Judge DESTROYS Every Sovereign Citizen Argument Thrown At Him!!! TOTAL Pro Se FAIL!!!

Ajouté : 2026-05-25

[00:00:00]All right, Mr. McCloud, good morning, sir. Morning. We uh we're here for a docket call as well as uh several motions that you filed up um that you noticed up.

[00:00:09]Um one of them does require uh some uh testimony. That was the motion to suppress the chemical test >> [music] >> results.

[00:00:19]Um your filing the motion triggers the prosecutor's burden to uh establish that that search was taken properly.

[00:00:27]Is there any opening statement you want to make, Mr. McCloud, about your motion to suppress the uh chemical test results?

[00:00:35]And you'll have an argument You'll have an opportunity to argue after the testimony as well. Any opening statement you want to make? Well, I just received an email from the from Julie Rotella. I don't know if she's a court administrator or clerk.

[00:00:45]>> She works in the prosecutor's office.

[00:00:47]Okay, I just received an email from her on Friday with the the warrant that was never found in discovery or anywhere. It just turned up Friday magically, I guess. Okay.

[00:00:55]So, I have to open with that. Actually, on that day, uh we were doing a BUI patrol. Other COs notified that there was a boat with uh expired registration.

[00:01:05]Subsequently, uh we found out that the defendant was intoxicated uh while he was operating operating the vessel, uh and that led to the arrest of him. Uh once he had exited the vessel, uh I noticed that he had to use the the post on the dock as uh >> [music] >> for his balance to get out of it. Uh he stumbled and swayed back and forth along the dock uh and up the the ramp of the boat ramp. While talking to him, I observed uh slurred speech. I noticed that it took him about 10 seconds just to put on one uh of the sandals. Uh myself and Officer Listenfeltz, we advised him that he was going to be under arrest for BUI and and asked him to exit the uh vessel that he was in. He refused. Officer Listenfeltz got inside of the the vessel with him.

[00:01:49]Uh the defendant pulled away from Officer Listenfeltz. A scuffle erupted.

[00:01:54]He put his arms in front of him so that way uh he couldn't be caught. Then I pulled out my taser. I took the cartridge off so I could use the drones dry stun option and then finally Officer Wilson was able to pull his right arm behind his back and then handcuff him.

[00:02:08]You met on the motion to suppress the chemical test results, Mr. McCall.

[00:02:14]Well, I've already shown that the warrant's invalid. I'm signing documents that are supposed to be accompanying it.

[00:02:19]So I would I would say that it should be [music] upheld that this this warrant was invalid. It was executed improperly. It was not served on him. It was not given to me by police. It was not found in discovery with three requests.

[00:02:32]So this is very handy that I turned [music] up Friday.

[00:02:36]All right, thank you, Mr. Juliet. Uh just briefly just based on I I understand the court has to make a further validity assessment here on whether the officer did in fact type up a search warrant and serve it on the defendant.

[00:02:49]He certainly had probable cause to uh draw blood. That's common procedure.

[00:02:54]It's not even uses a chemical test.

[00:02:57]Uh the defendant displayed signs of intoxication which led to the arrest for boating under the influence. He refused the chemical test when offered one. Based on the observations of the officer, he had probable cause to uh to submit for a search warrant for blood. He did that. Um he typed out the affidavit and it looks like to me it looks like it's electronically signed.

[00:03:21]Um on defendant's exhibit three he said that he served it on the defendant, left it at the jail. Uh so I would ask the court to deny the defendant's motion.

[00:03:33]All right, well, the uh the [clears throat] motion was to suppress the results of the blood test for alcohol in in Mr. McCall's body because the blood was drawn without a warrant.

[00:03:45]Based upon the officer's testimony in people's exhibit one, uh that blood was in fact taken pursuant to a search warrant issued by a magistrate.

[00:03:55]Uh so therefore it didn't violate the Fourth Amendment. Uh the complaint affidavit and warrant that the defendant's referring to are the charging documents for the issuance of the charge.

[00:04:05]It doesn't have anything to do with the uh drawing of the blood. Uh there was a warrant for the drawing of the blood and it was and it was drawn and uh the officers testified that they did leave the warrant and tabulation and affidavit at the jail for him. Uh whether that got to him or not is frankly immaterial. Even if it didn't, that doesn't invalidate the action of drawing the blood. All right guys, today we're jumping straight into a courtroom packed with sovereign citizen chaos from the very beginning. The defendant walks in armed with multiple motions, complaints about magically appearing warrants, and complete confidence that the court has no authority over him. But once the officer begins describing the boating incident, the entire situation starts looking far worse than the defendant wants everyone to believe.

