Judge Rejects Sovereign Citizen Arguments During Court Hearing

Added: 2026-05-16

[00:00:00]Hello everyone and welcome back to today's video. Today we are seeing the return of a previously featured sovereign citizen along with a strict and straightforward judge, Judge Oakley, who many of you appreciate. I could have uploaded this video yesterday like others, but the audio quality was very poor. So, I took extra time to improve it for clearer understanding of what is being said and explained. If you enjoy this effort, please consider liking the video. This edit is meant to help viewers follow the conversation more easily and understand the arguments clearly.

[00:00:31]>> All right. So, Mr. Crusel, you filed a number of motions. I'm going to let you uh pick which one you want to deal with first.

[00:00:36]>> Well, this motion state request process violation.

[00:00:42]>> Okay. Just hold off hold off with the argument. Hold off with the argument.

[00:00:45]The question was, what do you want to start with? Okay. So, you filed something Friday. I took a quick look at it today. Is that any different than the motion to stay that you filed previously? This this is just bringing the fact that all the motions I filed.

[00:00:57]>> Is that a yes or no, Mr. >> Dell?

[00:01:00]All the motions are biased.

[00:01:01]>> Okay, listen to my question. Is it any different than the last motion to stay proceedings you'll be biased?

[00:01:10]>> Okay, give me the just give me what you've added since the last one cuz this one I haven't had a chance to read fully. The first one I read fully.

[00:01:17]>> We told you you're biased. I just had a mistake yesterday telling you didn't give a [ __ ] about what I had to say.

[00:01:23]Hold on. That Listen, Mr. Cazelle, this is going to be a very long day for you if you don't listen to my questions and answer my questions. That was in the original motion to state proceedings.

[00:01:32]I've asked you to give me whatever's new in this motion.

[00:01:36]>> New stuff covers Green telling me to sue the Secretary of State. Sue the Secretary of State rather than addressing the due process violations of my case.

[00:01:43]>> Okay, stop right there.

[00:01:46]How does how is that lead to why this should be stopped today? All of this is stemming from where all of this should have been stopped a while ago. And she said, >> "That's not the way it worked, Mr. Hold on.

[00:01:59]>> Hold on. Hold on." Okay. That's the last time you're going to interrupt me today without a contempt of court charge. Is that clear?

[00:02:09]>> Your honor.

[00:02:10]>> Is that clear?

[00:02:12]>> She answered me this entire time. I No one has made her answer.

[00:02:16]>> One more word in it. Contemptive court.

[00:02:20]It's a $100 of contempt and if I get totally uh fed up with it, then I'm putting you in jail.

[00:02:27]Okay? Just because she and I happen to agree on the law as it applies to your case doesn't mean we're in collusion.

[00:02:34]It's possible that you're wrong. At least accept the possibility that she and I have the same opinion about something. That doesn't mean we're colluding.

[00:02:44]You understand that concept? Do you understand that concept? You're supposed to be impartial.

[00:02:50]>> I am impartial. I've been trying to save you. Just because I agree with the prosecutor doesn't mean I'm against you.

[00:02:56]It just means I agree with the prosecutor.

[00:02:59]>> So it means you you're agreeing that means you guys are lying against us.

[00:03:02]>> So that means in any case when I when I buy the arguments from one side that means I'm colluding against the other.

[00:03:11]>> Yes or no Mr. Crusel?

[00:03:14]No. You have to answer my question.

[00:03:17]Contempt number one, $100. Answer my question.

[00:03:23]Every time I rule in favor of one side, does that mean I'm colluding against the other? Yes or no?

[00:03:29]>> $200.

[00:03:30]Yes or no? Cuz I can do this all damn day. And when I get tired of this game, then I tell them to put you in custody because it's contempt of court. Criminal contempt in my >> See, that wasn't so hard, was it? If a judge agreeing with a prosecutor is called collusion, then by that logic, every time the judge agrees with you, it would also be called collusion. He has already been given two $100 contempt fines, and the hearing is still far from over. The courtroom discussion continues, and the judge is keeping strict control over the process. More rulings and penalties may still come as the hearing moves forward. The situation remains active, and updates are expected as arguments continue in court proceedings. Everything is being recorded carefully for review.

