Defendant Demands Dismissal Due To Religious Beliefs

Added: 2026-06-10

[00:00:02]What's going on? This is Ken. I've got a spicy one. We are in Washington for a Well, it's a traffic hearing. We What makes this one interesting is the defendant here is claiming a religious exemption from Zoom. I don't know if that's a thing. I I also don't know a lot about religion. So, you know, not going to call this guy a liar, but he's kind of a jerk about it. I mean, maybe he has the right to be a jerk if he's being pressured to do something against his religion, but I would absolutely challenge this if I was the judge. And it sounds like the court did. Anyways, I'm Colin Mcoolen. Let's go.

[00:00:37]>> All right. And lastly, we have Andrew Sturgeon.

[00:00:45]>> Hello.

[00:00:46]>> Good morning. Is this Mr. Sturgeon?

[00:00:49]>> Yes.

[00:00:50]>> All right.

[00:00:52]One moment while I pull up your case. So we have speeding too fast for conditions. I'm not showing any prior deferrals. Is that Are you interested in the deferral program?

[00:01:04]>> No.

[00:01:05]>> Okay. So let me pull up your case.

[00:01:15]All right. So speeding too fast for conditions. I've had a chance to review the troopers report. What would you like to tell me about that day?

[00:01:23]>> Um, your honor, before this matter proceeds, I move for immediate dismissal. I object to this hearing going forward because the court is forcing me into a Zoom appearance despite my clearly stated religious objection. I previously informed the court that using Zoom violates my uh sincerely held religious beliefs, and I requested an in-person hearing so that I could appear without being forced to violate my conscience. Um the court has not properly answered or ruled on that religious accommodation request and my other pending motions have also gone unanswered or unresolved. Proceeding today under those um circumstances places me in a position of e of either violating my religious beliefs or being um denied meaningful access to the court. That is not due process. I am appearing under protest only to preserve my rights. I do not consent to this Zoom proceedings. I do not wave my religious objection. I do not wave my pending motions. I object to the court taking any evidence, testimony, or argument before addressing the violation of my religious rights. This is not a minor procedural issue. The court was put on notice that this hearing format burdens my religious conscience. Yet the court is still attempting to proceed without first providing a lawful ruling, written explanation, or meaningful accommodation, forcing me to participate in a process that violates my my faith while ignoring my motions um prejudices my defense and denies me fair access to justice. For these reasons, I respectfully move that this case be dismissed immediately for violation of my religious rights, denial of due process, and failure to rule on my pending motions before attempting to proceed.

[00:03:02]Um, okay. So, I have I'm looking through the court file because I do see a few motions to continue or motions to appear in person and I do believe that the court has already ruled upon those requests um and has denied them. I'm pulling up the looks like Judge Prom Nelson granted your continuance request that was submitted April 20th. it was set over to today. Um, your motion for an in-person hearing was denied and a motion for subpoena. You will need to submit a subpoena for the courts with a signature and pay for service of the officer.

[00:03:44]Um, so it looks like those uh there's already been rulings made on those motions. So I haven't heard anything different from what is written in your motions, particularly one file.

[00:03:56]All right, since he interrupted the judge, I feel like I can. What's weird about this, I don't know if this is just the state of Washington, most court I watch is in Michigan, and you have to agree to be on Zoom. You're essentially waving your right to in person and agreeing to Zoom. Washington must not have that.

[00:04:13]>> Excuse me, I let you speak, so please do not interrupt the court. Um, so I had this the document submitted April 20th uh basically listed out the basis that you cited in court today for the motions. So, I'm going to I haven't heard any change. I'm going to continue the denial of their request. And we are here today for the contested hearing.

[00:04:35]>> So, we can proceed today with the contested hearing.

[00:04:40]>> Is the Is the officer here?

[00:04:42]>> Did you subpoena the officer?

[00:04:45]>> I did subpoena the officer. I have a proof of service and I also um sent that to the uh prosecuting office. Submitted it to the pro prosecuting office. One moment, please.

[00:05:03]Did you subpoena the officer themselves, not just the prosecutor?

[00:05:08]>> I subpoena the officer.

[00:05:11]>> By what service?

[00:05:15]>> In person.

[00:05:16]>> You personally served him?

[00:05:19]>> I I gave it to the um department and they they served on my behalf. That was I was told that was the procedure.

[00:05:27]>> What department? Because right I have so I have a certificate of service that was filed April 24th and it says other for certificate of service but it doesn't indicate what.

[00:05:39]>> Sorry, one second. Let me look.

[00:05:59]My apologies. Um, your honor, I do have a brain injury. So, if you would just give me um an extra additional few seconds to sort through all these documents here.

[00:06:08]>> Thank you.

[00:07:10]Okay. So, I have a certificate of service um that I um served upon trooper Ryan Hawk and I I served it at um the state patrol number 337 district 5 and it was other um but I had given it to the uh and I have it filed as well. Um >> I know I'm looking at it right now. I just my concern is that I don't know who usually when you serve it if you don't serve it upon the actual trooper themselves it would indicate like who you gave it to.