[00:04:50]Between the stumbling, slurred speech, refusal to cooperate, and physical resistance during arrest, the prosecution builds a strong foundation fast. Then comes the first major courtroom clash when the defendant tries to get the blood evidence suppressed by claiming the warrant was invalid. For a brief [music] moment, he acts like he's uncovered a fatal mistake in the case, but the judge carefully breaks down why the warrant was completely lawful, and why the blood draw remains admissible.

[00:05:17]Just like that, the first major motion crashes and burns. That would violate the Fourth Amendment if it was done without a warrant, but it was done with a warrant.

[00:05:26]>> [music] >> So that motion is is denied. Mr. McCloud, you also have a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds for a probable cause conference not being timely held or validly waived. Any additional argument you want to make on that motion?

[00:05:40]Yeah, the the waiver was supposed to be signed by both parties. That's state law and >> [music] >> and only the prosecuting attorney signed it. and then neither my defense attorney or myself signed it.

[00:05:51]>> [music] >> I'm just curious how that transpired.

[00:05:53]Mr. Juliet. Uh just briefly, I did submit a response to this and I did research the case law in this. But I did confer with district court. It doesn't look like a probable cause conference was held, uh but I did read the case cited by the defendant in his motion that dealt with uh the failure to hold a preliminary examination within the uh the statutory time period.

[00:06:16]Um that doesn't uh warrant dismissing the case. If anything, that would uh call for a remand perhaps to district court. And back to district court.

[00:06:28]But in this case and in the case that I cited, there has to be some showing of prejudice uh by not holding a preliminary exam or probable cause conference by analogy. In this case, there was a preliminary exam that was held and it was bound over by Judge Lisa.

[00:06:45]So, I don't think there could be any prejudice by failing to hold a probable cause conference.

[00:06:52]All right. Yeah. Mr. McCloud, the purpose of the probable cause conference is to see whether somebody wants to run the prelim or waive the prelim to address any bond issues. You were already free. You weren't being held in jail, and you did run the prelim. So, there's even if a probable cause conference wasn't held, >> cause conference is going to stop a lot of those procedures because the probable cause is all hearsay.

[00:07:11]>> No, but but see, probable cause conference, the prosecutor doesn't have to prove probable cause at that hearing.

[00:07:17]They have to prove it at the prelim. The probable cause conference, it's maybe not a great name for it, but that that conference is just to address, are we running a prelim? What issues might there be at the prelim? Should the defendant be released from the jail pending the prelim? But does it not still need to be waived by both parties?

[00:07:36]It does. But the but the fact that it didn't has no prejudice to you. So, uh defendant moves to dismiss the case on the ground the probable cause conference was not timely held and that it was not validly waived. Actually, I already Defendant will I'm making my ruling now, Mr. Defendant relies on People v. Weston involving the failure to timely hold a preliminary examination for an in-custody defendant. This reliance is misplaced, however, in People v.

[00:08:00]Crawford, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the West- Weston remedy must be invoked prior to the preliminary examination being held.

[00:08:08]In any event, Weston did not address probable cause conference, which did not exist at the time. The probable cause conference is to address possible plea negotiations, bond matters, and the scheduling of the preliminary examination.

[00:08:21]Defendant has no show shown no prejudice even if a probable cause conference was never held and not validly waived.

[00:08:28]>> [music] >> Moreover, defendant exercised his right to the preliminary examination.

[00:08:32]Dismissal is an extreme remedy, and defendant has not shown that it is warranted. Accordingly, his motion to dismiss is denied.

[00:08:39]You say I exercised my right to prelim.

[00:08:40]I mean, wasn't that kind of a forced situation under duress and threat of arrest? It's your right to have a prelim, and you exercised it. So, you exercised your right, and it was held.

[00:08:49]So, there's no harm to you. You exercised your right. All right. Now, you filed a second motion to suppress uh based on lack of sufficient basis for law enforcement officer to make contact um I'm not entertaining oral argument on that motion. It's just a repeat motion.

[00:09:09]Defendant moves to suppress evidence and dismiss the case based on a lack of sufficient basis for the law enforcement officer to make contact with him and a lack of evidence of his intoxication or impairment. This motion essentially raises issues that were argued in defendant's first motion to suppress.

[00:09:25]As explained previously, the officer had legitimate grounds to approach defendant based upon his observation of defendant operating a marine vessel with expired registration. Upon initial contact, the officer detected signs of impairment.

[00:09:37][music] Therefore, both his initial contact and his investigation were entirely lawful. Accordingly, defendant's second motion to suppress is denied.

[00:09:46]Mr. McCloud, you also filed a motion to reconsider the the reconsideration.

[00:09:52]That's not [snorts] really authorized in the court rules. I'm not entertaining oral argument on that.

