Sovereign Citizen WHO Were You Working For When You Drove Here?

Ajouté : 2026-06-03

[00:00:00]We're going to begin the question.

[00:00:02]>> I'm sorry.

[00:00:02]>> Okay. Go ahead. You object.

[00:00:06]>> Shouldn't they say I do hereby solemnly swear so that I know that when they say do hereby that means that they are going to obey that oath from now until they're done judging me. And that it doesn't mean if I say I do solemnly swear that doesn't mean like when you feel like it cuz it does hasn't taken effect. It's like occasionally I do >> that's not a requirement under the law.

[00:00:37]So >> but the word here >> I'll let you make a I'll let you make an additional break at the record or at the additional record at the break but that I'm going to overrule your objection.

[00:00:47]>> Um that's not a requirement under the law. Okay. Thank you.

[00:00:50]>> We can just include it real quick for >> No. Well, I explained previously if you want to make any additional record, sometimes I need to rule during trial, but I'll allow you an additional during the breaks, you can always uh supplement your record. Um, and that additional record will be deemed contemporaneous for the purposes of appeal.

[00:01:07]>> Am I correct though about how the oath takes effect like that?

[00:01:12]>> So, I'm not going to argue back and forth. I've overruled your objections.

[00:01:15]>> Hey guys, welcome back to today's video.

[00:01:18]This is the continuation of yesterday's case involving a sovereign citizen who believes the law doesn't apply to him because he follows God's laws instead.

[00:01:27]Today, we're diving into his jury trial, and let's just say it doesn't go the way he was expecting. The original footage is over 4 hours long and includes a lot of silence and slow moments. So, I've trimmed it down to around an hour of the most important and interesting parts.

[00:01:43]I'll point out throughout the video where certain sections are cut and explain why. Now, the stream picks up about 10 minutes into the pre-trial proceedings where the prosecution is trying to admit some body cam footage and as expected, the defendant immediately objects. So, with that said, let's jump right in.

[00:02:01]>> Then I'll for the admission. Did you want an additional minute to respond?

[00:02:05]Well, >> the truth is that when the first stop was the valid driver the driver's license was valid, the first stop was the driver's license was valid still. It was just the uh automobile that was not compliant.

[00:02:34]Okay, you have about 30 more seconds if you want to add anything else.

[00:02:36]>> It uh it wasn't that my license was revoked or suspended at that time during the first stop. It was valid. I I did not have it on me. I didn't produce it, but I did not lie to those police officers about anything.

[00:02:55]And they and we all did our job.

[00:02:58]>> Okay. And that's why we're here today is to determine whether you're guilty or not guilty. That'll be a fact issue for the jury. Any other issues for the prosecution?

[00:03:06]>> No, your honor.

[00:03:07]>> Okay. And so I have given it's 8:20. We started these argument at 8:08, but then I gave Mr. Velasquez 3 minutes um additional time. Um there was some issues regarding the court's advisement regarding contempt. So um Mr. Velasquez, I'll give you about 10 minutes. If you'd like to make a record on any pre-trial issues, go ahead. And that would be at 8:31. We will um finish your argument.

[00:03:33]Thank you.

[00:03:35]>> Uh well, I'm not I'm not arguing arguing. I just came here uh to make the special appearance and you I had come in. Did anyone tell you I had came and tried to get uh a little more time to prepare? Did anyone tell you that it took me uh a a more than a usual amount of time to get the discovery? And then I had the same issue with uh wanting to um file over with the clerk. I couldn't I couldn't do anything without violating my faith.

[00:04:10]>> That sounds more like an issue on your end. Plenty of Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists have gone through trial proceedings without it ever conflicting with their faith to present a defense or argue their case. So maybe it's your personal belief that laws don't apply to you that's actually causing the problem here. So, um, when when, uh, I couldn't do anything and commit blasphemy at the same time. I mean, I don't see I still don't understand what code we're using.

[00:04:42]What code are we using to make me go against my faith? What law are you or what code are we using to create an an altered version of my name?

[00:04:54]And other than the way it's supposed to be properly written, I I I've I've come here every time. And I if I had more time to prepare, I would I would have better questions for you right now. But I didn't come here to to make accusations. I didn't come here to make arguments. I came here just to clear my name. And that's that's all I ever came here for. And I' I've said the same thing to all the judges. and and maybe I said it I should have come in a different way or said it in a different way or talked to someone privately.

[00:05:28]Um, and I did engage with a bunch of people before anything ever proceeded the first time and tried to to work something out before I became an embarrassment or a belligerent or I I still don't comprehend how I wound up being prosay in Latin when we're reading and writing in English. And if you don't understand Latin and you don't can I ask why we use Latin and English on one document.

[00:06:04]You know, that's that's that's my question. That's I don't have anything against the judicial system or lawyers or um the police. I I haven't hurt anyone. I haven't there's no one coming forward to say that I hurt them and it did anything. Even if it was someone saying um he's uninsured and or whatever, if they were affected by an uninsured driver, that that person is still not coming forward. And I really don't understand how they can be the defendant and the people at the same time. How do they do that?

[00:06:53]I'm confused, but All I can do is ask questions. I'm not here to to poke at people. I'm not here to say, "You need to tell me your personal business. You need to tell me why you were doing this and why you were doing that." I was just I was going to the store to get a part for my mother's dryer. That's the reason I had to get over all the way in that lane is because the appliance store is on that side of the street. I did not know he was behind me until I was in the parking lot out of my car. And at that point, I'm looking back and I'm like, "Okay, what's going on?" I'm trying to get in there before the store closes. That's all I was trying to do. And that store was, if I would went to a different store that was open, I would have got in. That store closed right after 4:30 or 4:00. That's when I was there trying to get that part to fix the dryer, to wash the clothes. I wasn't out working for Domino's Pizza or delivering cement or anything engaged with being employed to to operate and and even at that point I had returned my license like I like I told you many times. So I was not a volunteered um driver. I unvolunteered and said I'll way before it was suspended, I returned the license. And and I and I'm not trying to say uh anything other than I I have never lied to you. I've never made up a story. I was offered a deal and I would I would have to lie and I don't want to go against my faith. So, whatever we have to do, I mean, if you already know that I'm going to lose and I'm going to be taught a lesson and I'm going to spend this long in in jail, you know, then it's never going to be a fair trial. It would be a serious waste of time, you know, and an embarrassment.