[00:04:13]>> I'm going to deny because that's an unreasonable position you're taking.

[00:04:18]Judges by definition have to decide in favor of one party or the other. That's what we do.

[00:04:25]>> When you made that statement, you were making >> What statement is that?

[00:04:28]>> It was >> I thought we were talking about Judge Green's SOS statement. when you made this statement that you were setting aside saying that you don't you saying that the prosecutor the township and his board all see things the same way setting them outside not even allowing me to make my argument so you were aligning yourself with the prosecution on the argument of my setting it aside Mr. Presselle, what I was doing was aligning myself with the law as I see it and interpret it. Stop. You can't just shake your head. You don't just get disagree with me and move on. If you don't like a ruling from a judge, you have to appeal that ruling. You don't just to keep you don't keep arguing with the ruling. That's not the way the process works. Listen, brother. Listen.

[00:05:08]Listen. I have tried to save you from yourself.

[00:05:14]If you remember the first time you in my courtroom, I tried to get you to see things the way the process was going to move forward because dude, this process is going forward the way I want it to move forward. You might not like that, but I'm in charge of the courtroom. And at the end of the day, if you don't like anything I do, you can appeal me. That's why they have circuit courts. But I'm not going to let you make this a dog and pony show, especially when we've got jurors here.

[00:05:40]>> Dog and pony show. The sport has failed to let me make any of my statements, any of my cases. You even were trying to threaten me with contempt. Anytime I tried >> I am threatening you with contempt on the make.

[00:05:52]>> No. No. Because third contempt, do not interrupt me.

[00:06:03]When I said your objections don't mean [ __ ] to me, is because you were using the word objection inappropriately. you objected every time I disagreed with you. If you have an objection, you have to have a legal basis for the objection.

[00:06:17]For example, she's trying to put a video into evidence and you say, "I object, judge. She hasn't laid a proper foundation because all she said is, "Judge, I've got a video. I'd like to play it for the jury." That's a proper legal objection. When I rule in her favor and you say, "I object." And I say, "What's your objection?" and you just disagree with me. That's not a legal objection. That's why I said your objections mean [ __ ] to me because you're not using the word appropriately >> because you don't know what you're doing. That's what I tried to tell you originally the first time you were here.

[00:06:48]You've never been to law school. You've never tried a case. You don't know the rules of evidence and all the other things that have to be in play to have a trial go forward appropriately.

[00:06:59]>> At this point, when will the judge finally place a bowl of edible highlighters in front of him? The judge is correct. The people who choose to represent themselves without attending law school should think carefully before doing so, especially if they plan to take their case to a jury trial. The rules of evidence and court procedure are complex. In most situations, it rarely works in their favor and can make the process even harder to manage.

[00:07:22]Courts expect formal knowledge of procedure, so preparation is essential.

[00:07:28]>> Okay. All right. So, let's do it this way. Let's do it this way. What motion would you like to address first? The motion to postpone. Denied.

[00:07:35]I'm not denying the jury trial because the jury should not want to wise on the prosecutor to prove those things and regularities.

[00:07:47]>> All right, let me let me stop you for a minute. What do you mean you're not going to proceed? You're here.

[00:07:53]>> Anything question shows that there is enough to show your fault. You need to keep >> once again. You're not answering the question I asked. You just said you will not participate and I am. What do you mean by that? You're fair as well.

[00:08:05]>> I'm not asking you to explain your your reasoning. I want to know what does that mean? I'm not going to pro uh proceed with this. You're here. So, when I impan the jury, what you're just going to sit there, not going to talk. What what does it mean when you say you're not going to participate in both? These things get addressed. All of all of my issues that have been this entire time get excluding people.

