreme Court observed that, “The consequence of our departure from traditional rules of standing in the First Amendment area is that any enforcement of a statute thus placed at issue is totally forbidden until and unless a limiting construction or partial invalidation so narrows it as to remove the seeming threat or deterrence to constitutionally protected expression.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613, 93 S. Ct. 2908, 2916, 37 L. Ed. 2d 830 (1973) In this case, because of the location, times and situation, the threat to deterring constitutionally protected expression is in its extreme. My expression of free speech was in the Idaho Capitol Building, it was during normal hours, it was in an open public room with no official proceeding taking place and at no time was my conduct threatening, disruptive or unpeaceful.
Justice WHITE continues in the opinion of the Court by stating that, “So, if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 611, 93 S. Ct. 2908, 2915, 37 L. Ed. 2d 830 (1973) It is my opinion that this court is disregarding the Constitution to benefit certain Idaho State officials who have been misapplying the law.
Continuing, Justice WHITE writes, “It has long been recognized that the First Amendment needs breathing space and that statutes attempting to restrict or burden the exercise of First Amendment rights must be narrowly drawn and represent a considered legislative judgment that a particular mode of expression has to give way to other compelling needs of society”. Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 611–12, 93 S. Ct. 2908, 2915–16, 37 L. Ed. 2d 830 (1973) Being arrested for quietly and peacefully sitting in a chair, during open hours, after a public meeting was put at ease (then moved to another room), is certainly not giving the First Amendment “breathing space”. I believe the Supreme Court would agree that nowhere was my “particular mode of expression” at the capitol building not “giving way to compelling needs of society”. No legislative procedure was disrupted because of my free expression towards the way the People of Idaho were being treated by State Officials. I have tried desperately to inform this court that I acted peacefully and within my rights, this court has not given any relief but instead has continued to compound the jeopardy upon me.
In Broadrick, the Supreme Justice continues, “As a corollary, the Court has altered its traditional rules of standing to permit—in the First Amendment area—‘attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with the requisite narrow specificity. Litigants, therefore, are permitted to challenge a statute not because their own rights of free expression are violated, but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statute's very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 611–12, 93 S. Ct. 2908, 2915–16, 37 L. Ed. 2d 830 (1973) This motion is not intended to challenge the statutes at this time, but Justice WHITE in the court’s opinion is clear that the misuse and enforcement of statue can “cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression”. I would proffer that no case in Idaho history has more potential to chill free expression of speech in public spaces than this case.
Further, in the Supreme Court Opinion on Broadrick it reads, “Equally important, overbreadth claims, if entertained at all, have been curtailed when invoked against ordinary criminal laws that are sought to be applied to protected conduct. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed.1213 (1940), Jesse Cantwell, a Jehovah's Witness, was convicted of common-law breach of the peace for playing a phonograph record attacking the Catholic Church before two Catholic men on a new Haven street. The Court reversed the judgment affirming Cantwell's conviction, but only on the ground that his conduct, ‘considered in the light of the constitutional guarantees,’ could not be punished under ‘the common law offense in question’.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613–14, 93 S. Ct. 2908, 2917, 37 L. Ed. 2d 830 (1973) The court acknowledging the misapplication and unmet elements of the Idaho trespass statute, should be enough to end the unusual abuse to myself and Aaron Schmidt in this case. However, if the abuse of the law is not enough then, “on grounds that [our] conduct, considering in the light of constitutional guarantees” should be sufficient to end our pre-convicted punishments under the law.
The State has no evidence that will prove I committed an old or new crime at any time I was present at the Idaho Capitol Building. I have never been convicted of a crime in the State of Idaho. Therefore, I have not violated the condition of release. Aaron Schmidt and myself have suffered cruel and unusual punishment multiple times while in the custody of the State, to the point of being forcefully gang stripped to my underwear and left in a cold jail cell for over thirty hours. A Motion to Dismiss is pending with the court that should clearly establish the need to dismiss this case on the same grounds that the second case was dismissed. The action of State Officials and the enforcements of this court in this case, has and will continue to “cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression”.
Therefore, I, Ammon Bundy, demand relief from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishment and to quash bench warrant.