[00:08:56]>> At this point, we're well past anything productive being said. I agree that sovereign citizen arguments tend to waste court time and resources, but in the end, the legal system still has to deal with them properly like any other case. you just want to, you know, at this point I I don't have trust or faith in in in moving forward because just based on what I've my interpretation of the you know my it's I don't think it's a wrong interpretation of the of the federal definitions of what driving is, motor vehicle is, you know, a person is.

[00:09:42]I just don't want to. I I am not those.

[00:09:45]I am none of those. And and I don't see how I could be forced to identify as that and forced to sign something that puts me back in commerce. I was staying out of commerce and not interfering with commerce and trying to rebuild my life and make everyone whole in my life and fix everything that the last time I was in court affected.

[00:10:10]And so I'm not trying to avoid justice. I'm not trying to avoid doing what's right at all.

[00:10:20]And I wouldn't I don't think it's I uh revenge does not I uh satisfy me and I've told you from the very beginning that I did not come here to to ruin anybody's life or anybody's day. I just wanted to clear my name um because it's a good name and it's that is really all I have. That's all anyone has. And my reputation is being affected by this and um my mother's health is affected by this, you know.

[00:10:52]But I I I'm not lying to her. I'm not like going home and saying these guys.

[00:10:56]I'm saying the principle of the thing.

[00:10:58]The principle of the thing you're she's doing her job and she believes I've told everybody this. You may never have heard it, but I've told everybody. I know you're doing your job. I know you do good things. I've seen all these people who can't govern themselves and it's dangerous and they need someone. They need to fear the sword that you wield for good reason. And I understand all of that.

[00:11:25]And I wasn't coming to the state and saying you that they owed me anything either. I was just saying I just want to fix my name.

[00:11:32]And they didn't respond, you know. So I had to take it upon myself and not to take the law into my own hands, but to take my life in my own hands and say, "How did I get in this situation? How how did I get in that situation? It's my fault. If anything's wrong with my life in the situations, it's my fault. God is good. God didn't let me down. I'm not depressed. I My life is still full of joy regardless of what goes on." And I'm neutral. I'm not on anyone's side because I have to care about everyone's final destination more than who's right or who's wrong. I can see why they're they they're right. I can see why you're right. And I can see why I'm right. And I I can't understand why the other three men and women in this courtroom can't seem to agree, all seem to agree together, before we bring in the public before my good name gets any more tarnished.

[00:12:46]>> Like I said, we're well past that point.

[00:12:48]And if you're in a courtroom where the judge, the jury, and everyone else is seeing things completely differently than you are, then there's a pretty common saying that fits here. If everyone in the room is seeing it one way, it might be worth considering that you're the one getting it wrong.

[00:13:02]>> I I don't know how to um obtain any proof of a a token of identity or not identity, but just a proof that would prove I'm my faith is harmless to law enforcement in case they encountered me while I was out doing my ministry. I I I seriously have attempted to Um because I understand that it is your occupation to to take care of this country and the people that live here. And >> you have 30 more seconds.

[00:13:41]>> I I I respect that.

[00:13:46]Manto man or however you would take it most respectfully, but I just believe that we are the same. We are the same these these accusations and and my in I don't have the intent.

[00:14:03]I I but I apologize for wasting your time and I apologize that I've took it this far and with both I in the time that I've been in your courtroom, I've seen enough to know that, you know, you do need to stand up like you do and you do need to to do it like you do. But in this one case where a man has done nothing but his his due diligence to try to correct it.

[00:14:36]Um in this one case I'm innocent.

[00:14:41]>> So you have a right to trial. That's why we're here. Um I just I'm going to give you another minute just to make any record cuz you mentioned uh uh that a continuence. So, I want to ask you what that what that those grounds for the continuence is and and then I'll ask for the prosecution's response.

[00:14:56]>> I don't I don't need it. I was just trying to um be more prepared, but really I I I didn't come here to ever cause contra controversy. I just handled it the way that I handled it in honestly and truthfully without, you know, because I am born again. I know firsthand when I was born. I know my uh date of nativity. I know who my father is. I know that I have to, you know, in order to encourage others to have a a a conscience or show them that they're that they can have a conscience that guides their decisions. I have to be a good example for that. And it's not against the government. It's not against the police. It's just against the principle of in my situation.

[00:15:57]I just want to be who God made me to be.

[00:15:59]And I don't understand.

[00:16:02]I I I was just pulled over because I look suspicious. If I didn't look suspicious, if there was a way that the state could make me not look suspicious, I don't think we'd have a problem.

[00:16:13]>> Okay. And then I just want to clarify because your um some of your statements sounded like you wanted to plead guilty today to the charges, but then other statements were saying you're not guilty. So I just want to be clear that you're ready to proceed to trial today or are you asking to plead guilty to the charges? Now, I'm not asking you to violate any of your your morals, but I just need to make sure that that's clear before we're about to go get 18 people to come up here and hear this trial. So, I just want to make sure that that's clear that you're ready to proceed and that um those are just um employees with the court.

[00:16:51]>> Okay. Can I uh I don't know. I would have to lie.

[00:16:56]>> Don't do that. Lying in court is called perjury, and it can lead to additional criminal charges, further damage to your reputation, and the possibility of fines or jail time. Uh it looks like the prosecution is proceeding on three charges and that is driving without a valid driver's license, expired plate, and operating an unassured vehicle.

[00:17:16]And did I is that correct? You proceeding on all three? Okay. Um I'll give 15 minutes for jury selection for each side. So I we went through an extensive record previously about the process for trial. So I'm not going to go over that again. Um but I am going to allow for each side to have 15 minutes to speak to the jury. Um, I'll give each side a two-minute warning once they are in the um for each of the things that you'll be speaking to on those timed.

[00:17:45]So, two-minute warning for the voadier or the jury selection. Um, I'll give 10 minutes for opening. Uh, and I'll give a 1 minute warning for that.

[00:17:56]And then I will give a if we're starting closings before 4:00, I will I think it's a pretty simple case. I'm going to give 10 minutes for closing argument for each side. And again, I'll give it a one minute warning for that. So, for jury selection, you'll exercise um your three permparies. So, you can excuse a jur and I'll explain this as we go forward, but you'll get a do they do you all have seating charts?