[00:08:26]>> Once again, if I deny it, it's been addressed. You might not like the way it's been addressed, but then you have to appeal it.

[00:08:34]>> That was the whole point of being all that objection.

[00:08:37]>> All right. What's your objection? What's your objection to me denying your motion to postpone this trial at the last minute?

[00:08:43]>> Statement like whatever you would like to do from there, you can because I will until these things.

[00:08:48]>> Hold on. Hold on. Is this statement proceeding all these motions you filed?

[00:08:53]>> Okay, then let me make my ruling on all of them. I think there's a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

[00:08:59]Correct.

[00:09:01]Okay. Would you like to respond to that one? Cuz I think that's already been addressed.

[00:09:13]>> Arrested Mr. while 34 district court has jurisdiction over offenses that occur within this township both civil criminal criminals focus.

[00:09:25]>> Did you appeal Judge Green's decision on that motion? I'm prosecuting because I'm actually I'm making any contact in the appeals.

[00:09:32]>> Okay. So, there is no f there's no appeal filed yet. Correct.

[00:09:36]>> All the >> I'll take that as a yes. There's no appeal filed. That motion is denied then. She made the ruling. You don't get to ask me to make the same ruling. Once again, don't interrupt me cuz I can go to four real quick.

[00:09:47]Judge Green, a judge in this court, ruled on that exact motion and denied your motion. That motion has not yet been appealed and it certainly doesn't get appealed to me. Is that clear?

[00:10:00]>> Yes.

[00:10:00]>> Thank you. Next motion. Motion toiction.

[00:10:05]The judge can't just go in here and see.

[00:10:07]>> It was a bit difficult to hear him, but he argued that a judge cannot simply declare that jurisdiction exists.

[00:10:13]However, determining jurisdiction is actually part of a judge's role. This point will be explained further later in the video. The alleged incident happened in the township of Hyron, Michigan. And under state law, this district court has the authority to hear the case based on its geographic and legal jurisdiction.

[00:10:30]The court will proceed based on these legal standards moving forward. Then appeal her to circuit court. A judge made a ruling. You don't get to keep arguing that same motion.

[00:10:41]>> All she said was that judge was setting aside and that I should go sue the secretary of state. The things that she's claiming and saying were never said to me in any reporting. They were submitted to the court. These things were never said to me. And then she comes here and makes these accusations and saying that the judge said this, the judge said that. Fine. Then I'll say the same. I'll say the same thing to you.

[00:11:00]Listen to me here on your motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Denied by me. You can appeal me because the reason she stated the township of Huron issued you a citation. This court has jurisdiction over citations issued by the township of Hiron. So, for that reason, I'm prepared to move forward and adjudicate that citation. Is that clear enough so you can appeal my decision?

[00:11:26]>> Okay. Next one up is motion to reconsider for bias and judicial misconduct denied. Would you like me to clarify that in any way?

[00:11:33]>> Yes, absolutely.

[00:11:34]>> Okay.

[00:11:38]>> Then guess what? The court of appeals can overturn me because I'm not biased to you.

[00:11:44]You might not like the way I talk to you. You might not like the things I say to you, but I'm not biased against you.

[00:11:51]Believe it or not, brother, I would like to save you from what's going to happen today.

[00:11:57]I really would because here's here's my here's my dude. Let me talk.

[00:12:05]You have turned what should be a fairly minor misdemeanor and civil infraction situation into a huge mess.

[00:12:15]it. I don't think it's going to end well for you. I tried to save you from that the first day you were here when I tried to convince you to have some conversation with a court appointed attorney and you didn't want to do all that. I know in my heart of heart, I have no ill feeling towards you whatsoever. And I'm going to give you the best trial I can give you today if if you decide to participate. But I am not going to let you drag things in front of this jury that I determine are not relevant because that's my job as the gatekeeper at the the the judge over the trial. I'm not going to let you get into a bunch of arguments that I think are just going to cloud issues if I don't think they're relevant. That's my job as the judge. Not because I don't like Mr. Crusel. It's because my job for as a judge is to run this trial efficiently and effectively. And I'm going to do that. And if I do that, I anticipate I'm going to step all over your toes and your beliefs.

