This is going to be a long post, so relax, grab a drink and some popcorn for the show... i met with the assistant prosecutor on Feb 18 and went over my case at the Pretrial Conference. He said I had 90 days to prepare for trial. Since Im representing myself, he told me a lot of the things I need to study, including SC Rules of Criminal Procedure, SC Rules of Evidence, Title 56 (Motor Vehicle Code) and others. I have been diligent in my studies of what he suggested, as well as watching videos by lawyers teaching new lawyers and other constitutional texts and videos. This week in the mornings before work, I have been going to the courthouse watching trials and hoping to watch jury trials to see what really happens, not just in videos. As my own attorney, its important to learn as much as I can as quickly as I can. The assistant prosecutor knew I was there observing and noted that, but later this morning, asked me to come up for a minute. I went up to the podium, and he stated that my trial was today. Right now! I said, WHAT? Its not supposed to be for two more months! Then the Judge jumped in and said the summons was sent to my home address. I told her (Fullbright) that I am only supposed to get mail at my PO box. She insisted that the address on the form was my home address. I told her that the clerk had written the PO box address in at the top of the form, which she saw when she lifted the other papers out of the way. That turned into a pretrial conference. I didnt think to object to the proceeding on the grounds that I had not been served properly. I didnt understand why we were having a pretrial conference when I already had one with Coler, the assistant prosecutor. The judge asked me if I had corrected some or all of the tickets. Because I wanted to save my defense for the jury, I told her that I preferred to not discuss that at this time and explained why. She demanded that I tell her. Again, I objected to telling her and she said that if I didnt tell her, she would charge me with contempt. I explained that I have a Constitutional defense, the inherent, Right to Travel, which is contained in the Right to Liberty. She asked if I had any case law to back that up and I told her I had plenty. I had to be persistent in showing her my Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel booklet (the one the police officer wouldnt look at when I was pulled over). She finally accepted it and asked where I got it. I told her I printed it off the internet and she said that she wouldnt look at it because it doesnt mean anything when printed off the internet. I asked her if the same thing applied if I printed off Title 56 of the Code. She didnt like that question. Next, I explained my other defense. Most of you are going to have a very hard time swallowing what Im about to tell you. If you will STUDY what I say, you will understand what I mean. The judge was unwilling to even consider it and kept telling me that the prosecutor would not let me use it as a defense. Theres something very wrong when a judge predetermines my defense and tells the prosecutor not to accept it. The judge is supposed to be an unbias, impartial referee. Apparently, she doesnt know that, or remember her Oath of Office, or go by the SC Judges Bench Handbook. So here it comes. Get ready. My second defense is: Title 56, the SC Motor Vehicle Code, does not apply to Private South Carolina Citizens. (When you calm down, or quit laughing, continue reading.) Lets go to Title 56, Chapter One, Article One: SECTION 56-1-10. Definitions. (5) State means a state, territory, or possession of the United States and the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. I had the judge read definition (5). She was nice enough to read it quickly and gloss over it. I explained to her that the legal term State was used 386 times in Chapter one alone, and if you read it carefully, there was NO WAY that the term State as defined, could mean the State of South Carolina. State means State is circular. The definition cannot use the subject to define the subject. I had to explain what a territory was. (Read about the NW territories, Alaska and Hawaii that were territories that made a pact with the US government to become States OF THE UNION.) Then I explained to her that South Carolina was and is NOT, a POSSESSION of the United States government. Then I asked her how South Carolina could be a possession of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico??? Instead of staying on point, she started pointing out and reading the definition of Driver. (1) Driver means every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. She asked me if I was driving a vehicle on the public roads. I told her that I was traveling in a private passenger automobile. She then emphasized every person. I told her that it didnt say Natural Person, which is a flesh and blood human and that the word person can mean an individual, company or corporation. (She actually agreed with me on that!). At this point, because I was nervous, since I wasnt expecting to be put on trial, my mouth was very dry. I told the judge that i needed some water and told her that I was nervous so my mouth was dry. She said I would have to wait. I kept telling her I NEEDED water and she kept telling me I would have to wait. I said something to the effect of, So youre telling me I cant have any water? and she said yes. This is NOT rational behavior coming from the bench. During this time, Bob (prosecutor) kept telling her that he was ready to proceed with trial. She asked me if I was ready and I said NO, I didnt even know my trial was set for today, that Bob had told me that I had 90 days from our pretrial conference, so she set the trial for a month from now. He said that he told me that based on the lag time of the court. Somewhere around this time, she asked me if I had been studying what Bob had told me to study. I said, Every day, your Honor. She said that it was going to be enough and did I consult with an attorney. I told her that I couldnt afford an attorney and I didnt qualify for a Public Defender because I made more than the federal guidelines for poverty ($150 per week). She said that she was going to appoint a Public Defender for me. I told her that was fine as long as he didnt represent me, that he was my co-counsel or McKensie Friend. She said she didnt care as long as he would tell me when to do things. I said, Thank you, your Honor, and she said, Dont thank me yet!. I said, Im thanking you for two reasons; 1 - I couldnt get an attorney, and 2- I needed co-counsel. She said she hadnt made up her mind yet about the Public Defender being a co-counsel. Im sure I left out some relevant details, but you get the gist of what happened today. Now I only have 30 days to prepare when I thought I had 60. At least Ill have a helper. Almost went back to jail on contempt because I wanted to save my defense for the jury. Chaz out...
Posted on: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:08:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015