[00:18:22]>> No, you're not.

[00:18:22]>> Okay. We'll get you a seating chart. Uh and you'll exercise your permparies with the people that are called the presumptive panel. So, um, if there the one through six, if everyone's happy with one through six, those are the people that are going to be on our jury.

[00:18:35]Um, but each for each perempter, if someone exercise a pmpary, for example, if they kick number six, then number seven will be on our presumptive panel.

[00:18:44]So, you can either accept as situated or use your promptry, we go back and forth until either party has exhausted their prompteries or has um accepted as situated. I can answer questions about that procedure once you see it. Uh and so I think that is the courts.

[00:19:04]Um I do not allow for long speaking objections. So you can say objection hearsay objection expert testimony. If it requires a bench conference then uh you can ask for a bench conference.

[00:19:14]Although if we need to move the trial along I may decline to have a bench conference. What I will tell you is that I at every break I give you an opportunity to make that record as um so that additional record will be deemed contemporaneous from the point that you have u made that objection.

[00:19:32]All right. Are there any questions for the prosecution? I'll give you two minutes for questions.

[00:19:36]>> Not from the people, your honor.

[00:19:37]>> Any questions for Andrew or the defense?

[00:19:43]>> I'll give you two minutes.

[00:19:44]>> When I object, is it a If I object, is it interrupting? No.

[00:19:50]>> So, if there is something that you believe is coming out at trial that you need to object to, you can stand up and say objection. You can then I guess if someone's testifying to something and then the middle of a sentence, you can say objection and then I'll give you a chance. Um, but if I'm ruling on something, we don't interrupt each other or if the if uh the attorneys are speaking, we don't interrupt each other.

[00:20:14]But you are allowed to stand up and say um objection.

[00:20:23]Any other questions? You have about one more minute.

[00:20:26]>> I won't be I didn't get any evidence submitted so I can't submit anything.

[00:20:32]Right.

[00:20:35]>> You this is trial and that's where you would submit your evidence is at trial.

[00:20:39]So you would have to lay the foundation, what we call foundation under the rules of evidence as to the evidence that you would like presented. So you would show a copy of whatever you'd like to provide to the jury and then the prosecution would have a chance to look at it and then if you would have to have a witness with personal knowledge to be able to admit um that document unless there's exceptions like a certified document, there's rules that would allow for that.

[00:21:05]So today is the date that you would present any evidence. So what will happen is once the prosecution has presented their evidence. We talked about the process for trial previously at after they rest that would be the time that you would call any witnesses or you would testify. I would swear you in at that time and I have an advisement for you at that time.

[00:21:23]>> So if I had some printed evidence that I wasn't able to submit for the uh record, I go about >> so >> I could talk about it. I if you want to talk about your evidence um and what you'd like to it it depends on the strategy that you'd have if you want to uh wait to the moment that you can try and admit it. Um ultimately someone has to lay what's called a foundation or the proper foundation for the that it's authenticated and that there's a rule of evidence that would allow for it. So you can attempt to admit it and then it would be there for the record if it's not admitted. But um that's kind of the process.

[00:22:05]>> Okay. So, should I just try it now?

[00:22:08]>> You have to. We're not in trial. Okay.

[00:22:10]Yeah. So, it's during trial. Um, you can show the prosecution and then we can take up at the break after we choose a jury if there's any objections to that.

[00:22:18]Um, but at at this point, we're not in trial. So, trying to submit anything unless it's you have to have a the trial going before.

[00:22:25]>> If I quote something and I know the source, I can quote the source and >> it depends on under the evidence.

[00:22:31]>> Where's that hearsay?

[00:22:33]It depends on if there's an exception to the rule of hearsay or if that's hearsay uh that it's not hearsay. So, we'll just have to wait in trial and then I'll make those rulings. So, now that the pre-trial warm-up is done, it's time to bring the jury in. They move into the standard juror introductions where each person briefly shares a bit about themselves, basically setting the groundwork so both sides can start shaping their ideal panel. The process kicks off with the prosecution and defense introducing themselves first.

[00:23:02]And the defense actually has a pretty funny moment during their intro. Um, so could the parties please stand and introduce yourselves to the jury, please?

[00:23:14]>> Morning. My name is Andrew Reeds. I'm Coleman, and it's our honor to represent the people of the state of Colorado.

[00:23:19]Colorado.

[00:23:20]>> Thank you.

[00:23:23]Good day.

[00:23:24]I am Andrew.

[00:23:28]Um, my middle name is Lawrence.

[00:23:31]The surname of my father that I was issued at my time of birth without my consent is um, blasphemy to my religion.

[00:23:44]>> Well, hello Andrew Lawrence. Blasphemy to my religion. I'm team skeptic and you're an idiot. Next, they move on to each side getting about 10 minutes to question the juror pool. I cut out the prosecution's part because A, they're using a mic that barely picks up half of what's being said, and B, the questions were pretty standard anyway. Things like whether anyone thinks having a driver's license is pointless and why states issue licenses in the first place that I did keep the defense's questioning, though, because it really shows why someone completely uninformed probably shouldn't be representing themselves in a jury trial. questions of everyone.

[00:24:21]I'll need to swear everyone in. And so, please raise your right hand. And do you and each of you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of law to answer truthfully the questions asked by the court or council concerning your services as a juror in this case? If you agree, please say I do. Okay. Thank you.

[00:24:38]All right. Next, we're going to begin the question.

[00:24:41]>> I'm sorry.

[00:24:42]>> Okay. Go ahead. You object.

[00:24:45]Shouldn't they say, "I do hereby solemnly swear so that I know that when they say do hereby," that means that they were going to obey that oath from now until they're done judging me. And that it doesn't mean if I say I do solemnly swear, that doesn't mean like when you feel like it because it does hasn't taken effect. It's like occasionally I do.

[00:25:15]>> That's not a requirement under the law.

[00:25:16]So, >> but the word here >> I'll let you make a I'll let you make an additional break at the record or at the additional record at the break, but that I'm going to overrule your objection.

[00:25:27]>> Um, that's not a requirement under the law. Okay. Thank you.

[00:25:30]>> And just include it real quick for >> No. Well, I explained previously if you want to make an additional record.