[00:13:07]But that doesn't mean I don't like you or I have bias against you. So I am denying your motion to recuse myself.

[00:13:14]Anything else you want to put on the record so you can appeal that decision >> once again? Stop. That's an improper use of an objection. What you want to say is I disagree with that. Which is fine.

[00:13:24]That's why you appeal it to the circuit court. But it's not an objection. What's your legal objection to my ruling? fact that you set the frame of >> that's not a legal objection to a ruling.

[00:13:37]That's not a legal objection.

[00:13:40]So that's two motions down. The next one is motion for relief from judgment. I'm assuming that's Judge Martin's decision to set aside your defaults.

[00:13:50]All right. Do you really want me to grant that motion? Because if I grant your motion, that means the default that was set aside defaults that were set aside are reinstated.

[00:14:00]Is that really what you want today?

[00:14:04]>> Well, listen. Do they do this by >> Mr. Cursel? Yes or no? You filed a motion asking me to set aside a decision that was made. Do you really want me to set that decision aside? Because that means those civil infractions are then in default and they're done.

[00:14:19]>> At this point, his limited understanding of legal procedure becomes clear as he objects to nearly every issue raised in court. He even challenges prior decisions, including ones that had previously worked in his favor. A previous judge had already removed certain default judgments against him, meaning they no longer apply. However, he is now asking to reverse those removals, which would effectively bring those judgments back into effect again.

[00:14:44]The court will continue addressing each motion as proceedings move forward.

[00:14:48]>> Do you want me to set aside the default set aides? Do you want me to reinstate those default judgments?

[00:14:56]Then I'll deny that motion.

[00:14:59]All right. You filed something called not notice of constitutional rights, which I didn't see anything where it required me to make any decisions or anything else. You're just letting me know that you're standing on the Constitution.

[00:15:11]So am I. All right. Uh the emergency stay we dealt with. You also file an affidavit of non-consent. You didn't need to file paperwork for me to know you didn't consent with the proceedings, but I got the message there. Was that the only message I was supposed to get out of that document?

[00:15:24]essentially. Yeah.

[00:15:26]>> Okay.

[00:15:27]Prosecutor.

[00:15:28]>> Okay. I don't need a preachy preachy moment. I just wanted to make sure I didn't I wasn't supposed to get anything else out of that affidavit other than you don't like the process that we're involved in. Next thing I had on my list was affidavit of non-conent. Oh, excuse me. Motion for judicial notice. What does that judicial notice of what?

[00:15:44]>> Um certain terms that this prosecutor keeps trying to use imply in this case that are not not the law terminology being used. Why? Okay.

[00:15:55]>> For example, you use motor vehicle.

[00:16:00]>> Okay. Motor vehicles pretty much a term of art in our business.

[00:16:04]>> Law of limits right now being used.

[00:16:07]>> Well, then you can make those arguments, but you can't tell her. She can't use that phrase.

[00:16:14]Yeah. But I'm not the tryer of fact. So, if you want to make an argument to the jury that her use of the term motor vehicle is improper, you can make that argument.

[00:16:24]Is that what you is that what you're concerned about? Is you're not going to be able to make the argument?

[00:16:29]>> Yes.

[00:16:29]>> You get what stuff on the record?

[00:16:31]>> Filings.

[00:16:32]>> Well, I can guarantee you're not getting all these filings on the record cuz the jury has the jury has no reason to know about all your motions.

[00:16:38]>> All of this has to go all everything's taking place. All >> exactly.

[00:16:43]>> No, that's not the way it works, Mr. Cazelle.

[00:16:46]>> That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

[00:16:50]>> No, Mr. Cazelle. All right. Listen, brother. Listen. You don't get to tell me what my job is. I've been doing it for 25 years.