[00:07:47]>> I gave it I gave it to um an officer that was behind the uh behind the desk and I was told that they were going to serve on my behalf >> or I don't know if it was an officer or a clerk. So, I I do see and I see that you filed these things. I'm not trying to um hold you up in any particular way. I just we I I want to make sure that we have everything if the I want to make sure that the service is proper if we're So, my inclination right now is I I my concern is that the proof of service that's filed is not quite clear as to who it was served upon. if it was not served directly upon him.

[00:08:32]I I need some kind of information. Um and I and you did the personal service yourself.

[00:08:42]>> Um yes. So I personally went to the Washington State Patrol to to the correct district. It was his district.

[00:08:48]Um and I believe that I was following all the rules and procedures. Um, I I they would not let me direct access to him. Otherwise, I would have served him personally or if I had a way to get to him personally. And >> generally, you're not supposed to be the one serving them yourselves if it's personal service.

[00:09:06]>> Well, that's that's why I did not serve it myself. I actually gave it to the clerk that was there.

[00:09:11]>> So, then that's not it's substitute service is what that's called. So, if it's substitute service, there needs to be some indication upon who it was served upon. And I understand that it was served upon the office.

[00:09:22]>> But so what this is what I'm going to do.

[00:09:25]>> Um I'm going to try to set this over to a date that's on my calendar.

[00:09:33]Let's see.

[00:09:37]Are you available July 14th at the same time? 9:00.

[00:09:44]>> Yes. Would that be in person? No, it would still be on Zoom. But I what I want you to do is file a valid proof of service upon the officer or the trooper, excuse me, if you wish to. So, it's it's not the the issue is not the subpoena itself.

[00:10:02]It's the proof of service that needs to be filed. So, I don't I can't find that there was valid proof of service for him to be subpoenaed here today.

[00:10:10]>> Okay.

[00:10:11]>> I'm giving you a chance to correct that.

[00:10:15]Okay. Um I am I am willing to do that and um to do that a valid proof of service. Um but I I am requesting a um an in-person hearing because I do believe that that is violating my um religious rights and my religious freedoms.

[00:10:30]>> All right. That has been noted and your object objection stands. The the denial will still um also stand and we will continue this as a um Zoom court hearing. Um Ma'am, respectfully, I am I am Amish.

[00:10:47]So, currently what we are doing is is violating my religious conscience and I believe that that it is violating my right as an American. Um I I'm not trying to delay the process. I'm just trying to uh I I just object to another Zoom hearing. I'm appearing under a protest um that the court has compelled this format. I do not consent to Zoom. I do not wave my religious objection. The court has been placed on notice that Zoom violates my sincerely held religious beliefs. Forcing me to proceed by Zoom places a burden on my religious conscience and denies me meaningful access to the court unless I violate my faith. I move for immediate dismissal.

[00:11:24]The court has ignored or failed to rule on my religious accommodations uh request and my pending motions. Yet is it attempting to proceed anyway that violates my religious rights, due process, and my right to a fair hearing.

[00:11:36]Before anything h happens, I I request that the that the court state on the record why you are denying my religious objection and and explain the legal basis for forcing me to proceed by Zoom despite my objection.

[00:11:51]>> Uh Mr. Sturgeon, the court the previous court has already ruled upon your motions. You had indicated that they have not ruled on any motions whereas the court I just read off to you at the start of this hearing the court's rulings on three separate motions that you had made. court had previously denied your request and it's going to continue to deny your request. Your objection is noted.

[00:12:12]Okay. And that's we're going to proceed to the July 14th.

[00:12:17]>> We're going to set this over to July 14th at 9:00. It will be in Zoom.

[00:12:23]>> And then if you want to file that valid proof of service uh with the court um or if they if you do file that and the trooper still doesn't show, we can proceed then.

[00:12:36]Your honor.

[00:12:38]>> Yes.

[00:12:39]>> I have another objection. I was not driving a 2006 Ford Crown Victoria. So, I object to that.

[00:12:45]>> Okay. We can do that at the contested hearing that you have. You stated that you've subpoenaed the officer. If you subpoena the officer, that kind of puts it in a different category and we need to make sure that we have valid proof of service filed. I'm giving you a chance to fix that.

[00:13:00]>> Okay.

[00:13:01]>> Okay. All right. We'll see you back here on the 14th.

[00:13:06]All right. Yeah, there you go. He's Amish. I I didn't want to spoil in the in the intro to tell you that's what the what it was. I think a lot of people probably assume that. I I'm going to be honest. I didn't know Amish was considered a religion. I thought it was a lifestyle. And I understand it's religious religion based. I didn't know that in itself it was a religion. You learn something every day. And I did look it up. So I I did look it up and yeah, it is considered a religion. So yeah. Um, I going to kind of have to agree with him on this one. I I don't know why they're forcing him to be on Zoom. I I do think that's a little improper if since he since he said he was Amish. I uh Anyways, what what do you guys think?

[00:13:49]You guys think that uh he was right to be a little bit of a jerk on this one?

[00:13:52]Uh yeah, I don't know. You tell me.

[00:13:55]Anyways, you guys have a great rest of your day. Hit the like button if you have not done so already. Also, comment, hype, subscribe, do all those fun things. You know what to do. That's it.

[00:14:02]That's all I got. Till next time. Bye.

[00:14:04]>> Thank you. I believe that should conclude