[00:25:35]Sometimes I need to rule during trial, but I'll allow you an additional during the breaks. You can always uh supplement your record. Um, and that additional record will be deemed contemporaneous for the purposes of appeal.

[00:25:47]>> Am I correct though about how the oath takes effect like that?

[00:25:51]>> So, I'm not going to argue back and forth. I've overruled your objections.

[00:25:54]>> We might all have a different different definition of driving. Would we all agree to that?

[00:25:59]Like your definition of driving may be different than the code of that the federal regulations of the government uses may be different than your um your definition of it.

[00:26:18]No, nobody agrees with me. Federal definition of driver means any person.

[00:26:24]Was that a man or a woman?

[00:26:26]any person who operates any commercial vehicle. We all said that we drove here, but do you have your log book with you and who did you work for when you drove here? It is commercial. And I know that you think this guy is out there being unsafe or anything like that. No, I'm just a Christian. I'm trying to correct my identity and how people know me. I want them to know me as a an honest truthtelling Christian. And if a driver is a person, I can't identify as that because I'm a man. I'm not a corporation.

[00:27:06]A corporation that would be a confusion of of what I need to define things by.

[00:27:14]Does anybody not believe that we don't need to know the definition of something before we know what we're talking about? The definition of operator C driver is this. So did we get does anybody think that we are now standing on moral ground to where I just defined this or they just defined that it was commercial. That means you're getting paid. you are getting paid as a driver.

[00:27:45]The other what's the other option? If you are driving cattle, you're getting paid to ride that horse.

[00:27:52]But if you're just riding a horse, you're still in control of that horse, but you're not getting paid. If you are driving to the if you are going to the store in your automobile, um, are you getting paid?

[00:28:09]So, are you driving federally or by the state's standards of I agree that everybody who drives a dump truck and all that stuff and is doing a business and is driving on the streets, that's what they need to do. They federally need to have some insurance in case they get in an accident action because they're out there making money.

[00:28:31]They're >> Andrew, you need to make sure you're speaking into the >> federal definitions. I did not make them up. I I didn't write the Bible, but this is their Bible. And I'm and I'm saying if if you're going to make a decision about whether or not I was driving or whether or not I needed insurance, I assure you I have never driven for anybody for at least 10 years. And when I did, I I did pass the test to to and everybody should pass that test to prove that they can so to speak. Have you ever cycle? Have you ever drove a motorcycle? Have you ever ridden a bicycle? Did you ever drive a bicycle? Have you ever ridden a skateboard? If you have a driver's license and it was issued to you by the state, you volunteered to get that.

[00:29:22]Nobody forced you to get that. But you're a driver and you're not getting paid for it. Who are you driving for?

[00:29:30]Who's your employer? Who gave you the right to do it? Who make who made it so that you had to pay for insurance to to to so that you would have to? Oh, I can't. If I don't go to work today, I won't be able to pay my insurance. And if I can't pay my insurance, then I can't operate the car. And if I can't operate the car, then I'm going to lose my job.

[00:29:55]I have insurance because your birth certificate was set up so that if you had an accident, that was an accident.

[00:30:03]>> Andrew, that's your time. Thank you.

[00:30:05]>> Yep. He's in trouble. Normally, you ask jurors questions either as a group or individually, and then wait for their answers. What you definitely don't do is launch into a diet tribe about your own delusional belief system. a te this point the judge excuses the jurors and asks each side whether they'll be making an opening statement >> the the uh the my this is my time right so my my opening statement is uh you know to illustrate the corpus delecti the body of the crime the body material substance of the crime that I committed if I was a driver if I wasn't a driver. Did I commit a crime?

[00:30:52]I wasn't getting paid.

[00:30:59]There would be like the corpse of a murdered man is corpus delecti. There there would be a victim. I would surrender my rights to be a to be a Christian if there was an injured party or if I had damaged someone and made made someone whole to make them whole again. In this case, um, the men's rehea is a guilty mind, a guilty wrongful purpose, a criminal intent.

[00:31:25]Um, you know, really, I was on 44th and I turned on a Kipling and I merged over two lanes to get into Jensen Appliance to get a part for my mother's dryer. But was I driving?

[00:31:46]Did they Did they Did Did they say he was uh Well, they say I was driving badly.

[00:31:55]They'll say I was driving. They'll keep saying it and they'll say the law the law of the state of Colorado, the law, ignorance of the law is to no excuse.

[00:32:05]And the law is pretty easy. Don't hurt anybody.

[00:32:09]Stay on your own property and don't steal anything.

[00:32:13]That's the law. And if you're ignorant of that, there's no excuse. There is no excuse. But if you're ignorant of facts like the definition of driver, that's a fact. That's not an opinion. It's not my opinion.

[00:32:27]Nor did I invented it. It been there for a long, long time.

[00:32:32]they have something else that we have all these Latin terms so that we can decide who's um because you know Latin is a prestigious language. It's not written as Latin.

[00:32:45]It's written like it's English or it there's three kinds of Latin in the the law dictionary. You've got uh congruent Latin and lawyers Latin and then a Latin that's so um confusing that only the oldest lawyer can read it. Only the oldest lawyer can tell you what it is. And that's the definition of it in the in the dictionary for uh that I did not bring. I brought the the Webster's dictionary cuz I figured um God wouldn't um make it so difficult for someone to find their salvation. You know, it you'd need a the words, but if you didn't know the meaning of the words, you'd have to look them up. Otherwise, you might make up your own meanings for those words and your own ideologies and your own superstitions. And you're like, if you leave that house and get in that car and you don't have your driver's license, you're a bad person or you're a bad man or a bad woman or you're you're doing something that's wrong.

[00:33:44]The federal definition of it says that if you are engaged in commerce, you have to have a driver's license.

[00:33:56]Does it say in the federal code of regulations that if you're just going to the store, you have to have a driver's license? You know, people aren't aware that there's there's lots of terms inside the code of federal federal federal regulations like private motor carrier, private motor carrier for hire, private private motor carrier with more than 12 passengers and stuff like that.

[00:34:23]>> Well, unfortunately for you, this isn't a federal case. This is a state case.

[00:34:29]So, those definitions and statutes don't apply to your current situation. Um and and also people don't understand that um you know how how to grammatically read and write English. I have, you know, copies that um from the Chicago Styles Manual 17th edition, which tells you that what an acronym is, what how to write a proper name properly, how to write a corporation, how to write American Sign Language because American Sign Language is written in all capital letters.