[00:09:57]Defendant moves for reconsideration of this court's recent order denying his motion to reconsider this court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence for an allegedly illegal police contact.

[00:10:07]Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating a palpable error by which the court and the parties have been misled and that a different disposition must result from correction of the error.

[00:10:17]Moreover, a motion for reconsideration which merely presents the same issues ruled on by the court either expressly or by reasonable implication will not granted. [music] Defendant essentially raises the same issues that have already been briefed and argued. Defendant has failed to Now, the hearing shifts into a non-stop procedural war as the defendant starts attacking the probable cause conference, claiming his rights were violated and the case should be dismissed entirely.

[00:10:42]The judge stays patient while repeatedly explaining that none of the alleged errors caused any real prejudice to the defendant at all. Instead of backing down, the arguments become more repetitive and increasingly frustrating to watch. Things escalate even further when the defendant keeps filing motions to reconsider previous denials, essentially asking the judge to rethink decisions that had already been explained multiple times. The courtroom slowly transforms into a cycle of rejected sovereign citizen logic with the judge carefully dismantling each argument one after another. By the end of this section, it becomes painfully obvious that the defendant is relying more on internet theories than actual law and the court is running out of patience quickly. made its burden of demonstrating a palpable error.

[00:11:27]Accordingly, [music] the motion for reconsideration is denied.

[00:11:30]I mean, you're you're failing to notice or recognize the lack of jurisdiction that you have.

[00:11:36]Well, that brings out to you you filed three more things and I want to address those today because today was the motion cut off. So, you've got a motion >> consent to that anymore either. I don't have time to file these motions. Nope.

[00:11:48]Nope, today's the motion cut off. You filed three more. I'm going to hear them today. You have a motion for dismiss to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We've addressed the jurisdiction previously.

[00:11:57]>> You don't have jurisdiction. I already ruled that I did. This motion is denied.

[00:12:02]>> is denied. This court does indeed have subject matter jurisdiction over the charges by law >> order to do and personal jurisdiction. I object.

[00:12:09]Your objection is noted and your motion is denied.

[00:12:12]All right, you filed a motion for disclosure of bonds. I don't even understand what you're talking about in here.

[00:12:18]>> I don't even know if somebody else can do that. What's that? I don't understand.

[00:12:22]You don't understand either? Okay. And that motion is denied. It's it's legally nonsense.

[00:12:28]So, what all this is And Mr. McCloud, you're filing I mean, I'm letting you represent yourself and you're telling you're filing motions that you're telling me today you don't even understand.

[00:12:39]That's not a very responsible way to proceed.

[00:12:42]There's also a motion to recognize your subrogation rights. I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you? Can you explain [music] it to me?

[00:12:48]It's not necessary. I understand. That motion is denied. It again is legally nonsense. Because we just stay the court while I leave to bring this into the Western District Federal Court where it's supposed to be heard.

[00:13:01]These questions that you're answering and having opinions on that you don't have the jurisdiction to answer to.

[00:13:06]I brought that up in several motions and you keep claiming that you do and this is being written in consent decree that you don't. That's manifestly untrue, Mr. McCloud. I mean, the consent decree doesn't mean that you can drive around on a boat from.

[00:13:17]>> [music] >> And if the police catch you doing that, that comes in state court. It doesn't come in federal court.

[00:13:21]>> Aren't you supposed to be an unbiased person in this case? I am unbiased. You may not have been drunk. That will be the for the jury to decide. I'm just saying I have jurisdiction over that allegation. [music] It's not a federal You're You're interpreting the fact that these You're trying to say that I was supposed to notify a member of the American and that's not true.

[00:13:39]That's your interpretation. You're having an opinion. All right, that's fine. Then if I'm wrong, another court can tell me that I'm wrong.

[00:13:43]>> I supposed to state a court so I can take this to the proper court for an opinion on what you're trying to have an opinion on that you're not on that?

[00:13:49]Denied. This final section is where everything completely unravels. The defendant suddenly starts arguing that the court has no jurisdiction at all, files bizarre motions even he admits he doesn't fully understand, and desperately tries to push the case into federal court. The judge openly calls several of the filings legal nonsense, creating some of the most brutal moments of the entire hearing. Even after repeated explanations, the defendant keeps insisting the judge is biased and misunderstanding Native American jurisdiction, but none of it changes the outcome. The judge firmly shuts down every remaining motion and makes it clear this case belongs exactly where it is. In the end, the sovereign citizen strategy collapses under its own weight, leaving behind a courtroom full of failed arguments and wasted motions. If you enjoyed this courtroom breakdown, make sure to like the video, subscribe to the channel, and turn on notifications so you don't miss the next one. We'll see you in the next video.