Filed April 12, 2021
For More Info: https://pplsrghts.org/162dedbc-1e01-44bf-9048-2f6558bd838c
(131) AMMON BUND - NOTICE OF FORESEEN SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS VIOLATION AND NOT TO LEAVE THE COURT FOR APPEAL- Ammon Bundy
Apr 12, 2021
Apr 12, 2021
800 E LOCUST ST.
EMMETT, ID. 83617
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA
STATE OF IDAHO
Case No.: CR01-20-34189 & CR01-20-33897
NOTICE OF FORESEEN SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS VIOLATION AND NOT TO LEAVE THE COURT FOR APPEAL
Ammon Bundy, hereby respectfully gives notice to the court of foreseen speedy trial rights violation and informs the court that he has NOT joined any motion or request to leave the court. He demands that his right to fair and speedy trial be afforded according to State and U.S Constitutions and outlined by Idaho State Statue.
On October 26th 2020 a DEMAND FOR SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL BY JURY was filed with the court. It appears that my accusers (plaintiff) filed a response to this objection on the 3rd day of November (one day late from the court’s deadline). On November 24, 2020 the court heard arguments on the motion and on December 21, 2020 the court ordered “an in-person jury trial be held for the Defendant (the accused) case.” On December 23, 2020 a Status Conference was held, wherein the court set a trial date of March 15, 2021. After I made the argument that a March15th trial would be a violation of my speedy trial right, Magistrate Judge David D.
Manweiler said, “Well first of all you have a statutory right to speedy trial and a Constitutional right to speedy trial. In Idaho, you are correct, statutory speedy trial is 180 days from the date of entry of your not guilty plea. Which in your case was on October 8th, which in the court’s calculation would make your speedy trial, the 180 day, to be, April five 2021. You're also correct that the Idaho Supreme Court has suspended the speedy trial, a provision, statutory provision by, by its order, uh and have also suspended jury trials at least through February. So, I can’t set anything until March.” When asked, “How do you suspend someone’s rights? Judge Manweiler, then, shook his head and shrugged his shoulders as if it did not matter to him or as if he did not have a choice to not violate my right to a speedy trial. Later Judge Manweiler said, “Speedy trial calculation does not start until the date of your entry of not guilty plea. If you will recall at your arraignment, I asked what your plea was, you refused to uh, to uh, enter a plea, I entered not guilty pleas for you, on that, on your behalf for you at that time.” Judge Manweiler a few moments later says, “Secondly, if you do feel your rights have been violated, uh, you can (shrugging and shaking his head again) take that up with the higher court.”
As an accused person being in jeopardy by the state for over 127 days now, it is seeming disingenuous for Judge Manweiler, in his own way to say, sorry, take it up with someone else, not my problem. However, disingenuous or not, during the status conference on November 23, 2020, Judge Manweiler made at least one statutory error and multiple Constitutional errors as it applies to Idahoan’s speedy trial rights. I will address the statutory error first.
As noted by Judge Manweiler, Idaho Statute 19-3501(3) reads,
The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, must order the prosecution or indictment to be dismissed, in the following cases: (3) If a defendant, whose trial has not been postponed upon his application, is not brought to trial within six (6) months from the date that the defendant was arraigned before the court in which the indictment is found.
180 days from my arraignment date is April 6th 2021 and Judge Manweiler uses Idaho State Statute 19-3501(3) as the reason the court calculated my speedy trial to April 5th 2021. This calculation would be correct if 19-3501(3) was the only Idaho statute defining what Idaho speedy trial is. However, 19-3501(3) is not the only Idaho statute defining speedy trial. Idaho Statute 19-3501(2) starts the speedy trial clock “from the date that the information is filed with the court.” During the status conference on December 23, 2020 Judge Manweiler references the “Affidavit of Probable Cause” filed with the court on August 28, 2020. This would require my speedy trial to be held on or before February 24th 2021. As I have asserted in every preceding and motion in this case, I demand my right to a fair and speedy trial. Idaho law affords me the right to trial on or before February 24th2021, the people of Idaho expect the court to respect Idaho law and all rights belonging to them should rightfully be afforded by the court.
Secondly, the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a speedy trial by an "impartial jury." This means that a criminal defendant must be brought to trial for his or her alleged crimes within a reasonably short time after arrest, and that before being convicted of most crimes, the defendant has a constitutional right to be tried by a jury, which must find the defendant guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." A "speedy" trial basically means that the defendant is tried for the alleged crimes within a reasonable time after being arrested. Although Idaho has laws that set forth the time in which a trial must take place after charges are filed (as referenced above), often the issue of whether or not a trial is, in fact, "speedy" enough under the Sixth Amendment comes down to the circumstances of the case itself, and the reasons for any delays. In the most extreme situations, when a court determines that the delay between arrest and trial was unreasonable and prejudicial to the defendant, the court dismisses the case altogether.