[00:16:58]>> Listen.

[00:16:59]>> Listen. Well, then that's why they have appellet courts for the fourth or fifth time. I decide what this jury gets to see today. I decide. That is by definition the role of the judge at a jury trial. I get to decide what goes in front of that jury. If you don't like the decisions I make, you appeal those decisions. That's the way it works. What this jury has to decide today is whether or not you violated the township ordinance on that date.

[00:17:26]>> That's hold on. None of these legal arguments about whether or not I should recuse myself or whether or not you noticed me up for constitutional rights.

[00:17:35]None of that has to go to that jury and none of it's going to.

[00:17:40]That's why emergency stop motion stop.

[00:17:43]>> I already ruled on that. certain acknowledge my emotions have nothing to do.

[00:17:52]>> Once again, I'm not trying to I'm I'm doing my function as a gatekeeper for a jury trial. I'm deciding what's relevant and what's not. And you can disagree with me that all day long, but we're going to do it once again.

[00:18:05]We're going to do it my way. You can appeal me. I've been appealed before.

[00:18:09]I'll probably be appealed before I retire again. It's okay. That's the way the process is set up. I encourage you to to appeal me. All right. I am I am open-minded enough to think that perhaps my mindset about your your whole travel whole thing that all maybe that's all wrong.

[00:18:28]So, a circuit court judge can tell me I'm wrong.

[00:18:32]But so far, and I've ruled this way a number of time on the traveling issue, nobody's ever appealed me to to lead to a circuit court judge to tell me I'm wrong. But I'm open to that idea.

[00:18:44]said, "Well, you just keep these judges have done the same thing. They just keep setting aside and they act like it doesn't exist, not allow me to make my case, which is violating my my rights to be able to produce my case in my >> What's your case that traveling doesn't mean operating?

[00:19:00]I'm the fact that the sports violated my due process rights in every way and judicial bias."

[00:19:05]>> All right. All right, then appeal me.

[00:19:07]But today, we're having a jury trial. An unlawful jury trial and I'm waiting state record. All right, but hold on a minute. Once again, I want to know what that means. You're not participating.

[00:19:18]>> Not participate in a jury in a trial where there is clear bias in this board against you. It violates my right to a fair trial.

[00:19:27]Why?

[00:19:29]And you want to keep overlooking all I know that makes you seem like they're not a big deal. And >> no, your rights are really big deal.

[00:19:35]>> Obviously not. Because if you can sit there and say that the things that are happening, the things you're saying and just trying to give these excuses all the time on this, you are aligning yourself with the prosecutor. I'm not going to try completely selling his fine. I'm not allowing >> Mr. Pelle. No, I'm not. Listen to me.

[00:19:52]>> No, it's not. Listen to me. Listen to me.

[00:19:56]She could step out of the room and I still think your travel argument is [ __ ] At the time the Constitution was created, there were no cars in existence anywhere in the world, including the newly formed United States. Because of this, some people argue about how modern travel fits into constitutional rights. While certain interpretations recognize a general right to travel, there is no specific constitutional protection that guarantees a right to operate or drive a motor vehicle on public roads. Driving is instead regulated by state law, licensing systems, and road safety rules. traveling in a motorized vehicle that brings all those ordinances into play. That's my legal ruling. Appeal it.

[00:20:35]I encourage you to do that. But that whole traveling argument, which do dude, I've been through that argument a whole lot more than you have. Trust me, in the last 25 years, I've had that argument a lot. Traveling as you try to apply it meant you could not be stopped by the government from walking from one venue to another.

[00:20:56]But when we got motorized, then the rules kicked in.

[00:21:00]>> Just more rulings from the American church permit sites. They literally state that yes, push the ball and including automobiles as long as not interfere with another right to be secure.

[00:21:12]>> Then appeal me. Take that president and appeal me.

[00:21:19]>> Okay, that you're right. I'm not I'm not I'm not trying to stop you from doing any of that stuff.