[00:35:13]because they don't have any lowercase letters and it's like Latin that they join the words together with like a dash or a period but there is no direct translation between American Sign Language and English those two words if you see American Sign Language and a um English on the same piece of paper like a contract those those those words don't mix together there is no nexus of the mind for for for someone who doesn't speak the other language to sign with full consent and full knowledge that they've fully been disclosed everything if part of it they don't understand but they're just trusting the other person just trusting them some stranger well I I say it is I can read it just fine but this will tell you that that if you wanted to write something in all capital letters.

[00:36:14]The there's an acronym. And if you know what an acronym is, it's like uh NAFTA or UNICEF. You turn a word into uh you turn a a bunch of words of a title into one word and then you write that in all capital letters. and the fact that it's written in all capital letters that is for an English reader to determine um how to decode what this communication is saying the there's with respect to corporations the styles manual this the styles manual tells you how to write everything it is like the Bible or the Webster's dictionary or a law dictionary these are authorized sources that have authority I I I didn't go and say, "I heard this and I heard that." I do not like hearsay. I do not like rumors when a when a you know, everyone pretty much admitted to not being religious. So, I'm going to talk about the religion of Catholicism for a minute because it relates to, you know, uh a baby is born and it has two sponsors, a godmother and a godfather, and they baptize that baby into the religion. And it's like that.

[00:37:30]But did that baby say, "Oh yeah, I want to be a Catholic." Because in my faith, you would have to believe first and then be baptized.

[00:37:42]Because it is not the action that saves you.

[00:37:48]It's the faith. It's the faith that motivates you. It's the belief in, you know, my uncle, if I talk to him about what I think, he he says it's superstition. And that really got me going. It was like, well, how much of what you believe is a superstition when it comes to um not obey not disobeying the law, but obeying the law, you know, and and I I know that I obeyed the law.

[00:38:18]I know that I obeyed the the the the the code of the federal regulations. I know that I I know that I'm not lying to you.

[00:38:27]You you may not believe it, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

[00:38:33]There's no reason for me to come here repeatedly. I've I I've come here and there was a point where um I was going to have to uh go for a competency evaluation and I didn't want to do it. I thought that you know competency evaluation you're asking me to testify against myself. I don't want to do that.

[00:38:54]>> Here one minute.

[00:38:55]>> I do I want to submit myself to a a a medical examination or a scientific scientific experiment? Where's the law?

[00:39:06]Because I'm not I'm not I'm not claiming to be an American. I'm saying that if Americans can enjoy the fifth amendment and not have to testify against themselves, can a Christian in America, not have to testify against themselves, not have to condemn themselves?

[00:39:23]>> Absolutely. The fifth amendment right to remain silent applies to everyone, citizen or non-citizen, religious or atheist. It exists for a reason. you're simply choosing not to exercise it. With that said, the jury was brought back in and now we're getting to the meat and potatoes of the trial. The prosecution's first witness, the officer who conducted the traffic stop. I've cut out the more technical parts of his testimony, but left in the body cam audio that was played in court. All right, officer, if you want to come up here, I can swear you in.

[00:39:58]Please raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do.

[00:40:04]>> Okay. Thank you. And just make sure you're speaking directly into that microphone and that chair is not on wheels, so you have to kind of scoot it.

[00:40:11]The easiest thing to do is just move the microphone back and forth. Thank you.

[00:40:17]All right. And go ahead, your witness.

[00:40:18]>> Thank you, your honor.

[00:40:24]>> Hi, Officer Ree, will you please state your full name and spell your last for the jury? Sure. Uh, Donovan Reits. Uh, Ree TZ.

[00:40:32]>> I object. That's your thing, isn't it?

[00:40:35]>> It is a thumb drive containing a portion of my body worn camera from that interaction.

[00:40:40]>> How do you know that?

[00:40:41]>> I previously reviewed it earlier today.

[00:40:43]Is it a fair and accurate representation of that body warn camera footage?

[00:40:46]>> Correct. You honor permission to admit and publish people's exhibit 3.

[00:40:49]>> Any objection to the admission of exhibit 3?

[00:40:55]>> Sure. I object. It uh makes me it makes me look combative. And the the issue I I thought was whether uh you the accusation is whether I'm driving with a without insurance, not how I'm acting.

[00:41:31]Did you have a problem with how I acted?

[00:41:33]Did you want to write?

[00:41:34]>> So, you you'll have a chance. Yeah, you'll have a chance to ask questions.

[00:41:37]Um, I'm just going to find based on the court's previous ruling, but also that the proper authentication has been laid to authenticate a video. I'm relying on a case um people in interest of MV432 Pacific 3628. It's called a Supreme Court case from 2018. So they've laid the proper what we call authentication foundation and then based on the record there have been previously objections to hearsay but based on the court's understanding of what has been admitted it would be what's called a party opponent uh statements made by Andrew and so I will allow for the admission.

[00:42:11]Thank you.

[00:42:12]>> Thank you honor.

[00:42:14]>> I'm glad we do this.

[00:42:16]>> Are you Why is that?

[00:42:20]Get it all cleared up. Well, because if I need a driver's light, a license plate to move around, then they should give me one cuz I wasn't born. And if I have to get a job and volunteer and use that last name to get one, that makes me a slave.

[00:42:35]>> Okay?

[00:42:36]>> You know, and if I'm their slave, then that's illegal.

[00:42:43]>> Did you take this to mean that the defendant did not have proper registration and driver's plates?

[00:42:47]>> Correct.

[00:42:48]>> Why did you believe that? Just based off of the statements that indicated to me that he did not believe he had to register his vehicle unless it was provided to him by the state or some other entity.

[00:43:00]>> At any point did you ask the defendant if he had a driver's license?

[00:43:03]>> I did. Yes.

[00:43:04]>> And how did he respond? He stated he did not have a driver's license. Like to turn your attention to Mark's people's exhibit 4. This is the other video we showed you earlier this morning.

[00:43:13]Approach honor.

[00:43:14]>> You may.

[00:43:15]>> Thank you.

[00:43:18]uh another segment of my body worn camera from that day's interaction.

[00:43:22]>> How do you know that?

[00:43:23]>> I previously reviewed it.