The U.S. Constitution does not define exactly what is "speedy" when deciding whether the trial occurred soon enough. Not surprising there has been a lot of litigation and legislation passed to help determine time limits for a speedy trial. The U.S. Supreme Court provided some guidance in laying out the factors to be considered when trying to determine whether the time to trial was speedy enough.
These factors are:
Length of delay; Reason for the delay; Defendant's assertion of his right; and Prejudice to the defendant.
While the Supreme Court provides some guidance, the Congress and many states have passed laws to provide specific time limits for the trial to occur. The U.S. Congress passed the Speedy Trial Act, which set a time limit of 70 days from the filing date of the indictment unless waived. In California, for instance, the law dictates that a person charged with a felony shall be brought to trial within 60 days and within 30 days for a misdemeanor. (Cal. Penal Code § 1382.) Idaho Statute sets speedy trial within 180 days, even for a misdemeanor.
After comparing the Idaho statute for speedy trial to other states and also the federal rules, it is not hard to see that Idaho is already pushing the Constitutional limits by putting an accused person in jeopardy for a prolonged period of time before affording them a speedy trial. The US Congress published the following words, “The history of the right to a speedy trial and its reception in this country clearly establish that it is one of the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution. So, finding, the Supreme Court held in the 1967 case of Klopfer v. North Carolina that the right to a speedy trial is one of those fundamental liberties that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes applicable to the states.”
I need not remind the court that Idaho State Constitution Article 1, Section 2 declares that “The state of Idaho is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.” For any Judge to set a jury trial 202 days from the time of arrest is a major Constitutional violation and one that the people of Idaho must not allow. This court has done just that! https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-628-speedy-trial-act-1974 http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep386/usrep386213/usrep386213.pdf
Finally, on December14th the Idaho Supreme Court suspended Jury Trials and Grand Jury proceedings INDEFINITELY, using COVID-19 as the excuse.
Here are the official words from the Idaho Supreme Court: "This Court now orders that no jury trial, whether criminal or civil, nor grand jury impanelment proceeding shall commence in Idaho state courts until further order of this Court."
The last time jury trials were suspended in the State of Idaho was...well...never! The last time jury trials were suspended in America was before the United States was established. On July 4, 1776 the people of the American colonies declared independence from the British government including the British courts. This necessary separation was not unwarranted as the authors of the Declaration of Independence outlined in detail. Some of the same abuses that justified the early Americans to provide new guards for their future security are being imposed upon the people today by the Idaho Courts. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world:
- The Idaho Courts have obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing their Assent to the Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. (ISC Article 1, USC 4 & 6 Amendment, IS 19-3501)
- The Idaho Courts have judicially justified the hither swarms of Officers that harass the people and eat out our substance,
- For protecting them by mock Trials, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of this State. (Jack Yantis, Jeanetta Riley, Jesse Quinton, Shane McVaye…) https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/northwest/idaho/article214213739.html
- The Idaho Courts have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution(s)and acknowledged by our laws. (Idaho State Bar, USDOJ, ISP…)
- The Idaho Courts are depriving [the people of Idaho] in many cases, of the benefits [Right] of trial by Jury: https://isc.idaho.gov/EO/FINAL-Order-Re-Commencement-of-Jury-Trials-and-Grand-Jury-Impanelment.pdf
Although, I must admit these accusations seem on their face to be dramatic, but the devil is in the details and as the COVID scare continues, the current and former abuses by the Idaho courts and government are becoming more obvious. As the people become less free they are becoming more aware and willing to consider things that they have not considered before. Including the fallibility and rights infringements of the courts upon the people.
The court has made a statutory error in calculating the speedy trial rights of the accused in Idaho. The act of leaving the court to appeal will further put me in jeopardy and perpetuate the violation of my speedy trial right. Therefore, I do not wish to leave the court to appeal, but instead ask the court to remedy the foreseen violation by scheduling my jury trial on or before February 24th 2021. The Idaho court is violating the U.S. Constitution, Idaho Constitution, Idaho Statute and most importantly the God given liberty of the people of Idaho by indefinitely denying us the right to trial by jury. Therefore, I demand the court to correct this violation immediately.
DATED this 31th Day of December, 2020
The Accused, (Defendant)