[00:21:26]I'm just trying to stop you from bogging down this jury with stuff that I've determined is not appropriate today >> because just because you're determined based off of what I thought these things are relevant and they are >> they're relevant to you. They're not relevant to me. I've made the decision.

[00:21:42]I have made the decision. I made that decision months ago and you didn't appeal that >> I mean the process >> which is not an appeal is a is extreme you know bully but in there you can't do that >> absolutely I do that >> 100% >> no listen to me listen to me if I don't hold you to the same standard I hold her to then I'm treating you differently than her how is that unbiased and impartial you've decided to engage yourself in this venue you in >> I'm sorry, but you have repeatedly claimed in several hearings that this court has no jurisdiction over you. If you and your group told me I would be arrested for not appearing in court, I would refuse to accept that. The judge is pointing out that such arguments do not remove the court's authority or obligation to proceed with the case and attendance requirements must still be followed under the law. The judge is also explaining that these claims do not stop legal proceedings from continuing and prior rulings stay valid unless officially changed. All proceedings continue according to standard court procedure and prior rulings remain in effect unless formally changed by the court.

[00:22:49]>> Competent legal counsel. They're still here. There's one right there behind you. He's still ready to help you. You chose to do this yourself. That means you've got to know the court rules.

[00:22:58]You've got to know the statutes and the ordinances. You've got to know the rules of evidence. You And if I help you through those lapses in your knowledge base, that's not fair to the prosecutor.

[00:23:09]then I'm taking sides.

[00:23:12]Now, I'm not going to let her walk all over you and try to trick you because you don't know some of those rules and and statutes. But I am absolutely going to require you to know what you're doing because you've chosen to do it.

[00:23:24]That doesn't show bias.

[00:23:27]That shows impartiality.

[00:23:31]There is no partial and I have >> Once again, Mr. Crusel, that's your opinion.

[00:23:38]No, it's your interpretation of the facts. So, you have to appeal my decisions.

[00:23:44]And look, look, the dude, the fact that you're not in a jail cell right now shows how impartial I am.

[00:23:51]My officer's advice literally pulled up to me, my mother days before any of this even happened and talked to the bus about the dragon. He even told me I was well within my rights. Gave me every every clarification I was well within my lawful rights. This was all of our territory from the beginning. And then even when uh um the chief called me, he even called me trying to to army. And then he goes through the motor people and then he tried to get me to not pursue legal matters and then he's mad at me and then the day that I file for my body cam, I'm getting removed from here on out on a little league.

[00:24:21]>> No, stop. Stop. Hold on. Hold on. I don't doubt that it is, but I think we I think we got into this a little bit the first time you were here and I told you that's not proper for this venue. If you want to complain about the way the uh Heron Township Police Department handled this, there are no you can file a civil law lawsuit against him if you want to.

[00:24:41]But what's in front of me is two civil or one civil infraction and two misdemeanors. That's what's in front of me.

[00:24:49]>> Every time to make my case based the courts keep setting all that up and not allowing me to be >> because I'm going to make I'm going to make decisions based on the facts. That jury hopefully is going to make decisions based on the facts that are presented. I would be facts in this court indeed to not allow me to get my facts >> because the facts you want to get into I what facts you want to get into that the chief had some conversation with you it's not interesting it's not even just that I mean well yeah regardless I have all of that to cover too the fact that my effects based off what I was doing I got to produce any of that it just keeps all getting all just thrown aside every single all and just not even trying to acknowledge any >> So hold on I don't understand hold on you want to be able to you want to be able to testify to this jury.

[00:25:33]>> Oh, I just find you.

[00:25:35]>> Look, I am not fully sure what judicial bias means, but I can say it has not been demonstrated here. There is currently no evidence provided to support such a claim. If real judicial bias existed, the proceedings would likely not continue in this manner or would be formally addressed through proper legal channels. However, the case is still moving forward under standard procedure and no confirmed bias has been shown on the record. It remains for the court to evaluate arguments based on law and evidence presented.