[00:43:25]>> And is it a fair and accurate representation of that body warn camera interaction?

[00:43:28]>> It is. Yes.

[00:43:29]>> Permission to admit and publish people's exhibit four, your honor.

[00:43:32]>> Any objection for the defense?

[00:43:34]>> You're shaking your head. No. Okay.

[00:43:37]>> Okay. Do you have your license on you?

[00:43:39]>> I don't have a license.

[00:43:40]>> Okay. Will you >> at any point did the defendant produce a license?

[00:43:44]>> No, sir.

[00:43:47]And at any point did you ask the defendant if he had valid and current proof of insurance?

[00:43:51]>> I did. Yes.

[00:43:52]>> And how did he reply?

[00:43:53]>> He stated he did not have any proof of insurance.

[00:43:56]>> Like to turn your attention on to Marcus Peoples at 5. This is the other video we showed you this morning. M to approach your honor.

[00:44:02]>> You may uh another section of my body warn camera.

[00:44:09]>> How do you know that?

[00:44:10]>> I reviewed it this morning.

[00:44:11]>> Is it a fair and accurate representation of that body warn camera?

[00:44:14]>> It is. Yes. Permission to admit and publish people's exhibit 5, your honor.

[00:44:17]>> Um, any objection for the defense?

[00:44:19]>> No.

[00:44:19]>> Okay. People's exhibit 5 will be admitted and the court relies on the previous record as well. Go ahead.

[00:44:25]>> Three, we play people's exhibit 5.

[00:44:32]>> Do you have insurance on your car, sir?

[00:44:34]>> My birth certificate is my insurance.

[00:44:37]>> In the state of Colorado, is a birth certificate valid insurance?

[00:44:40]>> No, sir, it is not.

[00:44:41]>> How do you know that? Uh, pursuant to Colorado statute, anybody operating a motor vehicle on a roadway in Colorado must have valid insurance through an insurance company.

[00:44:51]>> You spoke with the defendant a fair amount on March 26, 2024. Correct.

[00:44:54]>> Yes.

[00:44:56]>> What rationale or arguments did the defendant give as to why he did not need to comply with these laws?

[00:45:01]>> Uh, he repeatedly stated that they were fraudulent. Um, when I issued him the summons for this incident, he stated it was fraudulent as well. Um he denied his um I believe it was his last name as a legal name and that he only identified as a his Christian name of Andrew. Um just various statements along the lines of those. To your understanding, does having a driver's license, proof of insurance, or license plates have anything to do with people's first note rights to religion?

[00:45:30]>> No sir, they do not.

[00:45:31]>> And you've been an officer for how long?

[00:45:33]>> I'm in my eighth year now, sir. And roughly how many tickets have you given for any of those three offenses that were here on today?

[00:45:40]>> Probably in the several hundred, sir.

[00:45:43]>> And were any of those found fraudulent?

[00:45:45]>> No, sir. No further questions for this witness at this time.

[00:45:48]>> Pretty straightforward. He admitted he didn't have a license, insurance, or registration, what I like to call the traveler's trifecta. But with that said, let's take a look at the defense's cross-examination.

[00:46:00]>> Andrew, do you have any questions for this witness? I think we've gone over this before, but I just want to make sure that you're within the bounds of the the rules of evidence. So, it has to be a form of a question and so if you would like to testify, it' be a later point in the trial. You also have to have it relevant to the day in question.

[00:46:20]And so, I'll just give you those. I think I've explained that before, but just make sure you're within the bounds that sometimes when someone's not represented, the type of questions that they ask that could kind of end their cross-examination if they're not within the bounds of evidence. um rules of evidence. So, do you have any questions for this officer?

[00:46:35]>> I do.

[00:46:36]>> Okay.

[00:46:38]>> Good day. It's good to see you again. No hard feelings. And I think >> by the time we got there, we were friends or not friends, but you know, not enemies.

[00:46:49]And uh so, what's your definition of a motor vehicle?

[00:46:55]>> So, it's a vehicle that's self-propelled um driving on any public roadways in the state of Colorado. What's your definition of a driver?

[00:47:04]>> Person in immediate control of the vehicle that's operating the vehicle.

[00:47:07]>> How about an operator?

[00:47:10]>> Roughly the same definition as a driver.

[00:47:12]They're synonymous.

[00:47:14]>> Now, if uh the caliber of your weapon and how many bullets >> objection relevance >> sustained.

[00:47:26]>> Okay. Well, um if if at the time when we had our interaction, if at that time I was a Uber driver with a passenger, would would the charges be different?

[00:47:49]>> Projection relevance.

[00:47:50]>> Would the charges be different? Okay.

[00:47:53]>> Um that what you're asking the officer to do is kind of speculate and we have to focus on on the day in question of what this case is relevant to. So the facts of of this case. So I will sustain that objection.

[00:48:10]>> Okay. Um that day in question, do you have the log book for my employer that I was working for allegedly working for as >> objection speculation and relevance? I'm going to I'll allow for that question.

[00:48:22]Um, go ahead.

[00:48:23]>> Did you Did you obtain any evidence that day that indicated to you that I was employed by somebody at the time that we had our interaction that was paying me money to operate but uh to be in control of that car.

[00:48:50]No sir, I did not.

[00:48:53]>> Um, >> do you think I was surprised when I saw you?

[00:49:02]>> Objection relevance.

[00:49:04]>> I I guess I'll allow for his um his testimony regarding his observations.

[00:49:09]>> In your memory of it and you saw the video and from what you remember, was I surprised when I saw you?

[00:49:16]>> Yes, you did appear surprised. And did you draw your weapon?

[00:49:20]>> Objection. Relevance.

[00:49:22]>> I guess um I don't see the relevance of I I will allow for the question of whether there was a weapon drawn disregarding the circumstances of >> he says I'm I'm I'm like walking away.

[00:49:33]So um and then I read that in your report is that you saw that I was it looked to you like I was not trying to that you know I wasn't listening to you but I wasn't aware of you and at that you know moment is it uh on your call you know you get a warrant for to arrest somebody who's allegedly driving are they dangerous or you know um I just don't I don't uh >> you're going to have to put that in one form one question.

[00:50:10]>> Okay.

[00:50:12]>> You know, I'm not trying I'm not trying to make you look bad. So, um you you let's just go over it. You you you there was no indication that I was working for somebody at the time. And there's uh um the weight of the vehicle would is it considered um commercial by its weight?

[00:50:43]>> No, sir.

[00:50:45]>> Okay.

[00:50:49]I I believe that you believe you're you're telling me the truth and I'm I'm done asking questions.

[00:50:56]>> Yeah, I believe he's telling the truth as well, especially since it was all confirmed by the body cam footage played in court. After the officer finished testifying, the jury was excused so the court could finalize the jury instructions. That's when the defendant decided to jump in again, attempting to argue his quantum grammar, points, and disputing the definitions of terms like person and motor vehicle. Okay. The one other um under the law says driver means every person, including a minor driver under the age of 21 years, who drives or isn't in an actual physical control of a vehicle.

[00:51:31]Um any objection to the court's instructions with this addition for the prosecution?

[00:51:38]No, your honor.

[00:51:39]>> Any objection for the defense to any of the instructions that I've provided um including this new edition? This is I provided you a copy of the instructions previously, but this is a new addition.

[00:51:53]>> Will they be able to see the definition of person and vehicle?

[00:51:59]>> So, there will be a motor vehicle definition. I don't know if there is under the law a definition of person.

[00:52:08]under the Colorado law >> person uh by definition makes it commercial.

[00:52:21]>> I don't think that under Colorado law unless there is the prosecution familiar with a definition of person.

[00:52:30]Let me look at the model jury >> instructions. Yes, >> it's in the Constitution, isn't it?

[00:52:36]Right. The the Colorado Constitution.

[00:52:39]>> You see, I'm looking at 421102 for the definitions under the traffic code. There is not a definition under as far as person.

[00:53:04]It's hard to search the definition of person because there's about in the model jury instructions there is a about 3,500 uses of the term person just in the all the statutes or the law.

[00:53:25]Let me see if I can look it up in the definitions and then under the model jury instructions, I'm looking up the definitions that they've included.

[00:53:48]I'm taking a look I believe um color revised statutes 2-4-41 um might provide a little bit of information here for general statutory interpretation person includes individuals corporations government agencies and other legal entities. So yes while it does include um corporations or government agencies or other entities such as that it also does include individuals in that definition.

[00:54:12]>> Define individuals. So I just there's a definition of person under the homicide statute. Person when referring to the victim of homicide means human being who had been born and was alive at the time of the homicidal act. But I don't see that there is a specific definition of person.

[00:54:30]>> Human being isn't a man or a woman. A human being. I have my Webster's dictionary. Well, despite the tasty ink, maybe you should check a dictionary before you start chewing on the pages because according to Webster's dictionary, a human being is defined as a bipeedal primate mammal, essentially a person. So, that argument doesn't really hold up. I don't I think that that when there's not specific definitions for a um Let me just confirm. I want to make sure that I'm making this clear cuz I just looked up the person's definition under homicide, which I don't think is relevant here.

[00:55:08]>> It's it's going to be >> there's a person for >> the very beginning of the constitution.

[00:55:13]>> Yeah. I I don't see that there's a person definition under the traffic code. So, there's definitions of other um like that means an individual corporation that doesn't make sense for this traffic code. and person includes corporate officers. That doesn't make sense. Um, so I'm if the jury has any questions about the definition of a person, I would direct them to their common knowledge of the the word, but it's not defined under the traffic code.

[00:55:42]So, I'm going to decline to give that.

[00:55:44]Do you have any other objections to these instructions?

[00:55:48]>> I'm I'm trying to track what you just said. So uh under the law there are specific uh definitions that sometimes relate to a specific charge. So in the model jury instructions which are um instructions that are provided to courts of what to do during trial to instruct the jury.

[00:56:06]There is a definition of a persons for controlled substance offenses. This isn't a controlled substance offense.

[00:56:13]There's a definition of person for a homicide offense. This isn't a homicide.

[00:56:17]And I think it would be confusing for the jury if we inserted one of these instructions um that definitions that don't relate to the actual charge. So, I've done a a search into the the traffic offenses and 421102 has some traffic definitions, but none of them apply to the definition of person. So when that happens, then if the jury has questions about what the definition of a person is, then they would be instructed during their deliberations to rely on their common meaning or interpretation of those that word.

[00:56:53]Um do you have any other record on these instructions that you'd like to make?

[00:56:59]These are legal um codes.

[00:57:05]there's going to be a legal definition for it and it's if it's not related to this then why don't we use the person definition instead of leaving my fade up to um something other than what the law or the codes revised statutes >> next voice next voice let's be clear you left your fade up to whatever website you found all this sovereign citizen nonsense on >> we got I understand that but adding corporation to it is going to be confusing to the jury.

[00:57:38]>> Um the other >> that's what it is >> not for this charge. I don't believe it has to be a person. So >> even the general definition of person is a mask. It's a persona. It's something that somebody portrays.

[00:57:56]And so >> I understand your objection. I'm going to overrule your objection. Um do you have any other objections to this these instructions?

[00:58:06]Yes. Because if they can't clearly define what a person is and and it and it takes it away from being commercial, then it I don't think it's accurate for the jury to do that. In all my experience with with the definition of person, it is never if it was a man or woman, it would be interpreted a man or a woman in a state of Colorado wanted to write. If a man or a woman did this, they would write that. But they wanted to write uh write it as person.

[00:58:41]So because it has a it has a meaning. It has a definite meaning and it has the meaning of commercial >> for the prosecution. What's your position? I know you offered that in that definition, but what is your position?

[00:58:56]Your honor, ultimately um we would note that um Chief 4-4-41 does know um the following definitions apply to every statute unless the context otherwise requires. Uh amongst those is a definition for um person in this case it would be um subsection 8 means any individual corporation government or governmental subdivision or agency business trust um estate limited liability company partnership association or other legal entity. I think that's a very long-winded way of saying um that it is just inclusive of individuals. Um I don't think it is necessarily needed. I think the common sense >> it is absolutely needed. This is the law.

[00:59:35]>> Hold on. Are you asking the court to if the prosecution's requesting it, I will include it. Um if but I just need to make clear what the record is. So you're reading me it, but I don't I need to get your position.

[00:59:50]>> Yes. ultimately um the people won't object to inclusion of that just the definition section.

[00:59:58]>> Okay.

[01:00:00]>> What's wrong with the federal definition of it?

[01:00:02]>> Well, you're not facing a federal charge. You're facing a state charge.

[01:00:07]So, the court isn't applying UCCC definitions here, even though those also define a person as an individual. In other words, you're not going to win this case by trying to obscure or debate federal versus state definitions.

[01:00:21]So this is where I think we're opening up things to the request because it's not defined. But if the prosecution is is requesting this instruction, I'll give person means an individual, corporate, business, trust, estate, trust, partnership, associate. But that doesn't make sense under the context of driving.

[01:00:39]That's the part where I'm I'm it's my job to uh make sure that the the jury is is instructed properly. The prosecution has said they don't object to the person, means an individual, corporation, business, trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government or governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal or commercial entity based on that request.

[01:01:02]I'm not going to go into the federal law for a definition of person. Um, so I'm going to decline that request, but the prosecution said they don't object to this person. I think it's confusing to the jury, but it's that if both parties are asking for that definition, then I will um I'll include it. Any other requests for these instructions? Your >> I do um ultimate I do think it actually does create a lot of confusion. I think ultimately people would object to the inclusion of that person um definition there. Um ultimately the it only really presents one piece of relevance which would be the individual but there's a lot of other agencies, divisions, um corporations, associations that are reflected in there and I think it just um >> we're creating needless confusion here.

[01:01:52]>> So a business entity cannot physically drive a vehicle. So I am going to decline to give a definition of person.

[01:02:01]This will be a purpose for appeal if you feel that this was a mistake. I do just find that what is added in this instruction is and that's model jury instruction F268 and it's related to controlled substance offenses. It talks about a business trust in the state. that is not it does not in the common sense definition of what a driver means that a a partnership or a government cannot drive a vehicle.

[01:02:27]So I'm going to find that the if the prosecution has questions of what a person is then they would be directed to their common understanding but I'm going to decline to include the definition of person.

[01:02:41]All right, Andrew, I'm going to give you 5 minutes to make any other argument regarding these instructions and then um we can go to numbering them. So, go ahead. You have till 11 44.

[01:02:58]Well, I'm going to uh object to changing the def that to changing the to a code that's suits your purpose that's or suits their purpose to uh it's ambiguous and misleading.

[01:03:18]>> You basically just laid out exactly what you're trying to argue in this trial.

[01:03:23]Still, the judge isn't going to let things get sidetracked or confuse the jury by entertaining your definition of what a person is. Originally, he said he planned to testify in his own defense, and I was honestly expecting him to take the stand, but after the break, he changed his mind and ultimately decided not to testify.

[01:03:41]>> All right. Thank you. The parties, please be seated. U just um prior to the break, the prosecution rests, keeping in mind the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Defense does not have to present any evidence. Do you wish to call any witnesses?

[01:03:54]>> I have none.

[01:03:55]>> You have none. Okay. So, at this time, does the defense rest?

[01:03:58]>> Resting.

[01:03:59]>> Okay. I'll read the verdicts now. Jury verdict, count one, charge of failure to display proof of insurance. We the jury find the defendant, Andrew Velasquez, guilty of count number one, failure to display proof of insurance. Jury verdict count two, charge of driving without a valid license. We the jury find the defendant Andrew Velasquez guilty of count number two, driving without a valid license. Jury verdict count three, charge of driving with expired plates.

[01:04:23]We the jury find the defendant Andrew Velasquez guilty of count number three, driving with expired license plates.

[01:04:30]Those all three verdicts are signed by the four person. Does anyone wish to have the jury pulled for the prosecution?

[01:04:37]>> Thank you.

[01:04:38]>> For the defense, nope. Okay. Guilty.

[01:04:40]Guilty. And guilty. Now, let's hear what his punishment is.

[01:04:45]>> Apologize for the way things started.

[01:04:48]>> Okay. and it wasn't very becoming of who I want to be seen as.

[01:04:53]>> Okay. Thank you. Do are you still driving then?

[01:04:58]>> You're not driving. Okay. Um, here's here's my concern is, you know, there's there's people just like you that are working a day-to-day job that can have a car that barely runs, are scraping together insurance, and they are going to be in a bad situation if you're driving and you hit them because they might have just insurance if they hit someone. Um, and then someone might be able to not have their their car to get to their job, get their kids to daycare, and they don't have anyone to pay that insurance, that money. Um, and you seem like the type of person that takes into consideration the suffering of others in the world. And if you live by your faith, then you would understand that one of our jobs is to make sure that we don't create suffering in other people.

[01:05:54]So, I think that you have sort of a legal objection at times to having insurance, but I I hope that you understand that that could affect someone that's just like you or a single mother or all of these things. Um, and so I hope that you take that into consideration when you're going forward today because you don't have any no you don't have any prior no proof of insurance. You've already served three days in jail on this case for failure to comply with the competency evaluation.

[01:06:23]So, I'm not going to impose any additional jail. And because you this is your first conviction for no proof of insurance, uh you have a mandatory minimum of a $500 fine. And so, I will impose that mandatory minimum $500 fine in count one. The no ballot operator's license, I will impose a $100 fine. And then count three, the expired plates, that's a $50 fine. So, I am imposing quite a bit of fine on you. Um, but I'm not going to impose any jail at this time. So, you can set up a payment plan.

[01:06:53]Any appeal needs to be filed within 35 days of today's date uh of the court's decisions on this trial. But, I hope that you are able to get your license, abide by the law. I'll tell you that the driving without a valid driver's license does take with it a maximum sentence of 90 days in jail. So, if this pattern continues or if you don't have insurance, there used to be a time in this in this building where someone on a fourth of no proof of insurance, they would get sentenced to a year in jail.

[01:07:22]Um, so these are the legislature has given the court's power to do that, but I hope that you just are licensed and that you have your insurance so that your choices aren't affecting other people. So, um, we can give you that information in just a moment. All right, good luck. Thank you. So that ends with a $650 fine and 3 days in jail, which he already served. All for something that could have been avoided by just having insurance, registration, and a driver's license. You know, the basic stuff most of us already handle without thinking twice that that's the end of the video.

[01:07:57]If you made it this far, thanks for watching. If you haven't seen the first part yet, definitely go check that out because it's got its own dose of sovereign level confusion. If you enjoyed the video, drop a like. If not, hit dislike.